|
rodsullivan.org
SULLIVAN'S SALVOS
January 28, 2012
Sullivan’s Salvos 1/31/12 In this edition: *Sullivan for Supervisor Fundraiser *”Parental Responsibility” Ordinances *Sand Road and Other Chip Seals *Did You Know? *Sullivan for Supervisor Fundraiser Reminder - I am holding a fundraiser for my reelection campaign on Wednesday, February 1 from 5-7:30 PM at the Mill in downtown Iowa City. No need to RSVP – just show up! *”Parental Responsibility” Ordinances I have heard that some in Iowa City are calling for a so-called “parental responsibility” ordinance. The idea here is that if a minor child is charged with a crime, parent(s) may also be charged. I think people who support this ought to volunteer to be foster parents. Until they are willing to step up and take that on, they should shut their mouths. Passage of this type of ordinance would kill foster care. Why would anyone risk prosecution to care for someone else’s child? I have had more than my share of experience with troubled youth. This is not as simple as ordinance supporters make it sound. Sure, most parents can keep a rambunctious 6 year old in his room. (And 99.99% DO.) But what is that same parent to do when that child grows to be a 16 year old, 200-pound young man? I have personally seen dozens of situations where the parent would give almost anything to have the assistance of the police. They want their child to do the right thing; they cannot do much with an out-of-control teen. We are severely lacking in services for troubled teens. Parents have almost no support. 25 years ago, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) funded services for families in this situation. Not any more. In many cases, the only way a parent can get any help for a child is to hope she gets arrested! In addition, there are already laws in place to punish teens that commit crimes. Why do we need “extra” punishments? Crime isn’t even up in Johnson County; it is down significantly! Another factor is mental illness. The onset of most types of mental illness tends to take place during the mid-late teens. These children have done nothing wrong. They are ILL. Their parents face a LIFELONG, daunting challenge to provide for, support, and advocate for their kids. Meanwhile, some smug SOB thinks that parent, who has experienced suffering they will never know, should get a fine. Makes me so angry I could scream! Finally, there are significant civil liberties concerns in play. How can you charge someone with a crime who has done nothing wrong? The ACLU is fighting these ordinances across the country, and having great success. I hope they continue to do so! Supporters of this type of ordinance have lived in a bubble, and they are lucky that they have been so blessed! A more appropriate response would be a call for more and better services for families in need. Meanwhile, supporters of punishing parents should heed the old adage: there but for the Grace of God go I. *Sand Road and Other Chip Seals The Board was recently asked to consider lowering the speed limits on 170th Street (near Lake MacBride) and Sand Road south of 520th. After doing speed studies, the data called for 170th to be lowered to 45mph, and called for Sand Road to stay at 55. Instead, the Board voted to keep 170th at 55 mph while lowering Sand Road to 45 mph. Why? Well, paraphrasing one Board member – if he knows you and you ask him directly, he’ll vote for whatever you want. But if he hasn’t spoken to you, you’re out of luck. I voted to use science as the guide, and keep the Sand Road speed limit at 55. I lost on a 4-1 vote. The idea that Supervisors “just know” when a speed limit should be lowered is silly. The current state of affairs is that speed limits will get dropped when people fill the room. That is not how we are supposed to govern. I wrote the following piece a couple of months ago, but it bears repeating today. The Board recently heard from a group of residents who live along Sand Road south of 520th, where the road becomes chip seal. The residents are concerned about excessive speeds, coupled with farm and bicycle traffic. The road has seen a big increase in traffic – up to 1600 vehicles per day (vpd). The residents feel this section of roadway has become dangerous. The residents out there want something done. There are really only 3 options, none of which are perfect solutions: 1. “Improve” the road 2. Paint stripes on the road 3. Reduce the speed limit “Improving” the road means buying right of way (so taking front yards), cutting down trees, and paving a wide swath. It is expensive, and while it makes driving fast safer, it does nothing to address the farm/bike traffic. Painting a chip seal road is a waste of money, period. It costs about $5,000 per mile to paint, and it would need to be done every single year. With over 100 miles of chip seal road in Johnson County, we simply cannot afford it. Reducing the speed limit is the cheapest and easiest option, but poses problems of its own. The average speed on the road is currently greater than 55. Is it wise to artificially lower the speed limit? And what are the implications for the Sheriff’s Office where enforcement is concerned? The bigger question is: why address Sand Road, and why now? Personally, I think we need to take a holistic look at ALL our chip seal roads. There are over 100 miles of chip seal road in Johnson County. We should begin to address this starting with the highest vpd and moving on through to the lowest. The fact of the matter is, we have several chip seal roads with more curves, more hills, more trees, higher traffic counts, more bikes, and more residents. In my mind, these roads deserve our consideration before Sand Road. Do not get me wrong: I sympathize with the folks on Sand Road, and I trust that everything they report is true. But the people who live on Sandy Beach Road (the highest vpd of any chip seal in Johnson County) have not been in the room to advocate for their road. What about their needs? Since starting as a Supervisor in January of 2005, I have tried to make as many data-driven decisions as possible. Historically, too many decisions get made based upon who you know. I prefer quantifying those things that can be quantified, and putting that information to use. Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors is very susceptible to the desires of a room full of voters. It is an election year for four of the five Supervisors, and it is likely that any candidate would prefer 40 happy constituents to 40 that are angry. So my guess is that the Board will vote to give these residents the lower speed limit they desire without tackling the tougher topic. Personally, I will only vote for a comprehensive approach to our chip seal roads. That may leave me on the angry side of those 40 voters, but I feel it is the only fair way to proceed. The issues of speeding, tough terrain, and noncompatible uses are problems countywide. The Board should address the issue countywide rather than simply greasing the squeaky wheel. *DID YOU KNOW? Only 11% of Americans moved last year, the lowest percentage since 1948. (Source: Governing Magazine.) Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website- www.johnson-county.com. "Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents. These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned. If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line. If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line. As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you! ---Rod
January 20, 2012
Sullivan’s Salvos 1/24/12
In this edition:
*Sullivan for Supervisor Fundraiser
*Traffic Cameras
*Government Does It Better!
*Did You Know?
*Sullivan for Supervisor Fundraiser
I am holding a fundraiser for my reelection campaign on Wednesday, February 1 from 5-7:30 PM at the Mill in downtown Iowa City.
Please stop by and grab something to eat and drink, and talk a little local politics. I’d love to see you there!
*Traffic Cameras
I recently asked my fellow Board members if there was any interest in a discussion of traffic cameras. There was none.
This is unfortunate on a couple of levels: first, just about anything deserves at least a short public discussion, particularly when one Board member requests it. Secondly, I think this should be discussed because traffic cameras used correctly are proving to be a great tool for public safety.
Let me be clear; I am referring to speed cameras. There are also red light cameras, and while very similar, the justifications are somewhat different. For the purposes of this discussion, I am referring to speed cameras.
It actually pisses me off when I hear some elected officials say that this raises civil liberties concerns for them. There are about three elected officials in Johnson County who are legit when they say this. The rest are full of it.
I would love to see elected officials who REALLY cared about civil liberties. If more really cared about civil liberties, there would be many more tough votes taken. REALLY care about civil liberties? Take a look at our disproportionate minority contact numbers. They are abysmal. But the “civil liberties” champions who criticize cameras won’t touch a REAL civil liberties issue with a ten-foot pole.
Opposition to cameras is mainly pandering. The public gets upset about them, so the politicians automatically cave. But that we actually had a roster full of elected officials who cared about civil liberties!
I am literally a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I fully understand the civil liberties concerns to which cameras give rise. And I think there are some precautions that can be taken to protect our privacy. I will get to those later. First, here is why we need traffic cameras:
1. Cameras reduce speed-related accidents. This has been statistically proven. A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents in areas monitored by cameras. Local studies nationwide show largely similar data. Crashes on 380 in CR are down 76%! Fatal crashes on 380 are down 80%!
(There is some data that shows a slight increase in rear end collisions at red light cameras –though the same studies demonstrate a reduction in more serious “t-bone” collisions at the same intersections. But that is for our cities to figure out. I am not talking about cameras at intersections – I’m talking speed cameras.)
2. Cameras raise revenues. I hear opponents say, “this isn’t about safety – it is about money.” First, safety statistics prove that statement untrue. But just for kicks, let’s pretend it is true. The cameras are only to raise money. Why is that bad thing? Money raised from cameras is money that property tax payers do not need to pay. I would suggest using any revenues 50% for additional patrol deputies, 50% for offsetting the use of property taxes in public safety.
Is there a need? Have you driven I-380 between Iowa City and CR? I have a bit of a lead foot; I’ll set my cruise at 75 in the 70mph zone. Cars pass me as though I were standing still. In a single commute you will witness a half dozen risky behaviors.
