"There is no joy in Mudville -- Mighty Casey has struck out."
Ernest Lawrence Thayer, "Casey at the Bat"
And there is no reason for anyone in Iowa City to feel a sense of joy this morning either.
A proposal for a substantial expansion of the number of jail cells in Johnson County, Iowa, and doing some refurbishing of the Courthouse, went down to defeat for the third time last evening after the votes were counted. As a taxpayer-approved bond issue, it needed 60% to pass, and lost by a slightly larger margin than when last up for a vote last November.
Nobody "won" that election. I hadn't even thought of it in terms of a "campaign" that one "wins" or "loses." I was not a member of either the "Yes" or "No" organizations; contributed no money to either; didn't have a yard sign. Indeed, I wrote an op ed column urging a "Yes" vote last November -- along with some conditions in the form of my hoped-for reforms of that proposal: "Voting 'Yes, but. . .' for the Justice Center," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 15, 2012, p. A7, embedded in "Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime" October 15, 2012.
It was only during the weeks following that November vote that I came to perceive the proponents' resistance, defensiveness, and "There Is No Alternative" stance as being so intransigent that they ultimately pushed me over to the realization that the least worst of our two choices -- "Yes" and "No" -- was going to have to be "No."
As a result, I have written a number of columns and blog essays since that October 15 op ed column (some of which reproduce those columns) on the subject during the past eight months:
"There Are Alternatives," April 30, 2013Neither you nor I is interested this morning in rehashing all the discussion of the issues in those columns and blog entries. But there is one more that I wish to record here to complete this record of commentary, one that is especially timely since I was asked to address "What should happen next if voters say 'no'?" -- the situation we are all confronting this morning. (Obviously, the columns linked immediately above also explore both the possible alternatives to what we've been doing, both in terms of substance and process.)
"Justice Center's Proponents' Faulty Logic," April 27, 2013
"Why TINA's Wrong; There Are Alternatives," April 25, 2013
"Criminal Justice Center: My Response to McCarragher; The Discussion Continues", April 17, 2013
"Vote 'No' to Justice Center; 'Yes' to Courthouse, Detached Criminal Facility," April 12, 2013
"Johnson County Can Lead Incarceration Reform; 'If not now, when? If not us, who?'" March 8, 2013
"'Iowa Nice' & the Compromise Three-Step; How the County Can Get to 'Yes' on the Justice Center", November 16, 2012
"Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime" October 15, 2012.
The Press-Citizen invited a number of individuals to address one each of three questions. The questions and responses can be found here:
Question 1: Some critics of Johnson County’s plan for a new justice center oppose building more jail space because of racial disparity in the jail and because some non-violent criminals are incarcerated. Are those reservations relevant to the justice center vote? What can be done locally to address those concerns? Contributors' responses to Question 1 are here.
Question 2: Is the justice center proposal the most cost effective solution for addressing the problems that come with the overcrowded jail and century-old courthouse?” Contributors' responses to Question 2 are here.
Question 3: What should happen next if voters say "no"? Contributors' responses to Question 3 are here.
I chose Question 3, "What should happen next if voters say 'no'?" Here is my response for the online version:
Vote again, but separate courthouse from jail
If the vote fails? We should vote again.
Proponents proposed a false choice, both in their own thinking and on the ballot.
As a syllogism: (1) We need more jail cells and courthouse refurbishing; (2) We propose specific details to fix that; (3) Therefore, you must vote “Yes” for our plan or be called a naysayer.
The fallacy was their “therefore.”
In fact, most opponents agreed on the need to do “something.” Disagreement wasn’t about need. It focused on the “something”: what it is, how much of it, where it should be, and what alternative approaches should accompany construction.
Let’s “get to ‘Yes.’” There’s little debate regarding the Courthouse’s interior needs. Let’s vote on that, approve it and do it.
Then let’s give serious consideration to the suggestions from opponents that have largely been rebuffed by the “Yes” crowd. “There Is No Alternative” (“TINA”) is no way to reach compromise, whether in Washington, D.C., or Johnson County.
