Taxpayers' Money: Government Projects, Yes; Private Giveaways, No

October 28, 2014, 3:09 p.m.

Residents Deserve Courthouse Annex

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 28, 2014, p. A7
On Nov. 4 (or before) be sure to vote “yes” on the Courthouse Annex bond proposal.

Opponents of prior proposals wanted alternatives to incarceration, with less recidivism. They wanted a cheaper structure. They wanted to preserve views, and this National Historic Register courthouse’s architectural integrity. They wanted a “green” building and accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Well, guess what? The supervisors’ response is government at its best. They not only listened, they responded — with everything opponents asked.

Instead of jail cells, they just received a $192,000 grant for their Drug Treatment Court, with employment opportunities for offenders. Building costs are 25 percent less. Views of the courthouse are preserved. It will receive “silver” LEED certification and be ADA compliant.

Supervisors proposing legitimate governmental projects (e.g., courthouses, park acquisition) must get public approval to spend taxpayers’ money. Yet city council members who want to give taxpayers’ money to their friends’ non-governmental, for-profit, private businesses (e.g., luxury condos, grocery stores, motels), can do so while refusing to listen or respond to opponents. Ironic, isn’t it?

We need and deserve this courthouse improvement; supervisors deserve our thanks. Vote “yes.”

Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Why TINA's Wrong

April 25, 2013, 9:55 p.m.

Note: There have been a number of public events held by proponents and opponents of a proposed "Justice Center" box to be physically attached to a 100-year-old Courthouse in Johnson County, Iowa. A bond issue failed to pass in November 2012, and was soon back on a ballot for a May 7 vote.

One of those events was organized by University of Iowa Professor Jeff Cox, and held Tuesday evening [April 23, 2013]. Five persons including myself were asked to serve on a panel, and allocated 10 minutes each, in this order:

Jeff Cox: Yes We Can....Control Local Arrest Rates. The War on Drugs and Racial Disparities
Bob Thompson: Stabilizing Jail Population Growth
Ruedi Kuenzli: What Should We Do With the Current Jail?
Nicholas Johnson: Getting to Yes With a Detached Criminal Justice Center
Caroline Dieterle: Jail Beds for Victimless Crimes

What follows, below, is a combination of an advance text and some transcription from a video the "Vote No Justice Center" organization has made available from its Web site. There are five videos of the evening; my remarks are in Part II, from minute 10:00 to 19:04. (The other panelists are, of course, introduced and recorded on Parts I and II, along with the animated exchanges between them and the audience members on Parts III, IV and V -- which ran over twice as long as the panelists' presentations.) -- N.J.

There Are Alternatives

Nicholas Johnson
Remarks Prepared for Presentation at the
Alternatives to Bigger Jail Event
Plaza Room, Hotel Vetro
Iowa City, Iowa, April 23, 2013, 7:30 p.m.
Because I am this evening advocating a “No” vote on the proposed Justice Center on May 7, it may surprise some of you to know that six months ago I had a column in the Press-Citizen with the headline, “Voting ‘Yes, but . . .’ for the Justice Center.”

[October 15, 2012, p. A7; embedded in ,” “Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime."]

Six months ago I wrote of the need for centralized “rationalization of priorities on taxpayers’ behalf,” given the number of governmental units imposing multiple debts on taxpayers. Regional jails could better serve the needs of the 21sst Century than the 99 county jails that well suited 1840s. I spoke of a detached, stand-alone Criminal Justice Center – both for its own value, and to better preserve our architectural gem of a Courthouse; of that portion of “the criminal population that suffers from the mental health and chemical dependency challenges” and become recidivists; and asked, “Can we do even more to reduce the need for jails?

I concluded, “We need some additions to our criminal justice capabilities. That’s why I’m voting ‘yes.’ But that doesn’t mean additional thought, and modification of what’s now on the drawing board, couldn’t serve us even better.”

What distinguishes my position then from my position this evening is simple: I am less naïve.

I recognized then, as I and some other opponents do now, that there may well be a need for some improvements in both the Courthouse and number of jail cells.

But my naiveté then, I’m embarrassed to reveal, was that we could endorse the proponents’ idea without endorsing their details, and that the proponents would be willing to modify their original idea before implementing it.

What I have come to understand during the intervening months, given the so-called “revised proposal,” is that I was really wrong. I’ve seen the relative intransigence of the proponents; their unwillingness to make any other than the most superficial tweaks in their original plan.

They had a lot of alternative ideas put out there, and they chose not to grab onto any of them. We were left with what Jeff Cox has called “TINA” – “There is no alternative.”