3. The only people who pay are people whose vehicles broke the law. No one is forced to pay these fines. Don’t break the law, and you don’t pay. (In CR, no drivers were ticketed unless they were at least 10mph over the limit.)
Cameras are in use just to our north in Cedar Rapids. The cameras added up to big money and significantly fewer crashes, according to police statistics. Through 11 months, the city has made $2.3 million from the camera system, according to data from camera vendor Gatso USA.
Cedar Rapids Police Chief Greg Graham said crashes citywide dropped by 8 percent from 2009 to 2010, and injury crashes fell 16 percent. Instead of working crashes, officers went to neighborhoods. Graham said the extra officers in neighborhoods helped reduce violent crime by 2 percent and property crime by 12 percent last year.
That backs up my own experience. I travel to CR fairly frequently, and since the advent of traffic cameras, my behavior has changed dramatically. I drive MUCH slower through CR!
Those results are REAL. And they happened just 25 miles north of us! They occurred on the same stretch of road (I-380) for which I would recommend cameras.
As mentioned earlier, there are several things that can be done to mitigate civil liberties concerns.
First, violations must be treated as civil infractions rather than moving violations. That means fines are similar to parking tickets, and do not impact the vehicle owner’s driving record. This is important, because the owner of the car was not necessarily the driver when the infraction occurred. This also protects the privacy of the drivers, because there is no need to use cameras to attempt to determine who was driving. The camera is focused on the plate, not the driver.
Secondly, there must be a strict plan for the data. Files must be deleted frequently, and data must be strictly protected. The data must remain the property of the municipality and not the vendor. Neither Cedar Rapids nor Des Moines has experienced any problems with this. I would encourage civil libertarians be actively involved in the writing of whatever contract is created with the company that maintains the data.
Finally, there must be an easy appeals process. This has been achieved in Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.
Now Governor Branstad is getting into the act. He says he will sign a bill banning traffic cameras; according to Branstad, the cameras are “unfair”. How ridiculous! The cameras are EXACTLY the opposite – they are the MOST fair way to determine who broke the law! No giving breaks, no racial profiling, no room for human error. (And this is one more way for Branstad to take power away from local governments.)
Traffic cameras make sense. They prevent accidents, raise revenues, and create a safer environment. I think this AT LEAST deserves a discussion. What do you think?
*Government Does It Better!
So – who handles elections better? Elected County Auditors (the government) or local volunteers (the Iowa GOP Caucuses)? Chalk up another one for government!
*DID YOU KNOW? The Joint Emergency Communication Center (JECC) took over 45,000 emergency (911) calls in 2011.
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
www.johnson-county.com.
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
Sullivan’s Salvos 1/17/12
In this edition:
*Future of Ag
*TIF Thoughts
*TIF Public Hearing
*Did You Know?
*Future of Ag
The Board passed a Multiple Special Events Ordinance at our last meeting. Many folks were referring to this as the “Schwab Amendment” in reference to Dick Schwab’s Celebration Barn. (That is his older structure, not the new Celebration Farm on Highway 1.)
I think that label is a misnomer. Frankly, I was much more motivated by the concerns of the folks who own Wilson’s Orchard. The thing I realized during this discussion is that we have a lot of work to do. If agriculture is going to continue to play a role in the future of Johnson County, we are going to need to adjust.
Most ag in Iowa (and Johnson County) is large volume (also known as “traditional”) agriculture. These are farms of 400 or more acres, mostly corn and beans. If they raise livestock, it is cattle and hogs. We do fine in that area. We support this type of ag operation, and we do more than any other county to preserve farmland.
There is another type of farming – some would call it “old fashioned”, others would say it is the future. This includes value-added ag, ag tourism, co-ops, organic standards, CSAs, you-pick-‘em operations, on-farm processing, and much more. All of these innovations mean more people coming to the rural areas.
The rules and regs that serve “traditional” ag do not always work for the ag of the future. If we want any type of ag to continue to exist in Johnson County, we are going to need to step up and address these issues.
What do you think about our ag future? Where do we go from here, and how do we get there? I am open to your ideas!
*TIF Thoughts
The recent case study of TIFs in Johnson County (http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2011docs/111121-TIF-JC.pdf) and the subsequent public hearing has started some much-needed discussion on the topic.
I have spent over a decade discussing/debating this topic, so I see no point in stopping now! I’d like to address some points that were made at the recent forum.
Report author Peter Fisher recommended that State law should be amended to disallow TIFs for residential or retail – period. TIF should only be used for basic sector projects. Yet in Johnson County, much of our retail is TIFed. Why? As Fisher points out, retail follows population/location. North Liberty has not increased its retail because of TIF – it has increased its retail because the population tripled.
