« NOBA Members Respond to Judge Barbier’s Letter to City | Main
Comment on Court Consolidation & Relocation After Forum
By nobar | October 8, 2007
Let your voice be heard. We’re interested in your thoughts on Court Consolidation & Relocation after NOBA’s Forum held on October 3, 2007. If you wish to have your comments remain anonymous, please write “Anonymous” in the name field.
Topics: Issue |
October 10th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
The NOBA Forum on the Court Consolidation and Relocation was well done on such short notice. My reaction to the plan/presentation was pretty much what has become a standard reaction to the City administration’s recovery news: depression and disbelief. What I left the meeting with was
- that the Court Relocation plan was prepared in secret or, if that is too paranoid, without any public or private input except for the criminal court judges and Dr Blakely;
- that the Civil District Court judges and clerk were not informed of it until all decisions or plans had been made; that the organized bar and other public agencies or bodies were not informed in any formal manner but by chance or through other channels;
- that it is now a “done deal” and, although Dr. Blakely will accept comments from the bar, no changes will be made to the plan;
- that the funding for the project is presently insufficient (FEMA funds cover only a percentage which was not clearly defined) and additional funding has not been secured or identified;
- that the inclusion of the Civil District Court in the project is not a factor in the completion of the project, the CDC can either elect to move its courts or not, and if the CDC does wish to be a part of this project it must commit now or within a short time period;
- that there is no plan to obtain additional funding for the additional infrastructure to house the CDC and, it seem to be implied that the CDC or City would have to go out and find its own funding without help from the Recovery Authority;
- that the effect of such a move by the civil courts on the downtown business district was never considered, in any fashion, by the planners of this project, (it is incredible that the Downtown Development District, a city agency directly involved in the area to be most affected by such a project, was not at the least informed of the project, much less included in the planning process).
I found the explanations of the project by Dr Blakely to be lacking in details and largely “depend on us, we know what we are doing” substitutions for a detailed plan. All Very Depressing!
Since the CDC judges have voted not to move to Tulane and Broad (and the remarks by Judge Johnson and Dr. Blakely indicated that they were leaving it up to the court to either move or not and if the CDC decided not to move), then they didn’t feel any need to do any planning about what the civil courts were going to do after consolidation. In fact, the only planning done by the City Administration Recovery team has been in physical plant/relocation plans and not any thought to consolidation planning. Any planning on how to best accomplish the consolidation seems to be left up in the air at this point or, at least, without any organized planning throughout the organized bar (judges, court administrators and lawyers together) being done.
Is it any wonder that the mental health facilities are overrun? If our city wide recovery planning process drives a disorganized, slob like myself crazy, it must be making all of you DayTimer calendared, to-do listed, diaried up, journaling, efficiency experts completely suicidal!
October 11th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I believe that the claim that to obtain FEMA funds the buildings must be reconstructed at the same location is not accurate. FEMA allows “improved projects” and “alternative (or alternate?)projects” which provide funding at a reduced percentage. Building facilities at a new location likely falls into the catagory of an alternative project. Accordingly, while some funds would be lost, not all would be lost. Also, is FEMA (or Blakely) ignoring the substantial basement damage that CDC sustained?
It causes me great concern that the FEMA plan was developed without representation of the people who will use the courthouse - members of the bar.
October 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I enjoyed the forum. I learned a lot that I didn’t know from Mr. Blakely and feel pretty confident that there will be new state of the art facilities at Tulane and S. White as Judge Johnson indicated. I saw that some law firms are upset by change. As long as Judge Barbier’s courthouse doesn’t move, those firms will probably be fine. I find the arguments raised to be too conservative and perhaps self-serving. Many lawyers in the Causeway corridor, as my office is, are located far from the courthouses downtown, across the river from Gretna, across the lake from Covington and thirty minutes from any parish court. The proximity arguments against change did not persuade me but if the bar association is successful in enjoining the move, it is apparent that it will be quite a long time before there is a new civil court facility while the criminal court system will arleady have been substantially improved. It would have been better had this much passion had been exerted after the hurricane when the legislature was legislating the consolidation. Representative Bruneau told everyone at the Dog and Pony Show in 2006 that consolidation was coming and no one in attendance from the NOBA objected at the time.