The proponents of the May 7 ballot proposition would have us believe we have only two choices: either we must say “Yes” to anything they propose or they will charge we are saying “No” to everything.

I take a little different position, and like others this evening, have an alternative.

I am not a member of any group with regard to this. What I have been trying to do is to come up with both substantive proposals and procedural ways of evolving them, that could help the voters of Johnson County get to “Yes,” finally vote on whatever it is we decide we need, and go on to the other challenges we have in this county.

And I’ve not been very successful at that, but will share with you some of what I have proposed.

So ten days ago another column of mine ran in the Press-Citizen, this time headlined, “Vote 'No' on Justice Center, But 'Yes' for Courthouse.”

[Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 12, 2013, p. A7, embedded in, “Vote 'No' to Justice Center; 'Yes' to Courthouse, Detached Criminal Facility; Detaching a Jail, Literally and Figuratively,” April 12, 2013; ; and see also, "Criminal Justice Center: My Response to McCarragher; The Discussion Continues," April 17, 2013.]

It was an effort to put forward a proposal and procedure that would hopefully enable us to come to an agreement on this and move on.

In it I made three points I want to leave with you this evening.

In the event the bond issue fails once again on May 7, we need to come up with both a substantive proposal, and a procedure, that will enable Johnson County voters to, as I titled another blog essay, “Get to ‘Yes.’” The centerpiece of my proposal is that we detach the jail from both the Courthouse and the ballot proposition. Here’s how.

1. We should reserve the Courthouse for civil proceedings. There seems to be less divisiveness over fixing up the Courthouse. So let’s vote separately to support that project. By building a Criminal Justice Center that is not attached to the Courthouse, or its ballot proposition, we can get it spiffed up, eliminate much of the overcrowding and security concerns, and provide the needed additional offices and space for civil proceedings.

2. A detached, stand-alone facility for criminal proceedings and jail cells would be much more efficient for those handling criminal cases.

There could be new courtrooms and chambers for judges; offices and rooms for clerks and records, assistant county attorneys, deputy sheriffs, inmates’ lawyers and families, training programs, as well as jail cells – all designed for optimum efficiency by those using them.

There would be much less controversy over its architectural design. Security could be built in

It would be a one-stop shop; a stand-alone facility.

There is precedent. Offices for all County Departments used to be in the Courthouse. They are now in a separate, County Administration Building a few blocks away.

So that’s our precedent. But the fact is there is a lot of precedent around this state for counties that have addressed this very issue and have come to exactly my conclusion. That is something that I didn’t know when I wrote the column and just discovered today.

Numerous Iowa counties have chosen to separate by some distance their civil courthouses from their law enforcement facilities – among them Cedar, Des Moines, Dubuque, Jasper, and Polk. And goodness knows how many more. Obviously, I didn’t have time this afternoon to look at all 99. They have designed almost precisely what I’m talking about: moving all the criminal stuff out of the courthouse, leaving it for civil proceedings.

They know something. What is it they know that we don’t know; something so obvious to them, and so abhorrent to those proposing our own Justice Center?

3. There are reasons to preserve the integrity of the Courthouse. The Courthouse, like Old Capitol, is a valuable Iowa City asset. It is an attraction in an area the City, the Convention Bureau, want to develop.

It may be "legal" to attach a modern architectural extension on this 100-year-old U.S. Register of National Historic Places structure, but why would anyone want to do so? Even if you could do it and not go to jail yourself? Would we put such an extension on Old Capitol? Of course not. Just think of how abhorrent that would be. It’s equally abhorrent when it is attached to the Courthouse.

If we want to make the downtown more attractive to potential residents, students and tourists, and put in little sidewalk cafes or whatever else they may have in mind –- I haven’t checked yet with Marc Moen -- why on earth would we plop jail cells for criminals right in the middle of downtown? Is that a tourist attraction? I don’t think so. And even if it were, I don’t see why tourists couldn't walk another five blocks to it, like we do to get to the Administration Building.

So I don’t see that we get anything in terms of the downtown development by attaching this big box Justice Center to the Courthouse. I think we create additional problems for ourselves in the Courthouse.

We can resolve those problems in the Courthouse. We can provide a better justice facility than anything they are talking about. Particularly since we also despoil an architectural gem of a Courthouse in the process.

As I concluded that column, Iowa City is not like Washington, where the best one can hope for is the least worst alternative – if you can even get that, as we discovered this last week.

Here in Johnson County, we can have it all: improve the Courthouse’s interior, while preserving its exterior and setting. Detach a Criminal Justice Center from the ballot, and from the Courthouse; create one more efficient and pleasant to work in than anything the proponents have even dreamed of so far.