Fisher made a key point when he suggested that TIFs should be project based, and they should end once the project has been paid off. The argument is that TIFs are required to recruit businesses. If the business has already been “recruited” and is already operating, why continue the TIF? If the infrastructure has already been paid off, why continue the TIF? The Economic Development Director from the City of Bettendorf was in attendance, and he claimed Bettendorf has “never used one nickel more” than was necessary to pay off the project. Iowa City has done this on most occasions. Seems like a common sense way to do business – hopefully, lawmakers will agree.
It was argued that Coralville TIFs have created many good jobs. I do not dispute this fact. But they have also created some crappy jobs. What’s more, Coralville’s wage statistics include many University and other State jobs in the Oakdale area, which should not require any subsidies. And State jobs – while excellent jobs – exist in buildings that pay no taxes, and do not appreciate in value.
It was noted that the UI is a huge economic development engine for Iowa City. Of course! But why does that matter? Plus, Coralville has hundreds of UI and State jobs at Oakdale, and the city also benefits from hundreds of students who choose to call Coralville home. The UI is definitely a cash cow – and Coralville benefits!
Sales taxes were also mentioned. I think this is a red herring. As mentioned earlier, retail activity is driven by population and location. So are sales taxes. Plus, many of the Coralville increases in sales tax came at the expense of Iowa City – Penny’s, Sears, Best Buy, etc. were already paying sales taxes in Johnson County, just not in Coralville. To top it off, those sales taxes go to the State, not the County.
Fisher’s numbers were criticized by some people in the crowd. I find this disappointing. We live in a community where academic, scientific, peer-reviewed research is sacrosanct. As a tenured professor and researcher who has been published scores of times, Fisher has tremendous credibility. The onus should be on those who question his numbers to come up with their own.
I have said it before, and it remains true: I am NOT anti-Coralville! Coralville is a great city, forward thinking and bold. The place is full of people I consider friends. And TIF is not solely about Coralville; most cities in Johnson County use the tool. Again, I am NOT anti-Coralville. I’d like to see a different question asked: are other folks anti-Johnson County?
Finally, and sadly – still few people are willing to address the impact of TIF on the County. As I said at the forum, County government is the “stepchild” of governments. It would be great to get more respect!
Why not give all taxing entities a vote on TIFs? If it is a good idea, the County and the schools should vote to support it.
At least the conversation is under way!
*TIF Public Hearing
That conversation continues Saturday, January 21 at 10:00 AM the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building, 855 S. Dubuque Street in Iowa City.
Senator Bolkcom will be holding yet another public hearing on TIF – but this time, the public gets to be more involved! I hope you will attend!
*DID YOU KNOW? Johnson County had 1612 property sales in 2010, 82 of which were foreclosures (5.1%). Through 11 months of 2011, there have been 2182 sales, 73 of which were foreclosures (3.3%). (Source: Johnson County Assessor.)
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
www.johnson-county.com.
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
January 7, 2012
Sullivan’s Salvos 1/10/12
In this edition:
*MLK Day
*Mr. Bloom vs. Mr. Bohr
*TIF on TV
*Did You Know?
*MLK Day
Next Monday marks the federal holiday celebrating the birthday of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. I am so pleased that our country has chosen to honor this great man, and I hope you enjoy the holiday in his name.
We often hear about Christians who feel that Christmas has lost its meaning, union members who feel that way about Labor Day, and Veterans who feel the same about Veteran’s Day. I fear that this could be happening to MLK Day as well.
America has come a long way since the 60s, and overt racism is now typically (but certainly not always) frowned upon. We still have a long way to go, however. Unfortunately, Johnson County is home to plenty of racists. The Press Citizen was all too pleased to offer them a forum for 7-8 years, too. MLK’s work – our work – on racial issues is far from done.
I just finished reading “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander. This book should be required reading in Johnson County. Why Johnson County? Because despite our “liberal” credentials, we incarcerate African Americans at the HIGHEST rate in Iowa!
Johnson County is about 85% white, and 6% African American. Yet we incarcerate African Americans at several times the rate of whites. Juvenile Court involvement occurs at a rate of NINE times the rate of whites. How can we possibly accept these disparities?
