Letter to the editor, October 24, 2008
In an already tumultuous election year, we are asked to decide an issue that will affect our county's operations and management for decades in the future. Before plunging into the local matter by casting a vote on emotional grounds or because of regional pride, we should ask ourselves what really makes sense for the county at large.
The proposal to relocate the county seat from one town to another should not be decided as if it were a football game, with the possession of the courthouse as spoils to the victor. If ever there were a time for rational consideration of the merits of a proposition of utmost importance, it is now.
I will not presume to tell others how to vote. Each voter must make that choice alone. But I will raise some questions that I believe every voter should consider.
• What do you know about the motives of the people who first advocated moving the county seat? What reasons have they given us for the relocation other than the availability of a derelict building as the potential site for a courthouse; and later the suggestion that the existing building, which first provided the rationale for the move, might just be torn down to make room for a new courthouse building?
• Do you recall that the topic first surfaced after a closed-door meeting between a county commissioner and school officials, without knowledge of or authorization by the full county commission to make proposals in the name of the county?
• Do you know that the Missouri statutes which establish a procedure for relocating the seat of county government specify that the first step, after gathering enough signatures to call an election and after passage of the proposition at that election, is a search for a suitable site; and that the search and selection are to be conducted, not by the county commission but by five new county seat removal commissioners, whose sole mission is to impartially evaluate all potential sites for the relocation, within the general location specified in the ballot? Has that procedure been followed so far in this case? If not, why not?
• Are you aware that those same statutes also require that the new county seat removal commissioners may only consider a site that has at least 50 acres available for development as part of the relocation project? Furthermore, are you aware that there is no acreage requirement for renovating and enlarging an existing courthouse?
• Do you know that the site suggested by advocates of the relocation consists of no more than 11 acres? If that site were chosen for a "new" courthouse, where would the remaining acreage come from, at what price, and from whom? If the additional 39 to 40 acres were to come from residents and owners of property adjacent to the old school building, would it be taken by eminent domain? And if it were to come from unknown persons who have quietly acquired options to buy that adjoining land (this is hypothetical; I make no claims that such options exist), who are those persons and at what profit would the sale to the county be made?
• Do you know that the deed to the county for the "donation" of the former 3-5 center was recorded without either a motion or vote by the full county commission to accept the deed and to assume ownership of the property? And without first obtaining a title opinion to assure that the county would acquire full legal ownership of the property and without a survey to determine the exact area and acreage of the tract?
• Why did the present county commissioners appoint a group to study and report on the options for meeting the need for more space and better facilities, yet withhold from that group the information that the commissioners had recently accepted a grant from the state department of natural resources to fund the preservation of the courthouse, and that they had agreed to the condition that the basic exterior features of the building could not then be modified? Did they not care that such information could have made a difference in the recommendations from the study group?
• Why did the county commissioners refuse year after year to spend budgeted funds for courthouse repair and allow the building to deteriorate to its present condition?
• Do you want to be influenced on this issue by a county commissioner who illegally received a salary increase from the county, and then not only refused to repay the county but even tried to charge the county for the legal fees he incurred in trying to defend the successful lawsuit filed against him?
• Do you really want to be an unwitting participant in a private, secretive scheme to incur the expense and complications of transferring county government from one town to another, where the primary motivation for its backers appears to be a combination of long-time personal and regional feuds and possibility for personal gain?
Only when you are satisfied with the answers to these questions should you cast a vote on County Proposition A.
Dennis Barks
HermannLetter to the editor, published in the Gasconade County Republican:
While it's been a few years, I worked in the courthouse in Hermann. I loved the creaking floors and the worn steps and the old wood. I considered her a grand lady and always felt humbled by the history she quietly witnessed, held and guarded.
Shame on us, the residents and leaders of this county, for not taking care of this heritage while in our charge. She was built for us by men of great vision. We have failed to do our part to maintain it. That is hardly justification for abandonment. When you are old, do you want to be discarded? Or do you want to be respected and valued for all you know, all you stand for and have accomplished.
Where there is a will there's a way. There are options for parking and additions to the present courthouse that make sense, provide for access, still maintain the historical building and serve the needs of all.
The push to move the courthouse to Owensville is driven by the selfish motives of a few. Proponents of the move say it would bring business to Owensville. And I may add, take it away from Hermann. How does robbing Peter to pay Paul better Gasconade County? This is about the 'county' business, right? Moving the courthouse to Owensville will not make Gasconade County better. If it does benefit Owensville it will be at Hermann's expense. Do we in Owensville have the right to grab the courthouse solely for our benefit?
And what benefit? Do you think the people who live in Hermann are going to move here to work at the courthouse? Do you think there is so much bustling county business that it will bring in droves of new people? Not with the current price of utilities.
