Planning large infrastructure projects is similar to distance running in some ways: You can get impatient for the end, but ultimate success always means pacing yourself. County officials, in their dash towards a new justice center, should consider this.
The county has set a Friday deadline to choose a final location to build a new jail, courthouse, and sheriff’s station. But if Tuesday’s special Board of Commissioners meeting is any indication, they need a break. Of three commissioners, two prefer the so-called North site, at Circle and Highway 20 – a plot the landowner would seem to prefer not to sell, which has initiated talk of eminent domain.
Even if one is okay with taking eminent domain – and some voters, on principal, won’t be – the process could add uncertainty and delay as the matter winds its way through issues of condemnation and court proceedings. Added cost would likely mount. Notably, land for the West site on Reservoir Drive would cost less than $2 million, the North site price tag ranges between $7 and $12 million.
Even with the uncertainty and higher land costs, Commissioners Pat Malone and Xan Augerot seem to favor the North location.
Part of what may be motivating them is that residents in the Reservoir Drive area have had time to mobilize, throwing uncertainty on the proposal’s prospects for success with voters. Conversely, commissioners aren’t yet hearing the same opposition to the North site, quite possibly because it’s only recently reemerged as a contender. That will likely change as whatever site is selected ultimately goes before voters: Cheldelin Middle School parents are apt to mobilize against the North site, given it is within about two miles of the school.
In short, both of these spots present considerable electoral problems – especially when we recall the last jail proposal would have passed if it weren’t for the neighbors of the proposed location. We are additionally concerned about the North site being in a flood zone – which may have some buildable sections given today’s climate modeling, but with our climate changing, most experts agree the modeling will also change.
If we had to choose between the West and North sites, we would probably choose the more central and less flood prone West site, which also happens to be closer to existing county offices. However, we are concerned both of these sites will generate enough opposition that voters will ultimately reject a proposal that includes a jail at either of them.
Perhaps the county should reconsider downtown. This isn’t just an issue about the justice facilities, it’s also about the support services built around them – none of which exist for either the North or West sites.
From an electoral perspective, the downtown area is already accustomed to accommodating these facilities – which means less disruption throughout the community.
We realize a downtown location means a multi-story facility, meaning inmate supervision will require more resources. Some of that cost could be overcome by lower construction costs.
On the other hand, voter acceptance may require the jail be sited rurally, despite the fact that the current jail sits in the downtown area with no issues to date.
In any event, asking voters to support the generally – may we say wildly – unpopular notion of eminent domain, or to spend $100 million on land that’s even flood plain adjacent, should be a good indication to the commissioners to adjust their pace, consider their strategy, and like any good runner, take a breath.
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com