We need more discussion on race. But it is even more important that we remember that King was a radical in many ways. America grudgingly accepted racial reforms because they were less dangerous to the status quo than the other issues King championed. King took seriously the Biblical teachings that the love of money is a sin, and that rich men will not be welcomed into Heaven. He proposed seismic changes to the political and social structures that exist in America. In addition, King was adamantly anti-war.
To the status quo, he was the most dangerous man in the world. They were happy to grant him concessions on Jim Crow if they could maintain their financial and military might. The fact that he kept pushing on the Biblical teachings regarding greed meant he was destined to die. He was too big a threat.
Take some time this week to read some of the great books that are out there on Dr. King. More importantly, take some time to read the things he wrote himself. And Happy MLK Day!
*Mr. Bloom Vs. Mr. Bohr
Thus far, I have followed the whole Steven Bloom controversy from a distance. My family has lived on the same spot of ground since before Iowa became a state. I am a very proud eighth-generation Iowan. Needless to say, I found Mr. Bloom’s piece offensive. I just didn’t think it was worth responding. Until now.
I stop to wipe away the tears as I write this. A good friend of the family passed away two weeks ago. Let me tell you the story of Don Bohr.
Don grew up on the family farm east of Sutliff (very near my family). He lost his mother at a very young age. Don played sports, but could never fully commit due to the obligations of the family farm.
As an adult, Don married a wonderful woman and had three great kids. He always wanted his own farm ground, but that was never to be. So Don spent over 30 years as a tenant farmer. He was a good one, too – he took very meticulous care of those farms. It was said that he never walked by a weed without pulling it!
Life was mostly hard work. It was tough to make a go of it. Soon there were no farms left to rent, and Don had to go to work as a security guard at the UI. Each of the kids had their share of problems. Nothing was easy.
But overall, Don was pretty much like every other guy his age. He had a good life. Don enjoyed simple pleasures. He loved a cold Pepsi. He adored his grandkids. Don loved to fish, loved the Hawkeyes, loved country music, and loved to hunt. He hunted every chance he got. In the end, it was skin cancer that got him – undoubtedly a result of all those hours outside.
Basically, Don Bohr is the guy Steven Bloom wrote about. Here is the part Steven Bloom does not understand: the world would be a better place if it were full of Don Bohrs.
Don was kind, gentle, caring, considerate, friendly, and hard working. He was no dummy, either. This may sound crazy, but I know that if I had made some outrageous request of Don - asked for a kidney, or his life savings – he would have given it to me.
I remember once when I was going through a particularly rough time at work. I met Don at Sutliff, and he leaned in close.
“They’re really giving it to you in the paper, huh?” he asked. “Yep”, I sighed. Don said, “Screw ‘em. We’re all here for ya’.”
OK – Don didn’t say, “Screw ‘em.” But this is a PG newsletter. The point is, I knew that he REALLY meant it. He wanted to see a local boy make good. He had a quiet pride in his place and his people. More importantly, when I needed someone, he was there. It was that way my whole life.
Simple does not mean stupid, and simple does not equate to bad. Simple can be very, very good. Don Bohr was a simple man. He was also very, very good. His is the Iowa story that needs to be told.
*TIF on TV
In case you missed the recent forum on TIF, it is available on the web. See City Channel 4 for details.
*DID YOU KNOW? Iowa has more libraries per capita than any other state. (Source: Susan Craig, Iowa City Public Library.)
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
www.johnson-county.com.
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
Sullivan’s Salvos 1/3/12
In this edition:
*Happy New Year!
*Democrats Caucus, Too!
*A Democrat’s Take On The GOP Caucuses
*Interesting Take on Board Actions
*Property Maintenance Code
*TIF Forum
*Did You Know?
*Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to you and yours! I wish you a healthy and happy 2012!
*Democrats Caucus, Too!
The GOP Caucuses have gotten most of the ink, but Iowa Democrats also gather in precinct Caucuses tonight.
Regardless of Party, to determine your Caucus location, call the Johnson County Auditor’s Office at 356-6004.
*A Democrat’s Take On The GOP Caucuses
The Iowa GOP will be picking a Presidential nominee at the Caucuses tonight. Even though I am a Democrat, and disagree with the GOP candidates on many things, I feel like weighing in.
While I believe elections should be about issues, I think much can be learned from a look at the candidates regardless of issues. How can we evaluate candidates without involving the issues? Like this:
Mitt Romney: Face it – he will do whatever it takes to become President. He will change any position. He has no core values.
Michelle Bachmann: We all get the facts wrong once in awhile. When you do it all the time? You are a liar. I have no time for liars.
