Dear Editor,
Almost predictably, the one-cent sales tax for a new courthouse failed.
I believe it failed, even in the face of the reality of an obsolete building now used, (because it has not been properly cared for and updated when the need arose), because there is a general distrust in the county commission to place a new building where voters want it due to the "non-binding" vote selected by the voters, due to the the belief that with a non-binding vote, the commission would be free to locate the building where they choose.
The reason I believe this is because the commission had already spent several thousands of dollars on the preliminary paper work for the Pea Ridge site, as stated in an earlier article. This showed clearly they had made up their minds until there was such a public outcry. Logically, the vote for the location should have been clearly stated prior to the vote on an unpopular tax for the courthouse. It would still be extremely useful to know who the principals are in the company that owns the Pea Ridge property.
If commissioners, along with other public servants,had the foresight and long-range planning ability, there would be monies set aside for capital expenditures prior to the need.
Doris Melvin Kingry
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: Vote for location of courthouse should’ve happened prior to sales tax option