There are alternatives.

# # #

Criminal Justice Center: My Response to McCarragher

April 17, 2013, 10:30 a.m.

The Discussion Continues

This morning's Press-Citizen [April 17, 2013] contains an opinion piece taking issue with one of mine: Nicholas Johnson, "Vote 'No' on Justice Center, But 'Yes' for Courthouse," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 12, 2013, p. A7, embedded in the blog, "Vote 'No' to Justice Center; 'Yes' to Courthouse, Detached Criminal Facility; Detaching a Jail, Literally and Figuratively," April 12, 2013.

The column challenging mine is authored by an able local attorney, Jim McCarragher: "Single facility improves safety, security, space," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 17, 2013, p. A15. Out of a sense of fairness, and respect for this blog's readers, I reproduce Jim's column below, in its entirety, so that you can judge for yourselves who has the better of this particular disagreement, as you weigh your own vote on May 7.

James D. McCarragher is a partner in the firm where I go for legal advice (as did my family's generations before and after me). He is a graduate of the University of Iowa, and its College of Law where I teach. He was one of our brightest graduates. Local lawyers have elected him to serve as their president of the Johnson County Bar Association. He practices law in the Courthouse I am trying to preserve -- including criminal cases.

I respect both his ability and his ethics. I would not suggest for a moment that he is merely mouthing the best arguments he can come up with on behalf of a client; that he does not personally believe in what he is saying, and that it is truly in the best interest of Johnson County citizens. I assume these are his personal, honest, true beliefs.

But it's fair to note, as he ethically and candidly discloses in the personal identification at the bottom of his opinion piece, that he "is a member of the Johnson County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee." This was the group that laid the groundwork for the defeated proposal earlier that has now been revised into what will be before the voters on May 7.

What he does not reveal is that he and his wife are also listed among the supporters of "Vote Yes for Johnson County Justice Center": "Johnson County Justice Center; Vote Yes May 7th, 2013; Safety, Security, Space" -- sometimes called "Yes for Justice" ("Yes for Justice asks voters to VOTE YES to Build a Justice Center for Johnson County.").

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, one of the great assets of Iowa City and Johnson County is its active citizenry -- on both sides of this issue, as on many other issues. The list of supporters of "Yes for Justice" is long and impressive. There's no reason why those who created this proposal should not be among them as advocates for its implementation.

But that's the point. McCarragher helped create this proposal; he is a member and supporter of the advocacy group urging voters to support it; and he is an advocate in this column of his -- whether he is using his fulsome skills as an advocate in a professional or personal capacity.

When a lobbyist for Exxon takes a senator to lunch, and explains to him the justifications for, and positive effects of, the oil industry's tax break called the "depletion allowance," or the NRA lobbyist explains why background checks on gun buyers won't affect gun deaths, it does not mean that the senator should reject everything the lobbyist says, just because it's his job to say it. It may all be true, and persuasive. But the senator might want to be a little skeptical, try to figure out what issues aren't being addressed, and ask an economist who's not funded by the lobbyist's boss what she or he thinks.

I'm not suggesting McCarragher is paid by "Yes for Justice." I would be very surprised if he was. But he is an advocate for the organization.

I am not a member of any organization either supporting or opposing the Justice Center. My own thoughts on the proposal cannot accurately be described as "opposition." Indeed, one of the first columns I wrote about the first proposal and vote urged a "Yes" vote -- much to something between consternation and anger on the part of my friends in "the Democratic Wing of the Johnson County Democratic Party" -- Nicholas Johnson, "Voting 'Yes, but . . .' for the Justice Center," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 15, 2012, p. A7, embedded in the blog essay, "Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime," October 15, 2012.

That was followed with two more, which I also considered centrist and constructive. Nicholas Johnson, "How the County Can Get to 'Yes' on the Justice Center," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 16, 2012, p. A7, embedded in the blog essay, "'Iowa Nice' & the Compromise Three-Step," November 16, 2012, put forth some procedural suggestions. The blog essay, "Johnson County Can Lead Incarceration Reform; 'If not now, when? If not us, who?'," March 8, 2013, was an appeal that Johnson County take the lead in reversing America's reputation as the world's leader in incarceration rates of its citizens.

Nor are the column and blog essay to which Jim McCarragher responds expressing "opposition" to the goals he seeks. It merely suggests a separation of the contentious jail expansion proposals from the generally accepted Courthouse proposals on the ballot, if and when there is a third vote. As with the deadlocked Congress, I'd like to see progress on what majorities agree to rather than a perpetuation of discord over those things they don't.

