There’s a quaint old concept in the legal code called “breach of promise.”
In the old days, when a man proposed to a woman, then backed out, he could be sued for reneging on the engagement. Some states, in fact, still have breach of promise laws on their books.
I now call out the federal government for breach of promise.
In April 2010, when the government decided to locate a new federal courthouse in Midtown, it made a vow to the city of Harrisburg. And, when it began buying up land, forcing people out of their homes, razing structures, and emptying a five-acre site in the heart of the city, it crossed a threshold.
It was committed, engaged, beyond the point of return. It no longer could go back.
Yet, it seems to be doing exactly that.
Little Concerned
The federal government selected the L-shaped parcel bordered by N. 6th, N. 7th, Reily, Harris and Boyd streets after an exhaustive, years-long search that considered numerous other sites throughout the city.
Construction was to start in 2013 on the 265,000-square-foot building. However, Congress approved only $26.7 million for site acquisition and preparation. It never appropriated funds to actually build the thing, which is why there’s now a vast, grassy field where a courthouse should be taking shape.
In our August issue, we reported that Congress has delayed funding for courthouse construction until some hazy time in the future following a review by the federal judiciary (completion expected October 2015), development of a long-range facility plan (another 18 to 24 months) and a long queue for funds (Harrisburg currently stands seventh in line for new courthouse funding).
The entire process easily could take another five years just for construction to begin. That is, if it starts at all.
The federal judiciary and the General Services Administration (GSA) committed themselves to the courthouse even though the city met just one of its two principal criteria for new construction—security—as opposed to both security and a need for two more courtrooms (Harrisburg only needs one). This flaw could impact whether, after its review is complete, the feds decide to proceed with the project at all.
Meanwhile, Harrisburg’s two congressmen seemed little concerned about the courthouse-shaped problem that the government has created in the middle of the city they represent.
In a statement, U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta told TheBurg that it “remains to be seen if the Harrisburg project will still be on the list” of priority construction projects. Our other congressman (yes, tiny Harrisburg has two), U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, told us the following:
“I believe that ensuring the proper administration of justice for our citizens is a core function of government. Yet, with our nation facing a $17 trillion debt, Congress has a duty to ensure that taxpayer money is used efficiently.”
I agree with our congressmen that the federal government should not be building courthouses recklessly. However, the fiscal probity argument is laughably thin.
This year, the federal budget amounts to $3.7 trillion, meaning that the project’s $110 million cost will have almost no impact on the country’s finances. In fact, assuming the feds still plan to build the thing, the studies, analyses and delays will only end up increasing the project’s cost, to the nation’s long-term fiscal detriment.
While the courthouse has little effect on the federal budget, it has a huge impact on the people of Harrisburg. The federal government is now complicit in two of Harrisburg’s greatest problems—under-development and blight.
It’s ironic. Harrisburg residents expected the courthouse to spur development in that under-used section of Midtown. Instead, it’s doing the opposite, retarding development, adding to the neglect and desolation of the area. And our congressmen seem to be dismissive of the problem.
Caught in the Middle
As Congress petulantly sits on its hands, the city is trying to find “temporary” uses for the expansive area, such as for a dog park or recreation space. However, that’s small comfort to a neighborhood that was promised hundreds of construction and professional jobs.
Instead of seeing highly paid professionals entering and exiting the building, frequenting restaurants and shops, Midtown residents are more likely to see the backsides of dog owners as they bend over with plastic baggies draped over their hands. And that’s a best-case scenario. Worst case: the dark, poorly secured field becomes another place in the city for illicit and dangerous activities.
After the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the federal government started a discussion with the city over a new, secure courthouse to replace the aged, exposed one downtown. It was not a question of if, but where.
Finally, a site was selected, but that site—and Harrisburg itself—now has become caught in the middle of a quarrel between Congress, GSA and the federal judiciary.
Honestly, I could care less about this battle of wills or the claims of fiscal prudence by some members of Congress. To me, the issue comes down to this.
The federal government told Harrisburg it needed a new, secure courthouse. It initiated and drove a lengthy selection process. It chose a site. It bought land. It cleared the land. It is the caretaker of that land and, thus, is responsible for what happens there. It now must live up to that responsibility.
Lawrance Binda is editor-in-chief of TheBurg.
