Comments on: Column: Judge Not the Homeless

By: Leah Gunn

Leah Gunn — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:23:20 +0000

The prisoners would be dangerous? Give me a break – I have seen them and they are all in shackles. Judge Swartz is very arrogant. And David Cahill is right – these are NOT any kind of rules – they were made up by the State Court Administrative Office. And by what right do judges deserve more security than the populace at large? To go into the courthouse these days, it is like going through airport security, and your taxes are paying for it.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:11:06 +0000

Some years ago the Circuit Court judges were very close to suing the Board of Commissioners based on state statutes requiring counties to provide adequate facilities to courts. Then-Chief Judge Archie Brown actually appeared before the BOC to delineate some of those arguments.

The county administrator and others negotiated a compromise that set in motion the planning that led to the failed jail/court millage.

Without any other information other than what is presented here, I would speculate that if the judges see a housing project on that parking lot as a threat to their own security (they have lobbied for separate parking and entrances in the past), as well as the end to any future hope of a courthouse expansion, they might revive the old concept of a lawsuit against the BOC based on the adequate provision theory. I don’t know the actual law.

By: Dave Cahill

Dave Cahill — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:29:18 +0000

Litigation? On what theory? The County owns the land in question, not the Court. And the standards Swartz cites are merely advisory, not mandatory.

Since Swartz is making a threat, it should at least be a credible threat.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:33:14 +0000

This man is our judge? He sounds more like a corporate attorney. The sarcasm (sorry, HD, I won’t ignore it) isn’t funny, and the lack of open-mindedness and objectivity in his comments is simply disturbing. Likewise his insinuation that the city is “tempt[ed] to cheapen the significance of the courthouse….” Oops! That’s from the SCAMCFS. Interesting that such language made the final cut for those standards.

Reactions aside, if he’s concerned about the safety of residents of a possible new building there, what’s he doing now to ensure our safety as we walk by that building on 4th Ave., for example? Assuming that something is being done, why won’t that be adequate for the prospective residents?

If Judge Swartz keeps this up, there may be no need for “temptation” in order for the courthouse to be “cheapened”.