After we take care of the Courthouse needs, I suggest in that column, we should then agree, and vote "Yes," on whatever jail and Criminal Justice Center needs come out of those deliberations.

Stripped to its core arguments: (1) What does McCarragher take issue with in my column, and (2) which of my points does he choose to ignore?

McCarraher's points and my brief responses.

Courthouse security. My early reading of proponents' arguments left me with the impression they were primarily concerned about Courthouse security because of the present need to bring criminals, and their proceedings, into the Courthouse. If this has really been about security for civil proceedings all along, and there is a need to improve security for that reason, as Nike says, "Do it!" That need, if it exists, will be there regardless of where the Criminal Justice Center is located.

Alteration of Courthouse appearance. McCarragher argues that making the Courthouse secure, and ADA compliant, will be expensive and alter its external appearance. He does not explain why this is so. Most security equipment I have seen, and walked through, was always inside, not outside buildings, and has had no impact on their external appearance. Nor do I grasp his point about ADA compliance. I have assumed we're talking about such things as restroom stalls big enough for a wheelchair; interior elevators, or lifts, for getting up stairs; possibly widening a doorway. It's not clear to me why this would alter the appearance of the Courthouse exterior. As for the cost, both security and ADA compliance will either be done or not. Is he really suggesting that we should not make the Courthouse ADA compliant? In any case, once again the costs are roughly equal whether the Criminal Justice Center is attached to the Courthouse exterior -- where it clearly would have an adverse impact on the Courthouse's exterior appearance -- or located a few blocks away.

Cost of stand-alone Criminal Justice Center. He says his proposal "streamlines spending," whatever that means, and that he offers "one thing instead of two at twice the price," and that spending money on my proposal would be a "waste" of money, requiring two sets of security personnel. These assertions are difficult to evaluate because he provides no data whatsoever; but his conclusions are certainly not intuitive. For starters, the issue is not how much a stand-alone Criminal Justice Center would cost; it should be simply a question of how much more it would cost than the addition the "Yes" folks are advocating be attached to the Courthouse. I don't follow his "one thing instead of two." We're both talking about "one thing"; either "one thing" attached to the Courthouse, or "one thing" down the street. Nor do I agree with the "two sets of security personnel." I was talking about a structure that would be stuffed full of Sheriff's deputies! Are they incapable of providing such security as the Criminal Justice Center would require -- as presumably they do now at the County Jail?

Finally, the idea has already been rejected. Does that assertion, devoid of support, really warrant a reply? How many stories -- that would be hilarious if they were not so sad -- have been told about administrators in all kinds of institutions -- corporate, government, military, universities -- who have responded to suggestions that way, only to have the ideas adopted years later?

Now for what he didn't say; consider the points in my column which he failed to address.

"Relocating criminal proceedings will eliminate much of the Courthouse overcrowding and security concerns, while providing additional offices and space for civil proceedings." Is that not true?

Some of those opposed to the proposal have addressed the architectural design of the addition as dispoiling the Courthouse. I wrote, "There would be little or no public objection to architectural design [of a stand-alone structure away from the Courthouse]." Does he disagree with this advantage?

I wrote, "There is precedent for removing functions from the Courthouse. Offices for all County Departments used to be in the Courthouse. They are now in a separate, County Administration Building a few blocks away with convenient, free parking." Isn't that true?

"Would we put such an extension on Old Capitol? Of course not. We shouldn't want to put one on the Courthouse either. Old Capitol needs its Pentacrest; the Courthouse needs its setting." Does he disagree; does he think an attached, modern structure on Old Capitol would be an improvement for the University?

"Do we want to make the downtown more attractive to potential residents, students and tourists? . . . That being the case, of all the options for housing, entertainment venues, and other attractions south of Burlington, why on earth would we plop jail cells for criminals right in the middle of downtown?" Does he really think a deliberate decision to improve the attractiveness of downtown by placing criminals in jail cells there is a wise decision?

Here is the full McCarragher column in this morning's paper:

"Single facility improves safety, security, space"

Jim McCarragher

Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 17, 2013, p. A15
Nicholas Johnson’s recent guest column claimed there’s a much easier, win-win option to the current proposal for a new Johnson County justice center on the ballot in May.

However, Johnson’s idea of creating a second, separate facility at another location — rather than one streamlined complex — is severely flawed. It would not only create redundant spending the county can’t afford, but it also would not solve the serious security and safety issues for citizens who would continue using the old courthouse.

