| # | First Name | Last Name | Comments |
|---|
| 501 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 502 | Jennifer | Cromleigh | |
| 503 | ELIZABETH | WILFONG | |
| 504 | Cynthia | Ocasio | I agree that the 6th and Reilly location is the best choice for a new courthouse. It's an ample space, ripe for development. Midtown could become a thriving extension of downtown, with many new businesses offering amenities to those who work at the courthouse. Tax and revenue-generating downtown businesses would not have to be disturbed. This is just what Harrisburg needs in order to expand and improve it's downtown/midtown district. |
| 505 | Sarah | Miller | |
| 506 | Damien | Graeff | |
| 507 | John | Laporta | Why is there even a discussion about this? |
| 508 | Stacy | Wescott | I live in midtown Harrisburg and believe that placing the courthouse on sixth and reilly would bring much needed business to this area. It will go hand and hand with the midtown rennovation projects. |
| 509 | michael | mazzaccaro | |
| 510 | Tim | Hoy | |
| 511 | Douglas | Billet | |
| 512 | Kelly | Walton | |
| 513 | Kelly | Branson | |
| 514 | Joseph | Romanak | |
| 515 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 516 | Kyle | Burton | The downtown of Harrisburg is constrained by the river, the capitol, and train tracks. Placing the courthouse further north would promote more growth in the area, further supplanting HACCs expansion to that area.
Forcing older structures to be demolished and tax-exempt business taking over the space is not a responsible use of the limited available real-estate in the downtown of Harrisburg. |
| 517 | Daniel | Hill | |
| 518 | Mette, | Evans & Woodside | |
| 519 | Kristen | Danzi | |
| 520 | Edwin | Miller | |
| 521 | Joanne | Laporta | |
| 522 | Rosemary | Baer | The progress Harrisburg has made in the last decade is extraordinary. However, one gets the feeling that improvements are still tenuous and that set backs can occur. We are a small city. Please don't destroy any part of it that has added a dimension to our growth. Instead, help us continue to rise from the ashes of the 70's and 80's. We know our city and love it. How can the federal government pretend to do the same? |
| 523 | Paula | Musser | |
| 524 | D | Berry | |
| 525 | Daniel | McGlone | |
| 526 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 527 | Melissa | Miller | |
| 528 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 529 | Nathan | Fox | |
| 530 | Donna | Leiss | |
| 531 | Malinda | Gibble | |
| 532 | Joseph | Gibble | |
| 533 | Angela | Ross | |
| 534 | Jodi | Stuck | |
| 535 | Julie | Neill | |
| 536 | Jeff | Neill | |
| 537 | JEANNE | BOWEN | |
| 538 | Kristina | Nieves | |
| 539 | Anonymous | Anonymous | Disrupting downtown businesses would be detrimental to the growth of the city. |
| 540 | Susan | Wood | It doesn't make sense to select a site where existing businesses are located. These businesses would have to relocate, probably at a higher rental rate, or go out of business. Why not select Sixth and Reilly? That area is ripe for revitalization and should be seriously considered. With a new federal building in that area, other business will soon follow. Parking will be more plentiful and the bus station is also located within a block. GO SIXTH AND REILLY! |
| 541 | Darla | Buffington | The people making the choices for the courthouse site must be retarded. It doesn't make sense to tear businesses down, create more parking and traffic congestion at the latest choice rather than put it out where there is already much vacant land for building and parking. Perhaps it would be better to just replace these people (GSA) who are making these stupid choices. NOW! |
| 542 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 543 | Jeannie | Kollar | |
| 544 | Brian | Martin | |
| 545 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 546 | Jamie | Folks | |
| 547 | Mike | Klinedinst | |
| 548 | Salvatore | Fazzolari | |
| 549 | Anonymous | Anonymous | This is a very important issue for all who live and work in Harrisburg and the vicinity. To close and tear down existing buildings many of which are historic would be a crime. |
| 550 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |