Accessing justice.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Eugene is known far and wide as a community that not only professes to care about access for people with disabilities, but actually does something about it.

So it's natural to assume that the new federal courthouse, with all its glorious architectural whiz-bangs and breathtaking $70 million price tag, would meet cutting-edge standards for accessibility.

That assumption would be wrong.

Despite pleas by advocates for the disabled, the courthouse design does not include a wheelchair ramp that would provide access to an outdoor entry plaza. Instead, architects plan to include a street-level elevator that meets minimal federal requirements for accessibility.

Minimal requirements? Sorry, feds, that's not good enough for Eugene. Not for a community that recently was runner-up in a national contest on access for people for disabilities. Not for a city that is home to organizations, including highly regarded Mobility International USA, that advocate for people with disabilities. Not for a city with a transit district that has a fleet of wheelchair-accessible buses, and where it's hard to find an intersection without curb cuts. Not for a city that appointed a disabilities commission in 1974 - more than a decade and a half before Congress got around to passing the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Peter Gray, spokesman for the Northwest regional office of the General Services Administration, which is overseeing the courthouse project, insists that a ramp would be impractical, would detract from the building's architecture and would encroach on a planned outdoor plaza.

That's all hooey - and federal hooey at that. A quick tour of Lane Community College, Eugene City Hall or any of dozens of public buildings throughout Oregon provides evidence that ramps can be integrated into designs without becoming aesthetic impediments. Plenty of local architects, even students at the University of Oregon's School of Architecture, would be delighted to offer suggestions on how to get the job done in a manner that won't deprive courthouse designers of the honors and acclaim they fervently hope will come their way once the project is completed.

Heck, we'll even toss an idea out right now. An artist's rendering on Page A6 of Thursday's Register-Guard shows a stair-stepped seating area at the far left side of the courthouse entrance along Eighth Avenue - a prime spot, it would seem, for a ramp with switchbacks. The seating, if it's needed, could easily be shifted to another location along the broad staircase in front of the courthouse. Surely there are any number of other options.

As for Gray's suggestion that a ramp would mar the building's beauty: In the eyes of which beholders? For many - we dare say, most - Eugene residents, there is profound beauty in the premise that no one should be excluded from any public space. There is beauty in the shared belief that this is a community that does its best to ensure that people with disabilities can enter public buildings the same way everyone else does - through the front door.

Thom Mayne, of Morphosis Architects of Santa Monica, Calif., the primary courthouse designer, vowed this week that the new building is "going to be something that makes an architectural statement."

That's a fine promise. But Mayne and everyone else associated with this project should remember that this building's "statement" should include that access is a fundamental expectation in Eugene, not a dispensable amenity. Public buildings, and courthouses above all, should make a clear statement about equal access.

This isn't the first time federal officials have needed a nudge - make that, a shove - on access issues. The initial design required people with disabilities to circle around the back of the courthouse, enter a secured parking area under the building and take an elevator that is usually reserved for court personnel. It took howls of outrage from members of the accessibility community and some "input" from Sens. Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith to produce the current - still decidedly inadequate - plan.

A final suggestion: If GSA officials and others - including U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who has spearheaded the courthouse project for the past 12 years and who certainly could persuade designers to get serious about access - want to better understand the importance of this issue, they should spend some quality time in wheelchairs. Within a few days, even a few hours, they would grasp why it's important to do more than merely meet minimum requirements for access.