A unique opportunity

The recent approval of a 1 percent sales tax increase to fund a new courthouse provides the citizens of Union County with a unique opportunity.

First, the fact that the current facility is functional, although not ideal, enables the county to take all the time necessary to develop an economical and functionally efficient plan.

The plan to be developed might want to consider the following variables:

(1) Location

Contrary to prevailing belief that the facility must be built at the present site in Jonesboro, the Constitution of the State of Illinois states the following in Section 2©, (paraphrased) County Seats may be changed if approved by three fifths (60%) of those voting on the question in a county-wide referendum." Such an election could be held at any time and would give all the citizens of the county an opportunity to have input on this important question. Further, by following the will of the people, the decision makers would be assured of continuing support for their actions.

I am not writing to propose a particular site, however, I do suggest that whatever site is chosen should comply with certain standards. To name a few:

1. It should be centrally located in the county.

2. It should be easily accessible from existing streets or highways.

3. It should have existing water and sewerage lines in close proximity.

4. It should be built on 5 to 10 acres of relatively flat terrain in order to minimize high site preparation costs and provide for adequate parking.

5. Its construction should not be based on any consideration for the preservation of the existing courthouse or contiguous structures. In this regard the historical significance of the present structure should be irrelevant in so far as the new facility is concerned.

The new courthouse should be developed with the future in mind, not the past. This is not to say that the past is not important, and the interests of those preservationists amongst us should be ignored. Rather, they should be given maximum opportunity to pursue their historical preservation interests. This could be accomplished by giving them title to the existing structure and permitting them to proceed as they wish with their preservations ideas. However, none of the funding secured by the recent tax increase should be used for their activities.

In the development of the new courthouse I suggest that we look to the future for guidance. The current facility is over 150 years old and it would not seem to be unreasonable to suggest that the new courthouse might be used just as long or longer.

Given this consideration, combined with the unbelievable acceleration to assume that things will be considerably different within as soon as 20 years.

Therefore, we must try to anticipate how some of these changes will impact on the needs of the courthouse in the not so distant future as well as the distant future in the next century.

For example, with regard to providing storage space for records, we should consider that we now have the capability to record the entire contents of the Library of Congress on a small computer chip which would fit comfortably in the watch we wear on our wrist. Surely this has some significance as to how we allocate building space for storage in our new courthouse.

While it is important to consider the views of the current office holders with regard to space needs, it is also important to realize that the majority of them will not be occupying those offices for more than 10 percent of the lifetime of the new courthouse.

While their advice might be valuable, it is probably of minimal value compared to that available from experts in the structural and functional requirements for courthouses of the future. The county officials should actively seek the advice and counsel of such experts.

Another matter of economic importance involves the expenditure of these new funds for things unrelated to court functions. Specifically, I wonder if there is any justification at all for changing the location of the county highway department. It's present location seems more then adequate and its location insures that the unsightly characteristics of the materials and equipment stored there will remain out of the view of most citizens and others passing through our county.

I would like to reemphasize that the above suggestions should not be construed to imply that this is an endorsement for the selection of any particular site for the new courthouse.

I am, however, strongly encouraging those who will be making these decisions to take their time, choose desirable and rational standards for site selection, base their decisions on objective data and not political bias or personal issues or preferences, or decisions made decades ago.

If these decision makers plan and build with the future in focus, the citizens of the future will appreciate their efforts and hold them in high esteem for as long as their names remain on the cornerstone and as long as the new courthouse exists.

Finally, I applaud the current commissioners for taking this progressive action in getting the project authorized and wish them well as they continue this endeavor.

Sincerely, Ronald G. Bittle, Anna