Who Appointed The Courthouse Committee?

v:* {
BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml)
v:* {
BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml)

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

No Author