SPRINGFIELD — Despite the state Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance and Trial Court issuing a preliminary selection of the site and proposal for the Springfield Regional Justice Center project, the Springfield City Council’s Intergovernmental State and Federal Relations Committee invited each of the developers who submitted proposals to share them with Springfield residents.
Ward 2 City Councilor and committee Chair Michael Fenton said, “The public had never had the opportunity to review the competing proposals or compare the competing visions for one of the most significant public investments in Western Massachusetts history.”
Developer Peter Picknelly presented his proposal for a riverfront courthouse, James “Jeb” Balise and Tom Dennis put forth a design at 413 Dwight St. and Paul Picknelly proposed a project across the street from the existing courthouse at 55 State St. Dinesh Patel had three proposals, two adjacent to his Tower Square office building and one at 275 Chestnut St.
Many of the proposals focused on the benefits of keeping the Justice Center in Springfield’s central business district. They would benefit from the on-street parking and nearby municipal garages, and the walkability would encourage people to shop downtown and eat at area restaurants, preserving the local economy. Patel’s Chestnut Street property was outside the Central Business District but was presented as an “architecturally diverse alternative proposal,” as described by Bob Ross, an attorney for Tower Square.
“The people of Springfield and Hampden County deserve to see the full picture,” said Fenton. “This project will shape our city for generations. The public has never been briefed on the other proposals that were submitted. Transparency requires more than announcing a winner — it requires allowing residents to understand the options that were available and why they mattered.”
Councilor At Large Kateri Walsh made no bones about her position on the matter. Saying that she reflected the views of many in the city, she commented, “How disappointed we were when someone in this room was not picked … We felt you knew the needs, you knew the people, you supported the city and you were really looking out for our benefit.” Addressing Balise and Patel, who are seeking an injunction from Hampden County Superior Court based on alleged conflicts of interest concerning one of the chosen project’s developers. Walsh said, “I hope you win your lawsuit.”
Many of the developers insisted that the savings DCAMM has cited as a reason for choosing a project on Liberty Street, outside the central business district, are erroneous. Balise said DCAMM has asked the chosen developer for changes to the project’s size and design. “That would be a competition-free rebid,” he said.
Fenton later acknowledged, “The City Council does not play a role in the selection process, but we have a duty to the residents to ensure that we provide transparency into that process and that we are working diligently on economic development for the downtown.” He has requested a written decision from the Law Department and the building inspector on whether the council will need to weigh in on zoning issues should the project selected by DCAMM go forward.
The meeting and proposals can be viewed at tinyurl.com/4v4jds34.
