New Search
Record cf Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses <br />1B. Johnson Gardner <br />1B.1-The economic analysis <br />prepared by Johnson Gardner <br />contains several erroneous <br />assumptions. First, the report <br />treats the federal courthouse as a <br />new federal activity. The federal <br />courts currently operate in <br />Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, <br />and operation of the new facility <br />would not increase the federal <br />dollars coming into the larger <br />local community. There would be <br />no increased economic activity <br />resulting from operation of the <br />facility. (Construction would <br />result in an infusion of federal <br />dollars into the local economy that <br />would create temporary jobs and a <br />temporary increase in income.) <br />Second, the Johnson Gardner <br />analysis does not accurately <br />consider the net economic impact <br />of developing the Springfield site. <br />If the Springfield site were <br />developed, it would increase the <br />number of workers in the city, but <br />this action would result in an <br />equal reduction in the number of <br />jobs in Eugene. <br />Third, the Johnson Gardner <br />analysis is "intended to frame the <br />issues and potential benefits to the <br />Springfield economy," and by <br />doing so the report limits the <br />economic effect of the project to <br />"downtown Springfield" or "the <br />local Springfield economy." The report fails to <br />recognize that the more appropriate level of analysis <br />is Lane County. Given the close geographic <br />proximity of Springfield and Eugene, the economies <br />of the two cities are interrelated. No matter which <br />alternative is selected, many workers and suppliers <br />would continue to reside in their current homes or <br />operate from their current business locations. <br />