The Commissioner's replaced the modern windows with the older wooden style windows.  They got a grant from the Texas Historical Commission but that still came from our taxes and might have been put to better use on schools, reducing crime or roads.

 

They have never given us a full accounting of what the actual and total costs were to taxpayers.  Some of the hidden and under-reported costs include increased utility bills while the windows were covered with plywood, the cost of architect fees that weren't covered by the grant and the cost of paying employees who had to go home rather than work due to unworkable conditions at the court house.

 

Now they are pursuing a new grant to restore the interior of the Court House to its original look.  It may look nice as a museum when it is done but will be very expensive.  That restoration is estimated to cost $5 million or more not including the cost of leased space, architect's fees, higher utility bills, moving costs there and back, etc. which could be a couple additional million dollars.  County government will have to move out of the court house while it is restored to it's original look.  In addition, the third floor will be demolished, as it's not part of the original design so those offices will have to be moved permanently, perhaps to a new building that we haven't heard any costs on yet.

 

Denton County has a nice Court House that is effectively a museum and no longer conducts the county's business.  While restoring the court house with grant money sounds like a good idea, there are a lot of hidden and unexplained costs.  I expect this will eventually include the construction of a new County Government building at what cost. 

 

Before we turn the Court House into a museum, we need to check our priorities.  Shouldn't improving our roads and reducing our crime rate be a higher priority than restoring our court house to its original look and feel about 100 years ago?  Would it make sense to try and lower taxes to be more competitive with our neighbors North and South to attract new businesses?

 

Somehow on the last restoration, the Commissioner's Court managed to include some private parking spaces for elected officials directly in front of the Court House.  Now those incumbents have an advantage over challengers in that they get to put full size campaign magnets on their vehicle so everyone going into the courthouse or stopping at California and Commerce sees those signs.  If they want to park on the street and compete for parking spots with their campaign sign magnets like everyone else does, that would be fine.  However; if they get to park in the most visible parking spots with magnetic yard signs in front of Our Court House, what is the difference between that and putting a campauign sign on the court house lawn?  The challengers can't put there signs on county property, why should the incumbents be able to?

 

We don't need monuments that are designed to benefit our incumbent elected officials.  What we need is efficient government that treats every body equally, regardless of who they are, or who they know.