Years ago “There Is No Alternative” consumed hundreds of acres of farmland with landfills. Today’s innovative, creative alternatives — reuse, recycling, composting among them — save that land for better use.
Can’t we be just as innovative with our justice system needs?
Next steps? Many people have suggestions. Here’s mine: Vote to fix the courthouse — for civil trials only.
Design a more efficient, detached, one-stop criminal justice center — as many other Iowa counties have done — to preserve our courthouse’s appearance.
Explore and implement all best practices for reducing the need for additional jail and prison cells.
There’s more at http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
Meanwhile, as the Cable Guy says, “Let’s get ‘er done!”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org.
Excerpts from this blog content were combined into the hard copy edition of The Gazette in a section it calls "Blogfeed." Nicholas Johnson, "Blogfeed: From DC2 Iowa," May 12, 2013, p. A10, as follows:
A proposal for a substantial expansion of the number of jail cells in Johnson County, Iowa, and doing some refurbishing of the Courthouse, went down to defeat for the third time last evening after the votes were counted. As a taxpayer-approved bond issue, it needed 60% to pass, and lost by a slightly larger margin than when last up for a vote last November.
Nobody "won" that election. I hadn't even thought of it in terms of a "campaign" that one "wins" or "loses." I was not a member of either the "Yes" or "No" organizations; contributed no money to either; didn't have a yard sign. Indeed, I wrote an op ed column urging a "Yes" vote last November -- along with some conditions in the form of my hoped-for reforms of that proposal.
It was only during the weeks following that November vote that I came to perceive the proponents' resistance, defensiveness, and "There Is No Alternative" stance as being so intransigent that they ultimately pushed me over to the realization that the least worst of our two choices -- "Yes" and "No" -- was going to have to be "No." . . .
In fact, most opponents agreed on the need to do “something.” Disagreement wasn’t about need. It focused on the “something”: what it is, how much of it, where it should be, and what alternative approaches should accompany construction.
Let’s “get to ‘Yes.’” There’s little debate regarding the Courthouse’s interior needs. Let’s vote on that, approve it and do it.
Then let’s give serious consideration to the suggestions from opponents that have largely been rebuffed by the “Yes” crowd. “There Is No Alternative” (“TINA”) is no way to reach compromise, whether in Washington, D.C., or Johnson County.
A portion of the online response I provided to the Press-Citizen's questions, above, was later used by the Press-Citizen as a Letter to the Editor in the hardcopy edition:
Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 6, 2013, p. A7
If Tuesday’s vote fails, we should vote again.
Proponents proposed a false choice, both in their own thinking and on the ballot.
As a syllogism: (1) We need more jail cells and courthouse refurbishing; (2) We propose specific details to fix that; (3) Therefore, you must vote “Yes” for our plan or be called a naysayer.
The fallacy was their “therefore.”
In fact, most opponents agreed on the need to do “something.” Disagreement wasn’t about need. It focused on the “something”: what it is, how much of it, where it should be, and what alternative approaches should accompany construction.
Let’s “get to ‘Yes.’” There’s little debate regarding the courthouse’s interior needs. Let’s vote on that, approve it and do it.
Then let’s give serious consideration to the suggestions from opponents that have largely been rebuffed by the “Yes” crowd. “There Is No Alternative” (“TINA”) is no way to reach compromise, whether in Washington, D.C., or Johnson County.
Next steps? Many people have suggestions. Here’s mine: Vote to fix the courthouse — for civil trials only.
Design a more efficient, detached, one-stop criminal justice center — as many other Iowa counties have done — to preserve our courthouse’s appearance.
Explore and implement all best practices for reducing the need for additional jail and prison cells.
There’s more at http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
Meanwhile, as the Cable Guy says, “Let’s get ’er done!”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City
This produced the following response from John Whiston, to which I responded, below:
John Whiston
Having separate criminal and civil courthouses is a terrible idea. It was a terrible idea when it was studied in depth and rejected by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee 2-3 years ago. The plan is inefficent. It requires duplicate service at both locations. Courtrooms are used much more often for criminal cases, on the order of 10 to one. So the courtrooms in the old courthouse will sit there and gather dust. There is no place to put the facility. The University refuses to sell land downtown, so it would have to be built on the edge of town like the Polk and Cedar County facilities. Inaccessible to the poor by regular public transportation and imposing additional costs on lawyers, judges, jurors and employees.
