Laserfiche WebLink
<br />158 <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />APRIL 11, 1967 <br /> <br />Council unanimously endorsed the following self-explanatory statement prepared <br /> <br />and offered by Councilman Francis T. West, including'the motion therein: <br /> <br />Now - it seems to me - is an appropriate time for those of us in <br />the City of Martinsville to extend to our friends and neighbors in the <br />County of Henry our willingness to be of whatever help we may in <br />remedying their vexing court house and jail problem. It is not ours - <br />The Cityfs - to meddle in the County's affairs and I recoil in advance <br />from my remarks having any such connotation. Rather, my only intent <br />is to honestly manifest a "venture of friendship." <br /> <br />Should those in the county, charged with the responsibility, <br />already have made the decision to relocate their court house and <br />irrevocably pinpoint its location, then the matter is settled and we <br />wish them well. Believing such not yet to be the case, it is not <br />appropes to forth rightfully tell our county neighbors we are honored - <br />as were our forefathers - to have the Henry County Court House located <br />in Martinsville; to express vigorously to them our keen desire to <br />assist in any way in an effort to keep it here. The Henry County Court <br />House has great historical significance and value to the city. <br />Unabashedly, let us in the city acknowledge the considerable benefit <br />the "industry" of the Court House provides for city merchants and in <br />turn its citizenry. As the "friendly city of progress" we should not <br />be ashamed of coveting this "industry". On the other hand may we point <br />out to our county friends how centrally located Martinsville is for <br />their convenience. Any court house location outside of the city would <br />occasion a large segment of the county population still having to <br />traverse the city. Simply, it appears obvious that a city location <br />of the County Court House is most beneficial to the citizens of both <br />city and county. <br /> <br />Whether it is feasible for the county to consider a renovation of <br />their present court house and jail is beyond the purview of my knowledge. <br />Just what the needs are I don't know. But, should there be merit here; <br />hence a sizeable alleviation of the financial burden a totally new plant <br />would require of county citizens, then lets make audible several areas <br />in which the city has the possibility of rendering service. It is my <br />understanding the county jail poses the most pressing and acute <br />problems. Could not the city offer to share our new jail facilities <br />(in early 1968) should the county wish to consider rebuilding their <br />jail in the approximate location it now stands. Moreover, couldn't we <br />offer the basement of our new municipal building as temporary quarters <br />for county offices should the county desire to renovate and add on to <br />their present court house; perhaps the county could find the land on <br />the front side of the present structure - and a lessor amount to the <br />rear - would be sufficient to accommodate any space deficit they may <br />now have. I'm aware of the parking problems of the county court house <br />inhabitants and users. However, it's worthy of consideration, I believe, <br />for the city to explore the possitility of furnishing on a gratuitious <br />basis a reasonably nearby parking area. Remember, at this time, these <br />are only avenues of conjecture, (but in my considered judgment not <br />unreasonable ones). It may be the county feels their present court <br />