Newt Gingerich: A bit of Romney’s flip-flopping, a bit of Bachmann’s lying, and the biggest ego known to man. In addition, NO single individual is more to blame for the uncivil state of politics today. No thanks!
Rick Perry: A stupid, pious version of Gingerich.
Jon Huntsman: You say screw Iowa? I say screw you.
Ron Paul: Consistent, and a breath of fresh air. Not afraid to go against the orthodoxy.
Rick Santorum: He does not waffle, and has clearly held values. He is working hard at the grassroots level. Iowa is not “beneath” him.
But for the fact that we disagree on virtually every policy issue, either Paul or Santorum would be my candidate. (I doubt that my endorsement carries much weight in a Republican Caucus!)
While this might seem like a foolish waste of time, I actually think this is an interesting exercise for Democrats. (Remember, I still disagree with Santorum and Paul on almost every issue.)
Even though I believe elections should be about issues, I know that there are “Democrats” here locally for whom I have never voted and would never vote. That is because they have the personality flaws of Romney or Bachmann. There are other local Dems I have “learned to love” because like Paul, they do not fit nicely into a box.
I can actually say that there are 4 candidates in this field for whom I could not vote, even if we agreed on every issue! I find that astounding, and it really punches a hole in my “issue-based voting” theory!
So – what are your thoughts?
*Interesting Take on Board Actions
You may have seen the article in last week’s Gazette (December 28) “Supervisors Clash Over Rental Code”. The article paints an unfortunate yet accurate picture of that meeting.
Controversy invites interest. I have had a couple folks contact me out of curiosity, and a couple contact me in support. But the largest number contacted me to express concerns over civility.
This perfectly illustrates my recent Salvos regarding civility. Civility is a red herring. It allows bad government to hide behind polite behavior. It creates an Orwellian environment where the truth matters less than being polite.
The article said, “One Supervisor accused another of lying.” That is true. But why is that the focus? Why doesn’t the article say, “Supervisor lies!”? Again, our focus is totally wrong.
You can call me direct, or blunt, or even rude. But I’m trying my damndest to do the public’s business in the manner the public deserves. I am not going to stop doing that. So if your number one concern is civility, then you may want to vote me out of office. If you care about honesty, courage, competence, or any other characteristics, then I urge you to tune into any meeting. I stand by my record.
We NEED people to pay attention! Elected officials at EVERY level of government NEED you to pay attention!
*Rental Property Ordinance
The issue that we were discussing was a proposed rental ordinance. The proposed ordinance contains several exceptions. Frankly, these exceptions turn my stomach.
First, all owner-occupied units are exempt. That means there is little that can be done in most mobile home courts, where most units are owner-occupied.
Secondly, the property would be exempt if owned by a farmer. I grew up on a farm. I am not anti-farm by any means. But I was also raised to believe that all people are created equal, and the law don’t care what your daddy do. That is not the case in Johnson County, Iowa in 2012, though. Because here and now, if your daddy is a farmer, the laws do not apply.
Thirdly, properties would be exempt if the renter did any work at all on the farm. This is even worse! It creates a “company store” situation, where poor people can be victimized in multiple facets of their lives. This Board already had problems with farmers housing migrant labor in deplorable conditions. (In 2001 – before I was on the Board, but during the terms of three current Board members.) This ordinance would virtually guarantee a recurrence of that sad ordeal.
Finally, properties would be exempt if one family member was renting to another. Because if a child is going to live in unsafe conditions, by God, that child ought to be related to the landlord! (Yes, if you are sensing sarcasm here, you are correct.)
The proposed rental ordinance is a joke. I will not support it. I will continue to push for a property maintenance ordinance.
Every child in Johnson County deserves to live in a safe home. Period. That is what I believe, and that is what I will continue to fight for. I am sick and tired of this Board pandering to the Farm Bureau, particularly at the expense of poor children.
*TIF Forum
Hopefully, by now you are aware of the new report from the Iowa Policy Project: Tax-Increment Financing: A Case Study of Johnson County.
Abuse of tax-increment financing by cities in Iowa is a statewide problem. Johnson County offers an illustrative case study of why reforms are needed, and which reforms might help.
Senator Bolkcom will be holding a public forum on the results of the report on Wednesday, January 4th at 6 PM at the Coralville Public Library. Local elected officials will be there to offer their two cents. Please plan on attending!
*DID YOU KNOW? The Iowa Caucuses began in 1846, but rose to prominence when they moved to first in the nation in 1972.
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
www.johnson-county.com.
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
|
|
