Voice: Justice Of The Peace moving to courthouse

The four justice of the peace offices
may be moved to the courthouse.

What do you think about this choice?

Answer the poll, and voice your thoughts in the comments below.
No sign in is needed. Just let your voice be heard.

(Visit the NacVoice Page or the forum for other topics)

Should the JPs be moved?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
This entry was posted in Voice. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Voice: Justice Of The Peace moving to courthouse

  1. treble clef says:

    Nacogdoches County does a good job holding down taxes and costs. If the NISD was as good as the county, it would be very nice. I like Judge English and I think he is doing a good job in hard times. I am in Pct. 4, and I, too, am a Jason Bridges supporter. He’s just terrific and nice to his people in Pct.4. Whatever Jason thinks is right and fair, that’s what I support also. Don’t know the JP, Perkins. I have seen him in the paper with Juvenile Court, so I suspect he’s at the courthouse a great deal. I would defer to Jason Bridges as I trust his judgment.

  2. Just Me says:

    JP 4, David Perkin’s office was built maybe 3-4 years ago.A beautiful building inside and out. Moving this JP after spending all this money would REALLY be a stupid move.

  3. hap says:

    I have not figured out how this plan would save them “thousands of dollars” either. They will still be paying upkeep and utilities on existing JP office space. It will be a big inconvenience on taxpayers who must try to find a parking spot at the courthouse in order to visit their JP office.

  4. No name says:

    There are several pros and cons to this move. Questions that I have would include what will become of the current properties used at the JP offices?? If the county retains them, what exactly is being saved?? As for saving hundreds of thousands of dollars, I doubt that. The county undoubtedly will still operate departments out of the JP 2 and 3 office. In the end, they are doing away with 2 buildings, one of which is less than 5 years new. As for the constables, they will have to be relocated also. I hear a contractor chomping at the bit to seal another renovation to another building that we will have to buy to house the constables. Again, saving thousands?? Between the two options at hand, I see the costs of each to be equivalent to each other.
    Now that money is of no consequence, this is more of what is better for serving the constituents, you know, the people that elect those officials that decide these things. The way I understand it, there were still seats available in the courtroom when they asked for public comments.

  5. Anonymous says:

    What’s the big deal? Why does everyone care?

  6. Tax payer says:


    • NacRat says:

      You obviously dont know what your talking about and are just some TeaBagger…if you would have went to the Commissioners meeting before you spewed your opinion you have realized that this actually with save your tax dollars. This county sends $100,000s in operating 4 different JP Office’s. If we consolidate them that saves the county money. If they are in the Courthouse Annex, which is mostly underutilized, there would be minimum cost. They already use the Annex; the electrical upkeep, phone systems, digital networking costs and county funded gas money for JP transportation is curbed. Its more convenient for the Attorneys both State and Private to work with the courts. There are so many benefits to this plan…if people would think and listen before they yell and tell they would realize that.

      • Billy Dix says:

        Rat, you seem to have a good understanding of how money will be saved in making this move. I and several others don’t understand exactly how it will save money. Maybe you could explain it in details, simple terms, for s country folk so we could see what is so obvious to you. To me, and others, it doesn’t add up. But, I’m sure your explanation will make that clear.

  7. pnmeqf says:

    Well I think it’s a stupid choice. Whatever Bridges is doing seems to be working. Let’s not do anything that might make it harder on him.

  8. Stephen Wright says:

    I thought they needed passage of a legislature bill for this. I’m confused. Either way, this just takes access out of the more rural communities. I’ve not found many folks in Precinct 1 or 4 that are happy with this, no matter their party preference.

  9. Bleepy says:

    This is supposed to be saving money, yet there doesn’t seem to be a problem with some of the raises or the other ways money is being spent that’s counterproductive of this, so-called, money saving idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.