SULLIVAN'S SALVOS
September 27, 2013
Sullivan’s
Salvos 10/1/13
In this edition:
*North Liberty Book Talk
*Poor Farm
*Did You Know?
*North Liberty Book Talk
The
UNESCO City of Literature organization is hosting another series of Book Talks,
this time in the newly renovated North Liberty public library. The event will
be Wednesday, October 2 from noon-1pm.
The list of Book Reviewers includes Mayor Tom Salm; local
children’s author Dori Butler; State Representative Sally Stutsman; Assistant
Hawkeye Wrestling Coach Luke Eustice; local publisher Steve Semken; and the
North Liberty Leader’s Lori Lindner.
The
event is free and open to the public. Call 356-5245 for more info.
*Poor Farm
Johnson
County has been talking about redevelopment of the County Poor Farm for several
decades now. Recent discussions lead me to believe that things may start
happening there sooner rather than later. But first, some background:
The county has owned this property since 1855.
Every county had a poor farm; Johnson County’s is the last one standing. It
originally had around 200 acres and now has 160, of which about 130 acres are
still farmed. The property also includes land that is home to the Joint
Emergency Communications Center (JECC) and Chatham Oaks, a residential care facility
for people with mental illness. The property is now completely within the Iowa
City city limits, and is completely bordered by houses on the south side.
The
Poor Farm initially had two functions. One was as a residential facility for
people living in poverty who would work the land in return for food and shelter
on a temporary basis. There also was an asylum for the mentally ill, who were
expected to work to the best of their abilities. The asylum building is already
on the National Register of Historic Places; we have recently applied for this
status for the whole farm.
Unfortunately,
the county allowed the buildings to fall into disrepair over the years. We are
now faced with either paying to fix them up, or tearing them down altogether.
It seems that the whole Board is in favor of preserving the buildings.
This
may be where our agreement ends, however.
Most
Supervisors have expressed interest in some type of a west side park. We do not
necessarily agree as to what type of park, how large, county or city, and other
details. One Supervisor talked about a Living History Farms-type of park;
others feel that is unrealistic in terms of costs. But there appears to be
support for some type of park. There also appears to be agreement on running a
trail along an existing path from the southeast portion of the property up to
the northwest.
There
has also been talk around using a portion of the property to support the local
foods movement. We have had discussions with a couple of entities that are
interested in doing some farming at this location. Each has a slightly
different twist; I’m not certain there is agreement as to whom we’d like to
work with and what we’d allow them to do.
Supervisors
have discussed keeping a portion of the ground in production agriculture. This
can get complicated; the more land we commit to parks and other uses, the less
likely someone will continue to farm it. It may simply become too much of a
hassle. There may also be conflicts between groups who want to raise vegetables
organically and a renter who applies chemicals.
We have discussed the possibility of selling off a portion of the
farm for housing. At least one Supervisor has said no to this idea. Other
Supervisors point out that selling off some residential lots would help fund
the other plans for redevelopment.
Additionally, Supervisor Etheridge has expressed a desire to move
most of County government to this location. That would undoubtedly squelch any
plans for a park. Frankly, this plan would be prohibitively expensive, and I do
not sense anyone else being supportive of that plan. It does, however, make it
more difficult to find the three votes necessary to do anything else.
So,
you ask… Rod, what is your suggestion?
*I
think maintenance of the buildings is a must. I want to see them fixed up to
historic standards and used. The buildings need to be surrounded by
interpretive panels that explain the history of the place. This WILL cost
money!
*I
want to see a portion of the ground (and perhaps some buildings) used in
support of local foods. Whoever we contract with should provide jobs to people
in need; that is in keeping with the history of the place.
*I
like the idea of some continued row crop farming, but the Board needs to
understand that other commitments may make this economically unfeasible. If
that is the case, we should convert the row crop ground to prairie.
*I
am in favor of significant housing development in the area. These would be
attractive lots, much like the lots that surround Hickory Hill. By selling some
lots, the County could help to fund the repair and maintenance of buildings,
the building of a trail and restrooms, and set up a fund to support these
efforts into the future. I don’t see a major difference between a 130-acre park
and a 100-acre park. But the money that could be made from the sale of 30 acres
would make a HUGE difference in the future of this place!
*Finally, and in my mind, most importantly, I think the County
MUST seize this opportunity and create some low income housing as part of a
housing mix. I firmly believe that the number one issue facing Johnson County is
the lack of affordable housing. We have an opportunity here to help address our
number one problem – we should not let it pass!
This area is within walking distance of Webber Elementary, which
is a fairly low FRL school. City bus service already exists in the area. The
housing that in this part of town is NOT diverse; we could assist with that. We
should develop some of the land into housing for a very diverse mix of incomes,
including people who are very poor.
My plan has not been discussed with the City of Iowa City. Even if
I can get two additional Supervisors to agree with me, Iowa City could scuttle
the idea. This is because as I noted earlier, the whole Poor Farm is within the
Iowa City corporate limits. I hope this will not happen – as I noted, I believe
affordable housing to be our number one challenge. Hopefully two more
Supervisors and Iowa City will agree.
We talk about the Poor Farm, and our focus is always on the “Farm”
part of the equation. I think we need to put more focus on the “Poor” part of
the equation.
Our forefathers had a way, albeit crude, of housing the poorest
among us. Over 150 years later, affordable housing is the number one problem in
Johnson County. We should not lose sight of this.
I simply cannot support any type of redevelopment at the Poor Farm
that does not include a healthy dose of low-income housing.
So
– what are YOUR thoughts? What should the Board do with the Johnson County Poor
Farm?
*DID YOU KNOW?
Iowa City recently did an “Affordable Housing Market Analysis”,
available here: http://www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/file/planning/commDev/hsngAnalysis.pdf
Anyone
interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the
County website-
"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
posted by Rod Sullivan @ 12:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home