Courthouse Belongs in an Urban Area

The difference of opinion concerning the location of our courthouse reflects a nationwide problem in development. Cities in this country seem to lose out to suburbs who get to pick and choose the type of development they will or will not agree to, while cities must assure the availability of vital human services. I worked in the Litchfield County courts for most of my 20 years as a probation officer and chief probation officer, and have a very difficult time understanding the interest in retaining a Litchfield address for the court. I know that many of the people coming to the court also require services, such as drug/ alcohol treatment, emergency housing, crisis counseling, etc. Does this interest in the court location in Litchfield include a similar interest in taking responsibility for the provision of this type of service within the Town of Litchfield?

I recall that many residents of Litchfield successfully rose up against a proposal to locate the probation office in their town in the early 1990s. Many felt that having an office that would be servicing offenders would change the character of the town. I actually agreed with their concerns and also strongly felt that the effectiveness of probation services required that the probation office be located in the population center, where the highest number of those under probation supervision reside. I, along with many Litchfield residents, had a hard time understanding why the state would be so interested in moving the probation office (which, by the way, serviced about 1,000 offenders) from Torrington to Litchfield.

Why don’t we all look at this question of location of the court as members of the same geographic region, which includes both urban and rural areas. As much as possible, the urban areas should be the focus of development, while the rural areas should remain free of unnecessary development. It’s really as simple as that. Unlike attorneys, many of the people coming to court do not have their own transportation. Sure, we could have buses going to the court in a rural area, though it is certainly easier to arrange for transportation to the hub of the area. Haven’t we learned by this point that a region suffers when central areas decline while development takes the form of urban sprawl?

I live in Torrington, but I would have no problem with the court being located in Winsted, since it also has an urban center that would benefit from development. I have a real problem with the current possibility of tearing up untouched land to assure that the court has a "Litchfield" address, and can’t for the life of me understand why this would be so important to anyone. In fact, many Litchfield residents take a regional view of the situation and support the court’s location in Torrington. They see that it is not "Litchfield vs. Torrington," but rather common sense/ logic vs. emotion/ irrationality. There is no meaningful argument that the court should be anywhere but as near as possible to the center of the largest population area in the county.

I would have as little interest in a court located on the outskirts of Torrington, say on the Torrington side of the proposed location along the Litchfield/ Torrington border, as I would in maintaining the current Litchfield location. The name of the address is insignificant. The actual impact, both for the cities and towns involved, and for those who require the use of court services, is the important matter. Let’s get real with this one. We all share a small piece of living space in the northwest corner of a small state. Development should be undertaken with the whole county in mind.

Our political leaders should assure that we rise above parochial interests and fight for that which makes the most sense for the county. For this reason, I was heartened by the strong position for a Torrington court taken by Roberta Willis in the General Assembly. This is true leadership.

Thomas Roscoe is Retired Chief Probation Officer for the State of Connecticut.