GOVERNMENT: P AND Z OPPONENTS FILE SUIT

Opponents of planning and zoning in Cape Girardeau County filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the county commission's spending of tax dollars to develop planning and zoning regulations before voters approved the issue.

The lawsuit was filed in Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court against the county commissioners. It was filed by 75 county taxpayers, including leaders of the Committee to Protect Land Owners Rights.

The committee was formed to campaign against a ballot measure which asks voters to authorize county planning. If approved by a simple majority in Tuesday's presidential election, it would clear the way for the county commission to implement zoning restrictions in the unincorporated areas of the county.

The committee said the county commission paid more than $29,000 to the Southeast Missouri Regional Planning and Economic Development Commission to help develop rules and regulations for planning and zoning in advance of the election. The lawsuit contends that money was spent illegally.

Missouri law prohibits the expenditure of public funds in support of any ballot measure, said David Allen, chairman of the Committee to Protect Land Owners Rights.

"The state lawmakers obviously feel that the will and opinions of the voters should not be swayed one way or the other by the use of public money," Allen said.

The lawsuit also charges the county commission violated a state law governing first-class counties when it spent money to develop planning and zoning regulations prior to the election.

State law section 64.211 only allows money to be spent to develop a plan after voters have approved planning, the lawsuit states.

The county commission has cited a different statute, 64.275, that allows a temporary planning commission to spend money to develop a plan. The commission appointed the planning committee in December 1996 just weeks before the county reached first-class status.

But in their suit, planning opponents state that "the commission cannot abruptly change horses to another statutory scheme."

County commissioners Larry Bock and Max Stovall had little reaction to the lawsuit Tuesday other than insisting that they had operated within the boundaries of state law.

The lawsuit also cites an Aug. 28 memorandum to the county commission and county clerk from Roger Arnzen, director of mapping and appraisal, that acknowledges that the ballot wording is based on statute 64.211.

Doug Flannery, one of the leading opponents of county planning and zoning, said the lawsuit could set the stage for further litigation if voters approve planning Tuesday.

"The biggest thing we are going to get out of this is public awareness," he said.

Flannery also said the county commission is using provisions from two different state statutes to justify its actions. The statute that allowed the county commission to appoint a temporary planning commission also provides for the election of a permanent planning commission.

But the county commission has said it plans to appoint a permanent planning commission if voters approve the measure Tuesday. That process is allowed under the other statute, Flannery said.

Walter S. Drusch, a Cape Girardeau lawyer who represents the landowners' committee, said it is unclear under state law exactly what action a circuit judge might take if the county commission is found to have violated state law.

Drusch said the lawsuit might be dropped if voters reject planning.