I can't let last week's election go by without a comment. A "thank you" to Betty Hearnes and Hugh Hunter Byrd and man others who made a fight for the restoration of the historic old Mississippi County Courthouse, damaged by an arson fire.

What to do? I still find it incredible that just three people can legally make such a big decision, involving millions of dollars, without putting it up to the citizens of the county. And, NO, I do not consider the recent election to say, as some are now saying, that the people want a "new" building. Of course, there are those who don't care a hoot about "heritage or "historical," but many all around America DO care and travel to thousands of areas across the country, enjoying the traditions available. Many HERE do care.

The recent election? Rather it was a puzzled constituency, wondering what on earth they could do to save this part of our county's heritage. But there were certainly stymied by the "choice" they were presented.

Here was the story. Following the arson fire, everywhere folks were saying "YES, build it BACK -- restore it as it was." Even the Commission members said so. But then they were given advice that said it would cost much more money -- millions of dollars more -- to restore the building than it would cost to build a new one. By the time restoration architects, contractors and engineers -- men who know that they are talking about with historic buildings -- were brought in by Betty Hearnes, the commission had made up its mind that a new building was the only way to go.

There's the First Baptist Church. Seems to me an excellent example of what could be done, saving the exterior. Those responsible for the restoring of that historical church building, similar to the courthouse in construction, accepted, without charge, the challenge of showing what could be done with the restoration of the courthouse. And what it would cost. Their number was $3. 5 million -- not $4.6 million or $6.7 million, as had been mentioned before. We sincerely thank Jack Luhr, Swayne Byrd, Melvin Starkey, Vaughn Prost and all of the other restoration specialists for giving their time in an attempt to help.

At that time, there were no plans on starting from scratch -- or before scratch (tearing down is also expensive). But estimates of the cost of constructing a new building were set at $2.5 million. Does that include demolition costs? Or removal of the asbestos? We don't know. The $3.5 million of restoring the building did include debris removal and asbestos abatement.

For awhile, private plans were being made to see how a fund could be set up for restoring the historic courthouse. To raise the extra $1 million. Just as Charleston citizens, in 1937 for Brown Shoe Co., pitched in (then in Depression times) to reach a certain goal, this could have been done too.

I believe there should have been an opportunity to see what could have been arranged financially, bringing people together to work for a common goal. People would have donated to restore the old building. No one has stepped forward to offer to help for the new one. That tells you something. But this was not pursued by the Commission members.

What should have been done was to have an election as soon as possible. Plans on how to finance restoration or a new building should have been explicitly explained, including ALL of the costs of a new building, demolition and engineering, architectural and construction inspection fees. ALL of the costs.

That means that BOTH PLANS should have been presented to the citizens to discuss and decide. "This is what is what is involved in restoration" and "This is what is involved in tearing down and the rebuilding a completely new building."

The result of THAT election would have been clear and acceptable to everyone.

But this was not done by the Commission. It just went ahead with the August election, which was NOT a vote "for" or "against" the restoration or rebuilding new, but a vote to determine who may would accept a tax for three years, the cheapest way.

Or else.

The "or else" meant that no matter HOW the vote came out ... if voted against, the Commission then would go ahead anyway with plans to tear down the courthouse and build new, taxing the county citizens for 20 years. Which they can do legally.

Citizens I've talked to were very upset, wondering what to do. If they voted NO, that meant it would cost the county taxpayers some $900,000 more over the 20 years. If they voted YES, it would look as though they voted for the new building. Either way, they lost. That was why many decided, uncomfortably and unhappily, to stay away from the polls or to vote YES, though they were angry that they were forced to so vote.

So whoever did this vile thing, the arson fire, did much more than just damage some ol' building with fire. They destroyed the tranquility, cooperation and friendliness of thousands of people in our county, leaving a lot of bitterness and distrust of political officeholders.

Whoever the arsonist is shouldn't just be given a slap on the wrist, but be sent to prison and the key be thrown away.

Someone, somewhere must have an inkling or know something that can help the authorities to put this weirdo where he can't damage more lives. If you have any information, call 1-800-39-ARSON. The call can be kept confidential.

And, for the record, I can't just "let is go" -- the election OR THE COURTHOUSE -- as thought it doesn't matter. It does matter, and I'd like to ask the commissioners one more time to reconsider their plan and their actions. Give the people a chance to have a say in this very important decision.

Mildred Wallhausen is the publisher of the Enterprise-Courier in Charleston, which is the county seat of Mississippi County.