MISSISSIPPI COURTHOUSE DECISION DEBATED

CHARLESTON -- Build the thing already.

That's how some Mississippi County residents feel about the recent controversy surrounding the county courthouse, which burned on Feb. 10.

Mississippi County Commissioners recently decided to raze the remains of the original courthouse in preparation for a new structure, despite pressure to preserve the old building from a group of residents led by former state Rep. Betty Hearnes.

Preservationists oppose the decision, stating that the 1,000 residents who signed a petition favoring restoration deserve to be heard.

But several county residents say they are more concerned about the bottom line than they are about historical concerns. They don't care if a new building is built or if the old building is restored, as long as the finished product is safe, earthquake-resistant, economical and in Charleston, which is the county seat.

"Personally, I want the courthouse where it's at, but I'm not really up on all of the different issues," said Charleston resident Gerald McClain. "The way it looks to me, they're going on the economic standpoint."

Preservationists petitioned the commission to consider a restoration project that would cost an estimated $3.5 million, but commissioners opted to build a smaller and more modern facility at a cost of about $2.5 million.

Insurance from the old facility will provide the commissioners with about $1.4 million to rebuild. In addition, voters will decide on Aug. 5 whether to pass a three-year, half-cent sales tax to raise an additional $1.2 million to rebuild the courthouse.

Presiding Commissioner Jim Blumenberg said the commission's decision to build a new facility was based upon economic and safety concerns. He said he has spoken with many county residents, and most people with an opinion seem to want the cheapest alternative, which means building a new facility.

"Quite honestly, a lot of people just don't care," Blumenberg said. "Most people won't go to the courthouse anyway unless they're in trouble or once a year to pay their taxes. I've talked to a lot of people, and the consensus I'm getting is that people want a new building."

Some residents said they don't really understand why the controversy exists because the county can only build what it can afford. In that case, they said, simple figures show that the new facility would be the cheaper route than the restoration project.

"There's two factions here who've got this whole thing stirred up," said Charleston resident Joseph Reeves, who is a member of the Mississippi County Historical Society Board of Directors. "The courthouse is gone and there's nothing but a little dab of wall left. I'd like to see the old thing back, but what good is it really? There's no point in the people voting on it if you can't afford it."

Charleston resident W.D. Purnell agreed, saying: "The extra money they would spend to get it restored is just for the old-timers who live here. I'm not going to fuss about the tax. I'm going to fuss about an extra million dollars just for something to look at."

But Hearnes said the issue is not as cut and dried as residents think. "We're comparing apples and oranges here," she said. "They have plans for a 20,000-square-foot facility; our plans were for a 29,000-square-foot facility. That's 9,000 square feet larger, so of course our figures were going to be higher. But what concerns us is there was no discussion of the plans, and they didn't give us a chance to scale back our proposal and make the two more similar in size so the comparisons could be more accurate."

Hearnes said Circuit Judge Anthony Heckemeyer attended a county commission meeting and said commissioners could request a special election to let voters decide which project would be more feasible. Because of the controversy, she said, voters should have the chance to make the decision on the issue.

"If the people vote us down, that's the people's choice, and I want them satisfied," Hearnes said. "I just feel like both sides should get their act together and let the people decide, because once they knock it down it's over."

Many residents agree that the issue should be put to a vote, if only to reduce the amount of criticism the commissioners will receive about the controversy.

"I don't know which way it would have gone, but they would have saved a lot of aggravation for themselves if they would've put it to a vote," Purnell said. "That way you couldn't have laid it on the commissioners."

East Prairie resident Jim Robinson agrees that the commissioners should have let the people choose what they want to do.

But Blumenberg said commissioners made a decision they were elected to make, and the issue will not be voted on. "We feel like we're elected to make a decision," he said. "If I have to bow down and not make a decision ... I just won't do it. It was a tough call, but as far as the commissioners involved, I think the decision was fair, above board and the right decision."

Robinson favors the new courthouse because it seems to be the more economical move. If people aren't satisfied with the commission's decision, he said, the can work for change during the next election.

"A million dollars worth of memories aren't worth a cuss to me," he said, "and nobody pays taxes but those who are able to pay taxes. When it comes down to it, they've already made that decision -- let it stand. If you don't like it, do something in the next election."