City deserves explanation.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The General Services Administration's abrupt announcement last week that it was suspending the purchase of a city-owned site for a new federal courthouse has left a great cloud of confusion in its wake.

Federal officials should move swiftly to clear up that confusion - and the frustration that has accompanied it - by detailing the reasons that prompted their decision. City officials, along with members of Oregon's congressional delegation, have asked for clarification, and the GSA should respond with dispatch and candor.

If the GSA genuinely wants to resolve concerns about the courthouse project, then it must make clear what exactly those concerns are so they can be fully addressed. The GSA's vague references to public support, transportation, parking and development issues serve little purpose other than to generate broad speculation about the GSA's real motivations.

City officials are understandably bewildered. As recently as Sept. 2, a GSA administrator praised the city's cooperation and said he "eagerly anticipated the construction and completion" of the new courthouse. With no warning - no phone calls, no letters, no e-mails - city officials were stunned at 4 p.m. Friday to learn of the GSA's action.

Mayor Jim Torrey is justified in asking what changed between Sept. 2 and Sept. 19 - and why there was not one word of warning to the city.

The GSA also needs to clarify the puzzling contrast between the explanations offered by regional GSA Administrator Jon Kvistad and by GSA Spokesman Peter Gray.

Torrey says Kvistad informed him that the decision was based solely on transportation, parking and development concerns - and had nothing to do with controversy over the building's access for people with disabilities. Yet GSA officials, including Gray, have repeatedly cited a lack of "community support" - a clear reference to the access controversy - as playing a primary role.

Federal officials should explain this discrepancy. Did the GSA really base this immensely important decision, even in part, on concerns voiced by people with disabilities and their supporters? If the decision had nothing to do with the access controversy, why has it been cited as a factor? More importantly, why do GSA officials equate the voicing of valid concerns about access for people with disabilities as a "lack of community support" for the overall courthouse project - a stunning leap in logic and reason?

Eugene has gone to great lengths and made massive expenditures to prepare a site for the new courthouse. The community deserves a full and forthright explanation from the GSA. The agency needs to dispel suspicions that the delay is, at least in part, an act of bureaucratic petulance intended to silence critics of the courthouse design. Continued uncertainty lends credence to U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio's speculation that "there is some mischief afoot."

If other issues - transportation, parking, development, whatever - are the reason for this delay, then let's identify them and get to work.