Site sought for Federal Courthouse

By Todd Berry
Terre Haute Journal of Business

April, 2004

The impending move of federal offices from the U.S. Postal Service building downtown has some on edge, fearing that it may threaten Terre Haute's architectural legacy.
    
On February 2, the General Services Administration advertised for proposals for new housing for the U.S. District Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, U.S. Probation, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Trustees, FBI, and DHS/Federal Protective Service offices. 
    
According to the advertisement, the size of the site would occupy a minimum of 90,000 square feet, within or adjoining an area bounded by Cherry Street, Walnut Street, Ninth Street, and First Street. The total cost for the project is as yet undetermined.
    
These requirements would dramatically change downtown's cityscape, since in Terre Haute a city block is on average approximately 300 feet by 300 feet (for a total of 90,000 square feet), or less. According to City Councilman Todd Nation (D-4th Dist.), these dimensions and choice of location would likely require destruction of at least one full city block, and may threaten buildings on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These buildings include the Indiana Theater, the Fort Harrison Building, the Terminal, and the Terre Haute House. 
    
In a letter sent to Forrest Hudson, contracting officer/realty specialist with the GSA in Chicago, and shared with other City Council members, Nation expressed his concerns about protecting downtown historic buildings. Hudson could not be reached for comment at press time.

"We welcome this significant project to our community," Nation wrote, "and are pleased that the federal judges apparently wish to remain downtown. However, since your request for proposals suggest that a whole city block of our neighborhood could be cleared to make way for a new Federal Courthouse (FC), an extraordinary level of sensitivity in site selection must be exercised."
    
Nation also suggested a number of sites which would not threaten these landmarks. "Terre Haute's earliest Urban Renewal exercises produced a number of blocks west of 4th Street that are now devoid of historic fabric. Our Government Campus area could mutually benefit from the minimum-density, architecturally significant FC envisioned for Terre Haute. However, downtown east of 4th Street would benefit from higher-density infill development, and buildings set on the public sidewalk."
    
With this last observation, Nation referred to Special Ordinance 17, 2002-the first substantial step toward implementing the HyettPalma plan for downtown redevelopment. The ordinance created a special C-9 zoning overlay that includes the very area described in the GSA's call for site proposals for the new federal building. This new zoning requires future buildings in the area to front sidewalks, rather than have setback parking lots, and also establishes certain materials, aesthetic and height requirements for new buildings.

The GSA's General Design Philosophy indicates that some consideration will be made for such local concerns: "The choice and development of the building site should be considered the first step of the design process. This choice should be made in cooperation with local agencies. Special attention should be paid to the general ensemble of streets and public places of which Federal buildings will form a part."

Tommy Kleckner, Director of the Western Regional Office of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana (HLFI), shares Nation's concerns for downtown's historic properties, and noted that while he would have preferred the federal offices to remain in the 1933 art deco post office, he wishes ISU well in moving into that structure, and will also commit HLFI to assisting with any measures to protect the character of that building. "Historic Landmarks stands ready to accept an easement from GSA or the US Postal Service to insure the building is protected," Kleckner said.
    
Kleckner supports Nation's ideas for a possible new location for the federal offices, away from downtown's nationally registered historic properties, adding, "What we have left is so important and so significant because we have lost so much." Additionally, Kleckner agreed that locating the new courthouse nearer to the county courthouse would help preserve the goals of Ordinance 17 and the HyettPalma plan. 
    
Kleckner noted that while some have suggested the Hulmans demolish the Terre Haute House for this project, other buildings of architectural importance, such as the Fort Harrison Savings Association Building, the Bement-Rea Building (the current location of T's Lounge) and the state office building would also face the wrecking ball. Kleckner said that he was "adamantly opposed" to such a proposal.
    
While it is true that the owner of any NRHP property may alter or even destroy that property, the owner is protected to some extent from the federal government acting in the same manner. When the federal government contemplates an undertaking which may negatively impact properties on the NRHP, certain precautions are statutorily activated by Section 106 of the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR Part 800.
    
One such safeguard is that during the process, the federal agency is required to determine the presence of any such historic properties, as well as any potential effects the proposed action may have on them. This investigation necessarily involves consulting with certain parties, including the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and a representative of the local government, and other individuals with knowledge of, or concerns with, these properties. If historic properties are determined to be potentially affected by the proposed action, then the agency official shall determine if an adverse effect may occur, which includes demolition of the property. 
    
If the agency finds that there would be no adverse effect, that agency must notify all consulting parties, including the SHPO, who would then have 30 days in which to respond. Failure to respond in that time period is statutorily deemed an agreement with the agency's finding. If the SHPO or any other consulting party disagrees with the agency's finding, the reasons must be specified. The agency then has the choice to either consult with the objecting party to resolve the conflict or submit the matter to the federally-appointed Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), which has 15 days from receipt of the finding to respond. If the ACHP does not respond within that time, "the agency official may assume concurrence with the agency official's findings and proceed accordingly." 36 CFR Part 800.5(c)(3)
    
If an adverse effect is determined, the agency is required to negotiate with the consulting parties. The agency may invite other parties and must make information available to the public. The ACHP may or may not participate. The necessary signatories to a memorandum of agreement, however, are the agency and the SHIPO, although others may be invited to sign such an agreement and would have the same rights. However, the agency, SHPO and ACHP each reserve the right to unilaterally terminate further consultation for resolution of potential adverse effects. The terminating party must provide the other parties to the consultation written reasons for the termination, and the agency must request the ACHP to provide comment to the termination and notify all parties that comment has been requested. 
    
In as much as the deadline for the call for proposals officially expired on February 27, Terre Haute is still in the early stages of this process.
    
Kleckner responds to the possibility that the federal government might choose an historic site and yet choose to demolish. "It could be, but believe me, they would have a fight on their hands."
    
Also, Kleckner described another situation in which a demolition was accomplished against the spirit of the NRHP law. "I'm thinking of Goshen, Indiana, in particular, where a federal highway was coming. They were going to reroute a US highway through a nationally registered historic district and literally obliterate this district. Historic Landmarks and the local organization fought that, and the federal highway agency backed off. But then the city said, 'We're going to follow through by putting this four-lane highway down through here. We'll do it with local funds.' Well, what was going to happen was that after the city had done that, they would just flip flop and allow the federal highway to then assume control over that, and then eventually that US highway would be rerouted. Well, that was seen as a bait and switch situation, and not kosher. We actually assisted with a legal defense fund to the local organization. They took the city to court, and I'm not sure if that's been resolved yet, but the first few rulings have gone our way.
    
"So," Kleckner summarized, "There would be some real concerns if an owner in the downtown were to demolish their building and then within several months lease that location to the federal government. There would be red flags popping up there."
    
Finally, Kleckner said, "I want to be sure that Terre Haute is not going to get short-changed on this... I want to make sure that this building is going to contribute to the downtown architecturally, that its presence is something that we can be proud of when it's constructed."

Todd Berry can be reached at todd@thjournal.com