University of Virginia Library

State Ignores Protests
Against Louisa Prison

By MARGARET ALFORD

Plans by the State's Department of
Welfare and Institutions for construction
of a $3.7 million prison facility at Green
Springs will continue, despite a court
decision which blocks the use of federal
funds for the project.

A decision released yesterday by the
Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
delayed utilization of federal money for
the controversial project, but
concurrently ruled that the state has the
power to construct the institution wherever it
wishes.

The ruling states that before allocating
funds the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration must consider the prison's
impact on the environmental and historical
values of the area.

Prison Grant

The LEAA had awarded $775 thousand to
build the penal facility as part of a $4.15
million block grant to the state.

However, the three-judge panel of F.
Clement Haynsworth, Harrison L. Winter, and
Simon E. Sobeloff, ordered the LEAA to
comply with requirements of the National
Historic Preservation Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act.

In accordance with these requirements the
LEAA must prepare a statement on the effect
of the project on its surroundings and circulate
this to other federal agencies concerned with
environment for their comments on the
advisability of its construction. The final
decision will still rest with the LEAA, however.

Initially, the LEAA awarded the money to
the state for the prison without any particular
location in mind. Under the present court
decision, though, the agency's eventual action
on the fund allocation must depend in part on
environmental effects on the proposed prison
area and a special review of the site plan will be
needed.

The Green Springs Association, claiming that
construction of the prison would irreparably
harm the beauty and historic value of the
Louisa county community, brought suit against
Welfare and Institutions and LEAA officials.

In the first decision U.S. District Court
Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr. refused to prevent
construction of the facility by the state or to
block LEAA funding.

The recent action of the Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed part of Judge Merhige's
decision on federal financial assistance and
upheld his ruling on the state's right to build
the facility.

The director of information for the
Department of Welfare and Institutions, George
Minter, stated that his department was "pleased
that the legal attempt to block construction of
the Virginia Correctional Center was rejected
by the appellate court. We will be proceeding
with developing the project as rapidly as we can
clear up the administrative procedures"
required by federal law.

In reference to the possibility that the
federal funding request may not be approved,
Mr. Minter stated "we will cross that bridge
when we come to it."

Disappointment

Mrs. Ely stated that the Green Springs
Association is "surprised and disappointed" at
the state's action. "It's regrettable that the state
hasn't taken the opportunity to reassess its
decision."

She added, "In this age of environmental
awareness it is unfortunate that the state
officials of Virginia should be so callous in their
attitude toward our heritage."

"We will take immediate action to prevent
further activities by the state. The citizens
concerned are absolutely committed to fight as
long and rd as necessary to prevent
construction."

She indicated that further litigation would
be imminent.

Frederick Hartt, chairman of the
University's department of Art, and an
opponent of the facility construction, stated
that "it is extremely foolish of them (the state)
to go ahead in the face of widespread public
opposition."

Environment

The Appeals Court notes in its opinion,
written by Judge Sobeloff, that the Welfare and
Institutions department "seems to have given
consideration to factors such as soil and water
requirements. These factors are indeed
'environmental' in a sense, but other
environmental or cultural factors...were not
taken into account by either (the state or the
LEAA) in the decisions concerning the center."

The court believes that the proposed
Medical and Reception Center would present a
"jarring contrast" to its surroundings.

The opinion does not however, endorse
"allegations...that (the building)... will destroy
the unique historical and architectural
environment of that area. The merits of the
respective conditions are not at issue before us."