I asked one of the members of the “Courthouse Committee” how she was selected to be on that committee. Her response was “I was asked by a commissioner”. Hand picked!!! The brochure put forth by the “Committee” states that many did not know that there was a committee talking about demolishing the current historical courthouse building. Of course we did not know. It was not put forth to the citizens that there was even a plan to form a committee. It should have been made known that there was a plan to do so and ask for anyone that was interested to volunteer and from that volunteer list a non-biased committee could be chosen. That did not happen. The “committee” has been talking about visiting with various architects, etc., and came to the conclusion that the old building should be eliminated and the taxpayers provide funds to build a new one. My information from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, says “that Missouri Preservation advocates for, educates the public about, and assists in the preservation of architectural and historic landmarks that embody Missouri’s unique heritage and sense of place.” “Missouri Preservation takes great pride in being able to offer technical expertise and provide on the ground assistance through a professional field representative with the Partners in the Field program, funded through a matching grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and our 11 donor partners. Guidance for owners is also provided in the form of professionals (architects, structural engineers, historians, specialty contractors, and building conservators among others) who volunteer to make the site visits to share their expertise”. Did the “committee” avail itself of these services before trying to hastily shove through this large tax increase vote? If so, why does the public not know of it. All the “committee” seems to push is the condition of the existing building, failing to put forth any alternatives that would preserve the very important grand landmark we have. It IS on the National Register of Historic Places. We need to protect the irreplaceable not eliminate it. The vote on November 3 should be “NO” until the voters are thoroughly informed of all of the alternatives. Jill Shinn Kahoka, MO |