Record of Decision New Federal Courthouse

New Search

Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses 1.12-The economic analysis prepared by Johnson Gardner contains several erroneous assumptions. First, the report treats the federal courthouse as a new federal activity. The federal courts currently operate in Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, and operation of the new facility would not increase the federal dollars coming into the community. There would be no increased economic activity resulting from operation of the facility. (Construction would result in an infusion of federal dollars into the local economy that would create temporary jobs and a temporary increase in income.) Second, the Johnson Gardner analysis does not accurately report the net economic impact of developing the Springfield site. If the Springfield site were developed, it would increase the number of workers in the city, but this action would result in an equal reduction in the number of jobs in Eugene. 'Third, the Johnson Gardner site calmer g~~raphi~y be located m the tiaverrrogt area for one part of the FEI5, the report limits the economic effect of the project to s "downtown Springfield" or "the local Springfield economy" and fails to recognize that the more appropriate level of analysis is Lane County. Given the close geographic proximity of Springfield and Eugene, the economies of the two cities are interrelated. No matter which alternative is selected, many workers and suppliers would continue to reside in their current homes or operate from their current business locations. In addition, the Springfield comment letter cites the economic value of "relocation of legal services." This comment implies that legal services would be relocated into Springfield from the existing location in Eugene. This contradicts a later statement (comment 1.20) acknowledging that the legal activities associated with the courthouse have a "regional nature" and that there would be no disruption to the legal community from having to relocate. oonsidesatioa sheIlbe givcato the impact that a location wrll have on impioving the nodal, rxonoaric, enviromaeatat sad catilural conditions ofthe commtmiutias... both 1.1 i Positive and negative impac4s of space acquisition acdoras shah be weighed with the objective of obtaining maxirmurn socioeconmuio benefits from tbasc actio»s." The TiEIS does nwt adogvau{Y addre~ the poitive c~'ects oit engtloY attd imcoulB, twr revitalization of dowmown 9pringflekL Jobmson Crardoer, an ooonogrm ~xnsnNaet> has a3sessodtho potential economtn benefits acaoeiated with the development ofthe proposed federal eouxthousc m downtown ' Springfield (see AttaohmcattB). IatataL development oftisa fedettti couttitou+o in downtown Spthtgdeld is cstuuatod to generate a9 nduch as 524;cu71ioa inn bnsineps revenues eachyear from commerce generated by courthouse opeFationS reloeatioa of legal services, employment and aaaualgmwthinlegal s employment ~ ravonuex can poteatially reach as high as $71 m~ll'roaarmually if Spriocgfield captures up to 50°!a ofrncw courthouse oprYarfoa5 cbmmemc, 50% of new legal setvkass employmeot and 25°k of existing Tugcoe-Spru~etd lagai s~rvlCe emP~S~-t• Siauilarly..develap>ffint of the fi~eral Wnrthouac canld bring between 460 new jobs and nearly 1,100 near jobs dep~g upon rho success ofSpridgfieId busa~essea to eaptuas r.iz t+egioawvlde commence generated bYoatatbousa-te]atat ardivitlc Iabo; income could range ~rommughly$l4 au'tlioa to appmzimataly! 528 au7licn ifproximity oftins downtown courthouse silo allows Springfield to retaiagenerated ea~loyareat aml eoammerce. - The boat Spiiagfield economy also stands to bene5t stgnificaatly from impacts act quantified in Attaohrnerrt B, indudio~g private pons<nnption of goods and services by coastrucdon worlaers and oovrtluiuse employees. Developrneot of the courltwnse in downtowns Spriirgficld would also have other tangible ecopoasie impacts not awdeledm Attachiaent B. Aa amtiltechualty si~n'+f+eant courthouse will be able to anchor stgoi6cant rcdcvelopararR is the downtawa core. The iarxeased lcvd of IocaGxed ocommio aetrvify would alto be expected to drive demand for associatedreat esrate pmduots. - Page 64 oftheFElS statics {fiat the GSA anpports the goals ofExcautiVa Order 13006 Creating fiat racititiea in oiu aation.'s ceat:al eitres add. seeksm locster fzdoral facilities s.t.a wSthin central eisirs and historic distrlcta TechnicaIly, the Chiquita. tGto is pot located in ': L=ugeoe's dovmtnwa, but in its:iver&ont area Tba Aowntowa 6ptio$field arte is located inthe heart of Sprld's urban oor0. The demogmphio discussion for the Chiga[ta sate ira}iules : amourdE of bvw income individuals, i.e. students, sad uses ihcnt as a plus m the dilon for renovation >,.ia oftha arcs. Jafact, students are low income tomlwredly only as a alasa and the coashucfionof the Fedasal Courthouse wgl oaty cairns these low hvcomeSttuleats To relocate fo a~tber area. The itiae of tho;aampus neighborhood is inconai. The Qriquita 1.13-The statement that the Riverfront site altemative is "located in the heart of Springfield's urban core" is incorrect. As stated on page 120 of the fmal EIS, `"The Riverfront site is located just outside of downtown core areas and is not in a major commercial center." Developing the Riverfront site would displace operating, modern buildings, and not further the goals of EO 13006. Page 122 of the final EIS states that the Chiquita site is east of Eugene's downtown core. Page 122 also states that the Chiquita site has been designated as an urban renewal district, and that the overall focus of this redevelopment effort is to extend the downtown area toward the river while encouraging more residential use on the west side of downtown. Development of the Chiquita site would accomplish redevelopment of a decaying urban area, consistent with EO 13006.