Finally this proposal wjould require years of study, design, site acquisition,etc. In the meantime, Prof. Johnson is sentencing thousands of the indigent to serve time in terrible conditions in the current jail.
Here is what I wrote by way of response:
Nicholas Johnson
John and Dorothy Whiston are both solid citizens, with years of positive contribution to Johnson County's justice system, and related institutions and challenges, worthy of the admiration we accord them. Each has recently written thoughtful and civil op ed columns in the Press-Citizen (May 3 and 4) urging support of the proposed facility.
I just disagree with John's position regarding a detached, separate, unified, stand-alone facility. At the time I proposed it I was unaware how widely this approach has been adopted. It was just that intuitively, logically, it seemed to make the most sense to me. Only subsequently did I discover that a great many others, with experience equal to John's, also support the idea.
(For additional views on the proposal, see "There Are Alternatives," http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/there-are-alternatives.html.)
Indeed, if it is such a "terrible idea" and "inefficient" how come it is so widely used -- not just in Iowa, but throughout the nation and in other countries?
As for "inefficiency" as a result of "duplicate service at both locations," quite the contrary is the case; putting everything related to criminal proceedings in one place is much more efficient, not less, than going back and forth between two facilities (e.g., co-locating jail cells, sheriff, judges, courtrooms, meeting rooms for lawyers and inmates families, clerks, their records, and assistant county attorneys focused on criminal proceedings).
If a part of proponents' idea was to improve the interior of the Courthouse, and provide more space for needed meeting rooms and offices -- even more courtrooms -- why should its present courtrooms "gather dust"?
As for "no place to put the facility" and "years [spent on] site acquisition," since the idea "was studied in depth . . . 2-3 years ago," it's odd it wasn't noticed then that the Courthouse was in the unusual position of having at least potentially available adjacent land to the southeast, south, west, and northeast of the city block on which it sits, for which negotiations could have been undertaken. It would not be necessary to locate the facility beyond the City limits anymore than there was when the administrative offices were moved out of the Courthouse years ago into a similarly detached, separate, unified, stand-alone facility -- generally regarded locally as neither "a terrible idea" nor "inefficient."
Since its design and construction is almost identical to what the proponents want to attach to the Courthouse, why should it "require years of study, design"?
Given that construction of the facility, wherever it is located, will take, what?, two or three years, whether it's attached to the Courthouse or located elsewhere, aren't both of us equally "sentencing thousands of the indigent to serve time in terrible conditions in the current jail" until it's completed?
OK, I recognize my colleague's expertise; and I am not contending that following the example of other counties and building a detached facility is something that has to be done, that "There Is No Alternative."
Quite the contrary. There are many other alternatives that have been put forward by thoughtful and concerned citizens who believe that "something" needs to be done, but do not believe that what's on today's ballot is it.
My point is to simply use this as an example of the proponents' process, their knee-jerk instinct to reject every idea "not invented here" -- by them; their insistence that "There Is No Alternative" to every single detail of their proposal; John's suggestion that because some folks rejected the idea of a detached facility 2-3 years ago that therefore absolutely no respect should be given the idea today, end of discussion.
Proponents are perfectly capable of designing what they believe to be their most effective campaign strategy, but my own view is that the impression their universal rejection of others' ideas has been counterproductive in "winning hearts and minds" of voters. We'll see; my guess is, given their great expenditures, and the likelihood of who votes, they'll probably get their 60% today.
But, as I have written elsewhere, I much prefer the process and substance of the School Board's current seeming openness to consideration of the widest possible range of options in dealing with their increasing student population -- analogous in some ways to the pressures on the jail. Or, another example, the way Iowans responded to the argument that "There Is No Alternative" to building more landfills -- with re-use, composting, and recycling programs that have demonstrated there are alternatives, alternatives that have saved hundreds of acres of good Iowa farmland.
"There Are Alternatives," "There Are Alternatives".
No comments:
Post a Comment