Crawford Rose
October 11th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
FIRST WHY IS OUR E-MAIL ADDRESS REQUIRED IF THIS LETTER IS SUPPOSED TO BE ANONYMOUS. YOU CAN DETERMINE WHO SENT THE COMMENTS FROM A PERSONS E-MAIL ADDRESS AND THEN GET BACK AT HIM FOR SAYING SOMETHING THAT YOU DONT LIKE. I PRACTICED LAW 18 YEARS IN NEW ORLEANS. MY OFFICE WAS LOCATED AT 1515 POYDRAS AND I PRACTICED LAW AT CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ON TULANE AND BROAD AND I MADE IT SOME HOW. THE LEGISLATURE ORDERED THAT THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURT BE COMBINED TO FORM THE 41ST J.D.C. IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR THE CIVIL COURT AND THE CRIMINAL COURT TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. WE NEED THE 41ST J.D.C IN ONE BUILDING. IF F.E.M.A. IS GOING TO PUT UP THE MONEY THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON WHERE THE NEW COURTHOUSE IS GOING TO BE BUILT. THE CIVIL LAWYERS WHO WORK IN THE C.B.D. ARE NOT GOING TO PUT UP A PENNY TO BUILD A STATE OF THE ART COURTHOUSE IN THE C.B.D. WHEN TIMES GET TOUGH; THE TOUGH GET TOUGHER. TIMES IS TOUGH SO YOU CIVIL LAWYERS NEED TO GET TOUGH AND QUIT WHINING ABOUT HAVING TO DRIVE DOWN TO TULANE AND BROAD TO FILE YOUR LAWSUITS AND RULES.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:50 am
When Judge Johnson was trying to argue that no one would have to actually go to the courthouse, due to the advances in remote computer access,etc., I was thinking - oh, yeah? And why in the world can we not “marry” two separate buildings a mile apart the exact same way, with the exact same technology?? They don’t need to be housed together.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Good work in organizing a timely program on a topic of critical importance to NOBA’s constituents. How about adding a regular update or “my opinion” section to the e-newsletter to keep us advised on the progress of this issue.
Since the reorganization the 41st JDC is still in flux, let’s ALL get more informed on the options - even if the judges plan to hire a consultant, that’s no reason for the bar to just lay back & not keep actively involved in this process!
October 12th, 2007 at 10:00 am
The real take home from this forum is that it’s up to the lawyers to do something… no one else can get it done.
I really don’t believe that this Justice Facilities Master Complex at Tulane and Broad will ever be built. There is no funding. And the sad thing is that there is a tremendous need for a Criminal Justice Complex, probably at Tulane and Broad and just as much need to keep CDC downtown.
So, what can we do next?
October 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I attended the recent Forum on Consolidation and Relocation. I was shocked at Dr. Blakeley’s admission that no study had been conducted on how relocation might affect downtown. This is the most important issue to consider.
My office is in Metairie. It is easier and faster to drive to Tulane and Broad than it is to drive to Loyola and Poydras. That is NOT the point.
This is not a lawyer issue. This is not a judge issue. This is an issue of survival–the survival of downtown. If we kill the downtown area in the process of relocating CDC, what have we gained?
Law firms will move out of the downtown area if CDC is moved. Many attorneys in the downtown firms live in Metairie or other areas outside of the City. Why remain in that area when CDC is removed?
The proposal to move CDC is especially puzzling in the aftemath of Katrina. I think we are trying to revive and rebuild the City.
If the move is made, I wonder what we will say in ten or twenty years. We revived Tulane and Broad, but we killed the City.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Because of the secrecy with which this “Master Plan” has been developed, we cannot trust anything the Mayor or Dr. Blakely say. In particular, their Billion Dollar (plus!) plan appears to be “pie in the sky” when it comes to funding. At various times, and to various questioners, Blakely has claimed that FEMA will pay the entire cost, or that FEMA will pay anywhere from $350 million to perhaps $500 million. Even accepting his best case scenario, that leaves a funding gap in excess of half a billion dollars. He then has a “wish list” of ways in which he hopes to close that gap………float bonds, approve a new tax, or “public-private partnershps”. The bottom line is that our civil courts should be kept downtown, and a new, freestanding civil courthouse should be built and financed in the same manner in which surrounding parishes have been able to build similar facilities.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The proponents of this plan are attempting to charactize the opposition as based on simply “incovenience” to the lawyers and law firms along Poydras. The bigger concern, however, is the adverse impact this proposal will have on the downtown and central business districts. This is why not only lawyers, but the downtown business and commercial interests are opposed to moving the civil courts away from downtown. The Downtown Development District has passed a strongly worded resolution outlining a number of reasons why this would be a terrible idea. How can this be “economic development” to cause an exodus from downtown out to Tulane and Broad? Who or what will replace the law firms who presently occupy over 30% of the downtown office space? The City is struggling post-Katrina to maintain a vibrant and viable downtown area. They have invested millions into upgrading Canal Street, hoping to energize commercial, retail and residential uses. It makes no sense to now propose a plan that would have just the opposite effect on downtown/CBD.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Although I favor court consolidation from an administrative standpoint, I do not favor a move of CDC from the CBD to the Broad St & Tulane area.