City: Courthouse closure could be catastrophic

Of these, the first option would be horrifically damaging to the local community because it would involve shutting down Ridgecrest Division A Courthouse and continuing services in Division B only, Strand said.

The shutdown would be part of a larger plan that would include constructing a new East County Courthouse project -- a four-courtroom courthouse -- in the Mojave/Tehachapi area as part of the proposed FY 24-25 five-year state capital outlay plan.

One rationale for potentially shifting court services away from Ridgecrest has to do with "recent staffing difficulties in the Ridgecrest and Mojave areas," according to a January 2022 letter from Judge Colette M. Humphrey to the Court Facilities Advisory Committee.

Community leaders, however, worry that losing the larger local courtroom will likely have a huge, negative impact on everything from domestic violence support to employee retention.

The Ridgecrest community is invited to weigh in with opinions (in writing only) at a meeting Friday at 10 a.m. at Kern County Superior Court Ridgecrest Division B. NOTE: all comments must be submitted in writing. (For more information on how to give public feedback, see the end of this story.)

Kern County is considering the following three options.

Option one: close Ridgecrest Division A Courthouse

The first option from the county would involve closing the larger Ridgecrest Division A Courthouse and continue court services in Division B Courthouse only. This plan would also include building a four-courtroom courthouse in the Mojave/Tehachapi area.

Strand paints a dire picture of the community forced to use only Division B.

"If they close the [main] courthouse it would be a total collapse of the justice services in the northeast side of the county," Strand said. "At best it would be a satellite court for the Tehachapi court."

"We have to do everything in our power to protect our court system," Mayor Eric Bruen said.

The Kern County Superior Court in Ridgecrest currently handles criminal, family law, traffic, civil and small claims matters.

Using Division B alone is not a feasible option, according to Strand, who said B is a smaller building and lacks office space.

"That courtroom [B] can't handle the demand. It's not an acceptable workaround," Strand said.

"Courtroom B is not sufficient," he added. "[There would be the] DA's office gone, public defender's office gone, no jail coming back."

Ever since the Kern County Ridgecrest jail location closed in 2016, Ridgecrest has been working with the county and Sheriff Donny Youngblood in an attempt to get it re-opened.

Losing the larger local courthouse could potentially make reopening the jail more difficult or impossible, Strand said.

Closing the larger courthouse could potentially impact other aspects of the community.

A reduced court presence stands to trickle down onto local law enforcement, said Strand who formerly served as chief of the Ridgecrest Police Department.

RPD officers currently spend time driving inmates back and forth due to the lack of a local jail. Closing one of the courthouses would obviously increase this burden -- leading to fewer cops on the street. This in turn could obviously lead to an increase in local crime.

Strand noted that higher crime rates as well as lack of a local judicial presence could ultimately impact hiring and retention on the base -- possibly even impacting national security.

Also impacted would be local victims of domestic abuse, according to Women's Center -- High Desert CEO Carol Beecroft.

"It's concerning to [the women's center]," Beecroft said. "We do a lot of restraining orders every week. We go to court with people and it would be very difficult if we had to travel to Tehachapi to provide support to our clients."

Domestic violence victims are allowed to have a victim's advocate stand up with them in court. Travel time for advocates would cut into the number of staff members available in Ridgecrest, which in turn could lead to a longer wait for clients needing restraining orders.

"It would be difficult for us because we don't have a huge staff as it is," she added.

Another concern is safety issues for both victims and advocates, since alleged abusers would likely also be traveling the same route to get to court.

The center also has clients from Lake Isabella to whom the additional travel time would impose an extra burden.

"We're hoping that it can just stay the way it is," said Beecroft of the courthouse situation.

Having fewer court services in Ridgecrest would also put a burden on lower income residents in general. Reliable transportation is already a huge barrier for many locals, according to social service providers.

Forcing people to drive to Tehachapi for routine court matters would obviously add to this burden.

Indian Wells Bar Association President Wayne Silva in a letter to presiding Judge J. Eric Bradshaw argued that Ridgecrest needs two courthouses for long list of reasons. He spoke out in favor of the county's second option which would keep both Division A and Division B open.

Silva in his letter says that closing one courthouse would burden local law enforcement; have a negative impact on operations on the base; burden those without adequate transportation who need to access court services and cause delays in having cases heard in a timely manner -- which is already a problem, particularly in family court.

"Ridgecrest needs to get its fair share of government services and taking away one courtroom and legal services is not accomplishing that goal," Silva writes.

Option two: Leaves both Ridgecrest courthouses open, but no plans to build a new one

Under option two, Division A and Division B -- the two existing courtrooms -- would remain in operation in Ridgecrest, along with a three-courtroom facility in the Mojave/Tehachapi area. There would be no plans for a new courthouse in Ridgecrest, however.

Strand said option two is lacking, however, because it contains no plans to build a new courthouse in Ridgecrest.

Indian Wells Bar Association President Silva, however, supports the second option because it would allow both local courthouses to stay open.

Option three: No new East County Courthouse -- for now

Both option one and option two allow for funds to be spent on new court facilities in Mojave and/or Tehachapi for the East Kern Community Courthouse project.

Under option three, this plan would be scuttled with the East Kern County Courthouse being removed from consideration in future years.

Strand said he considers option three the least damaging, because it would allow for the possibility of a new courthouse in Ridgecrest down the line.

Public input meeting in Ridgecrest June 2

The public will have the chance to weigh in at a series of meetings next week. Input will also be gathered from other interested parties, including the county sheriff, district attorney, public defender and probation department.

The meeting in Ridgecrest is scheduled for 10 a.m. on Friday, June 2 — Kern County Superior Court Ridgecrest Division B, 132 E. Coso Ave.

Note: all public input is required to be in writing. It can be [mailed or emailed] or hand-carried to the meeting.

Additional meetings are scheduled for Bakersfield at 2:30 p.m. on June 1 — Kern County Superior Court Metro Department 1, 1415 Truxtun Ave. and Mojave, 3 p.m. on June 2 — Kern County Superior Court Mojave Division A, 1773 Highway 58 Business.

Anyone who wants a recommendation for one of the alternatives and input considered must respond in writing by June 2.

The public can deliver written recommendations /input one of the meetings, or respond by mail to:

Presiding Judge J. Eric Bradshaw

Attn: East Kern Courthouse Facilities

Kern County Superior Court

1415 Truxtun Avenue, Department 1

Bakersfield, CA 93301