The location of the courthouse is not going to solve any of Owensville's or Gasconade County's financial problems. It will not the answer to lagging real estate sales, loss of business or jobs. Industry is the key to improving revenues and bringing new people and money to our area. Think about it, does the business of court cases and their defendants of abuse, drugs, murder, divorce, etc. bring in big money and droves of folks who want to settle down in our fair city?
Are you expecting an influx of new lawyers in town? Most of the lawyers who have lived the county for most of their lives are not going to move. And the rest live elsewhere and only drive to the courthouse as required. Face the fairy tale people.
So let's ask two more questions? If the Owensville Chamber sees this being put to a vote as an uphill battle, do we still want to spend the thousands of dollars it will take to put it on a ballot?
The committee that was appointed to study county government needs has laid before us options for the situation. Is the cheapest always the best? No, we must be careful. Are we not going to have to maintain the current courthouse as a historical landmark if we abandon here as a county seat? Has anyone added those costs into any of their projections? Again, we the taxpayers will foot the bill.
So if Owensville steals the courthouse from Hermann, does the Gasconade County Fair go to Hermann? Don't you think that would only be fair? Or are we keeping it, too? But no one is stirring up the north-south issue?
What if Gov. Matt Blunt announced that he demanded the U.S. Capitol be moved to Missouri because it would bring jobs and be more in the center of the population? He would be laughed out of office. How does this move of the courthouse look to the rest of Missouri?
The 3-5 Center in Owensville is a great opportunity for a community center or satellite community college center or some combination of both. The property was sold for a ridiculous bargain, a whole city block and all its buildings for $200,000. Why, one small house across the street just brought $100,000. You do the math.
Over the decades the taxpayers of Gasconade County have paid for all the school district's buildings with our tax dollars. Let's find the greatest use for this building to serve as a community resource for all, especially our youth.
Unlike the Louvre or British Parliament and hundreds of buildings throughout the world that are 300 to 800 years old and are still in use as public and government offices, our courthouse is only a little over 100, there is no reason the county seat cannot remain and function in it. No reason it can't continue to serve the citizens of Gasconade County from the present location.
Doesn't history count for anything? Can't we take care of our heritage? Can't we be proud of the years she has served us so well and do our duty to provide her a sustainable future? Fix what's broke, don't reinvent the wheel. Keep it simple.
No need to move it, just improve it. History deserves to stay in her home.
Rhoda Voss
Resident of Southern Gasconade County
Excerpts from a letter to Steve Mueller, former Hermann city administrator, dated May 2, 2008:
As a native of the Hermann area whose ancestors arrived in 1854, I want to thank you for all your efforts to preserve the only courthouse in America where existing records document its having been built solely with private funds.
The Gasconade County Courthouse is a unique example of how entrepreneurs have contributed so heavily to building our great nation. It's significance is so valuable that this landmark must be preserved and, in addition, educational programs should be developed to explain and enhance its significance.
Insightful and open-minded individuals quickly grasp the benefit of preserving this great landmark. History is still relevant and deserves a place of honor, even in today's society where the dollar tends to do much of the talking. Jack Balousek said, "Learn, earn, and return—these are the three phases of life." Preserving a landmark as significant as the Gasconade County Courthouse is part of "returning."
Core values and insightfulness define a community, as well as a nation. It has been my experience that when cost is the only item valued in decision making, extremely poor long-term decisions are almost always the result.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred." I would say, "One cannot further the interests of Gasconade County by inciting geographical hatred among residents of the northern and southern ends of the county. A possible solution in this age of information might be a small courthouse annex in the southern part of the county that links to the historic courthouse, perhaps even through video conferencing. Large firms routinely conduct business with disperse operations, so why not a county government?
It is time for the county to work together to preserve this unique, irreplaceable historic landmark, a monument to entrepreneurship and to the citizens of the county.
Joe Roetheli
Letter to the editor published in the Hermann Advertiser-Courier, June 18, 2008:
On a recent visit to Hermann my son and brother-in-law visited the courthouse in the wake of all the relocation controversy. I was thrown back 50 years. It amazed me how little it's changed in all that time. Walking into the courtroom was like walking onto a set of "To Kill a Mockingbird," save for the computer on the recorder's desk.
I just loved seeing the place again, smelling that "old" smell, hearing the echo of our footsteps on the floor, watching the river and last, but certainly not least, going over to slap the cannon like we did when we were kids.
The ceiling murals, albeit new, are also a testament to the artistic talent within the town. What a treasure that building is for Hermann! It would be pure and utter folly to move the courthouse function to Owensville or any other town in the county. I can't think of another community in the area that prides itself on historical preservation as does Hermann. To have a functioning historic building like the courthouse is priceless authenticity.
If there was ever a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it," this is it. I can only hope this is one thing about Hermann that never changes.
Lorayne Radtke Burns
Lexington, Kentucky