There has never been, and never will be a vote among local residents on A) the need for a new courthouse in Ukiah, or B) Merits of the courthouse design, if based only on drawings from the Colorado architect.
But we don’t need an election, nor even a show of hands. Everyone, as in all the people you know and have bothered to ask, are opposed to, and laughing at, the most expensive and ugliest building in county history.
No one is in favor, whether because it’s unneeded or butt-ugly or in a ridiculous location or too expensive. So if the people are, as I believe, overwhelmingly opposed to this nasty mistake, here is my question:
Where are our leaders?
What do Ukiah city administrators think of abandoning the present courthouse and moving into another building a few blocks east? If it’s the biggest project in Ukiah history shouldn’t city officials speak up either in support or in opposition?
Where are Doug Crane and Mari Rodin? What do they think? It’s in their front yard. City council members are better informed than any of us lowly peasants about the pros and cons. Aren’t they obligated to speak up?
And what of Maureen Mulheren? She represents the Second District, which puts the project in her lap from both the city and county. Mo is rarely shy speaking up on issues of negligible consequence, and I guarantee if the courthouse is approved she’ll be cutting the ribbon and having photos taken standing next to Jared Huffman.
But is she bold enough, or honest enough, to voice her opinion now?
And what about Sage Sangiacomo? Ukiah’s plantation boss is supposedly looking out for the best interests of the community. Can it be he has given absolutely zero consideration, no thought whatsoever, to this courthouse folly?
Shouldn’t local leaders air out the project? Don’t they owe citizens and taxpayers their thoughts and opinions on what is guaranteed to bring massive changes to our downtown? There was never a shortage of gabble or updates when the infamous streetscape was planned or underway.
Consider this: Every last city, village, township or dusty intersection large enough to have a “Welcome To” sign at the outskirts is forever and always trying to lure unsuspecting tourists to its motels, restaurants, golf courses, etc.
To do it, towns print up travel brochures and put them in racks where travelers are known to gather. Alternatively they use websites with pictures and descriptions of the city’s history and attractions that will help convince someone, anyone, to visit.
QUESTION: What do those photos always display? And what do the paragraphs always refer to?
ANSWER: The city’s history and vintage charm(s).
Nowhere will you find a travel site bragging about the strip mall on Blueberry Street nor the fabulous freeway overpass, nor the courthouse built in 2026. You will search in vain for brochures highlighting “Fast Food Boulevard” with glamour shots of Burger King, Taco Bell, Domino’s and their siblings lined up and lookin’ spiffy.
Instead, what the media will focus on is the charming, historic downtown with turn-of-the-century bookstores, clothing shops and restaurants located in what was once a blacksmith shop or inside the old newspaper office or the lovely brick hotel in the middle of town.
There will be pictures of Victorian homes, condos installed in what was once the county’s biggest shoelace factory, and a former gas station fashioned from an old redwood tree stump.
There could even be photos of a downtown courthouse and an old Post Office, both suggestive of a must-see, must-visit city.
Should Ukiah’s new courthouse lemon come to fruition it will never, ever be displayed or bragged about in a Ukiah brochure or travel site, unless someone is compiling a series featuring the 10 ugliest buildings in California.
But it’s supposed to resemble an old-growth redwood forest on the inside. At least that’s what the promo promised. Perhaps a few fallen branches strewn about, and some clean fresh air with a scent of humus piped in from somewhere, could rescue the thing?
We must not abandon hope.