VETO MISSED THE MARK ON THIS HIGHWAY ISSUE

Less than three percent of the legislation approved this year by Missouri's General Assembly drew vetoes from Gov. Carnahan. He should have lowered the percentage further by sighing House Bille 485, a good measure that would save millions of dollars in the Missouri treasury and give state property owners earlier notice about planned highway projects. The governor's veto was poorly applied in this case and the legislature should take up the matter in the fall's veto session.

In brief, the legislatioon was aimed a preserving right-of-way corridors for proposed transportation projects and at prohibiting billboards on certain designated "scenic byways." The legislature passed the measure with overwhelming ease. John Oliver, a Missouri Highway and Transportation Commissioner who is from Cape Girardeau, described the legislation as "a good bill."

So, what was the governor's problem with the measure? Gov. Carnahan points out the bill limits scenic byway mileage to five percent of the total mileage of interstates and primary highways in Missouri; such a provision is unnecessarily restrictive, he insisted. Note, however, that Missouri (with the sixth largest highway system in the nation) has almost 8,000 miles of interstates and primary highways, meaning that up to 400 miles could be designated as "scenic byways." In relative terms, 400 miles is roughtly the highway distance between Cape Girardeau and St. Joseph.

In addition, understand that some of the most beautiful parts of the state are remote and ineffective for outdoor advertising anyway.

And here's how the taxpayer suffers: Under the law, the state would not have been bound to buy easements along scenic byways from the owners of land where billboards might be placed. Without the law, the state must pay.

Missourians are further exposed because the bill would have required the designation (following appropriate public hearings) of corridors for planned highway projects. Absent this provision, developers and property owners in the affected areas have no margin of confidence for making plans. In addition, state highway officials are at a loss to purchase land in advance for the development of these projects. With the bill's sighning, the state and property owners would know more about where they stand regarding future highway work.

We believe House Bill 485 was a strong piece of legislation, one that should not have succumbed to an executive veto. While it is rare that the legislature overrides any of the governor's decisions during its annual veto session, this measure seems ripe for such an action.