| # | First Name | Last Name | Comments |
|---|
| 601 | Carl | Bear | |
| 602 | Bret | Guttshall | |
| 603 | kelly | willow | I work in Harrisburg |
| 604 | Tina | McDonald | |
| 605 | melissa | williams | |
| 606 | Laurie | Dubinsky | |
| 607 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 608 | Bonnee | Voss | |
| 609 | Brett | Kelley | Harrisburg is moving forward with tourism and local business. This courthouse will be a huge setback. Nobody wants to see Harrisburg revert to the dirty, empty, fiscally weal city it was back in the 1970s. |
| 610 | Maria | Mills | |
| 611 | Gary | Harke | The GSA needs to defer to the judgment of those who live in, work in, and pay taxes to the City of Harrisburg. We are the ones with a stake in both the city and its skyline. Serve the city, please, not some out-of-town architect and bureaucrats! |
| 612 | Matthew | Gillespie | I am for the building of the new Federal Courthouse, but against it's proposed location. 6th and Reilly is a better location. |
| 613 | Janice | Mullin | |
| 614 | Jan | Boyer | |
| 615 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 616 | Karen | Clark | Why can't the federal courthouse be placed in an area where it won't be displacing homes and business. Build it uptown in some of the open areas with vacant lots. |
| 617 | Thelma | McCauslin | The 6th and Riley Street is a perfect site for the federal courthouse primarily because it is available, close to the downtown, and tax-paying businesses would not be wiped from the tax rolls if the feds prevail. |
| 618 | Rachel | Jones | |
| 619 | Erika | Honafius | |
| 620 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 621 | Kimberly | Barrow | |
| 622 | Dan | Searfoorce | |
| 623 | Kathryn | Sophy | |
| 624 | Amanda | Gordon | |
| 625 | Dorothy | Morrissey | |
| 626 | Adam | Young | Plesae do not put the federal courthouse in downtown Harrisburg. That is completely unnecessary, and would disrupt several flourishing businesses and otherwise ruin a great downtown area. |
| 627 | Staci | Coombs | |
| 628 | Amber | Morrow | |
| 629 | Janean | Spiegel | |
| 630 | Anonymous | Anonymous | FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT THE DOWNTOWN LOCATION IS A POOR OPTION.
AS I RECALL, THE MAIN OBJECTIVE FOR RELOCATION WAS, "TO IMPROVE SECURITY". |
| 631 | Niki | Carter | |
| 632 | Linda | Luebbering | |
| 633 | Amy | Kieffer | |
| 634 | chris | markiewicz | |
| 635 | Laurie | McGowan | General Services should not be permitted take over existing services and cause jobs to be lost when a perfectly adequate site is available. General Services would not want its employees to be laid off or fired or relocated if not necessary. |
| 636 | Angela | Smith-Aumen | |
| 637 | Morris | Munsen | |
| 638 | Keith A. | Dittenhafer | |
| 639 | Drew | Iddings | |
| 640 | David | Simmons | Our coffee shop is located at 3rd and Pine. From what we've heard from the GSA themselves, the removal of our business would leave us bankrupt. Considering it takes 18 months to turn a profit (we've been open for six months), by the time they take our sight, we will have worked 18 months for nothing. Just a perspective of a business owner. |
| 641 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 642 | Albert | Kinsky | Best site - promote new growth |
| 643 | Mark | Markiewicz | |
| 644 | Lisa | Dempsey | |
| 645 | Anonymous | Anonymous | |
| 646 | Philip | Dobson | It is the rite place for an office building with 50 foot setbacks. |
| 647 | Tim | Webb | |
| 648 | Robert | Carr | I believe it is wise to build at 6th and Reily as new development in that area, in my opinion, ould lead to further growth in that area. |
| 649 | Thomas | Stempka | Inept Planning at its finest |
| 650 | Anonymous | Anonymous | Keep businesses where they are!!! |