• Creating a stand-alone building for the jail and criminal proceedings would not solve the continued security and safety threat for civil proceedings at the old courthouse.

Johnson suggests holding criminal proceedings to the newer, more secure facility and leave civil matters at the old courthouse. However, civil cases often can be more contentious than criminal cases when it comes to heated divorces, bitter custody battles and emotional foreclosures.

The old courthouse simply does not have the space to put in the security precautions necessary to detect weapons and other harmful devices without impacting the appearance of this architectural gem.

Other changes to make the building safer and ADA compliant would not be just “spiffing it up.” They would be major and expensive undertakings that also would change the look of the building.

The current proposal on the ballot May 7 would avoid all that by building a new building connected to the current courthouse that addresses all security, safety and accessibility needs without having to make any major changes to the old courthouse.

• Two stand-alone buildings would create serious redundant spending. The county already is spending more than a million dollars per year paying other counties to house the overflow of inmates it can’t accommodate because of space issues. Why waste more?

Two stand-alone buildings would require two sets of security equipment, paying two sets of security team salaries and benefits, as well as two separate clerk of courts offices to handle criminal cases in one building and civil in the other.

Now that’s nuts.

Connecting the two buildings under the current proposal streamlines that spending into one secure system with one staff and one clerk of courts and the sharing of other common functions and space.

In the long process of coming up with the current ballot proposal, the idea of a second stand-alone building was investigated, researched and eventually dismissed. Common sense tells us it’s smarter to pay for one thing instead of two at twice the price.

If we have learned anything from this years-long process, it’s that you can continue to committee and question a project to death. We now have a smart, cost-effective proposal on the ballot that has survived this extensive process.

Now is the time to do the right thing and vote “yes” for the justice center on May 7.

_______________
Jim McCarragher is a member of the Johnson County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee.

My Comment on the Press-Citizen's Online Version of McCarragher's Column
Not surprisingly, I have responded to this column in some detail: "Criminal Justice Center: My Response to McCarragher; The Discussion Continues," April 17, http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/criminal-justice-center-my-response-to.html

In it I reference and link three prior columns/blog essays, starting with one urging a "Yes" vote, that were designed to make constructive suggestions regarding (as one was titled) "Getting to Yes." They contained many of the same suggestions in the most recent column to which McCarragher responds: "Vote 'No' to Justice Center; 'Yes' to Courthouse, Detached Criminal Facility; Detaching a Jail, Literally and Figuratively," http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/vote-no-to-justice-center-yes-to.html

I then try to pull what seem to be his arguments in his column today and respond to each -- as well as, equally significant, identify the points in my April 12 column he chooses to ignore.

It's too long to reproduce in a comment here, but for anyone who may be interested, you can find it in the blog essay linked at the top of this comment.

Not incidentally, that blog entry, in a sense of fairness, reproduces the entirety of his column -- as it will also contain in the future any additional comments he wishes to add to this discussion.

_______________

Richard A Shannon · Top Commenter · Iowa City, Iowa

It's unfortunate that the County has been unyielding on this issue.

From the outside it appears the County's strategy is to keep putting it before voters in hopes they will hit a time a year where turnout will favor their position. As it doesn't appear they are willing to make or consider substantive alternative plans.

# # #

Vote 'No' to Justice Center; 'Yes' to Courthouse, Detached Criminal Facility

April 12, 2013 7:50 a.m. [And see also, "Criminal Justice Center: My Response to McCarragher; The Discussion Continues," April 17, 2013.]

Detaching a Jail, Literally and Figuratively
_______________

Vote 'No' on Justice Center, But 'Yes' for Courthouse

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 12, 2013, p. A7
There's a happy, win-win approach to Johnson County's courts and jail needs well within reach. Sadly the County Supervisors didn't grab it.

So I’m voting “No” on the so-called “revised” proposal.

When this vote also fails, let’s do what almost everyone agrees on: fix the Courthouse. Detach the jail from both the Courthouse and the ballot proposition. Here’s how.

1. Reserve the Courthouse for civil proceedings. Spiff it up. Accommodate ADA requirements and other needs. The Courthouse and Old Capitol are Iowa City's most prized architectural gems.

Relocating criminal proceedings will eliminate much of the Courthouse overcrowding and security concerns, while providing additional offices and space for civil proceedings.

2. Create a detached, stand-alone facility for criminal proceedings and jail cells. It would be much more efficient for those handling criminal cases.

There could be new courtrooms and chambers for judges; offices and rooms for clerks and records, assistant county attorneys, deputy sheriffs, inmates’ lawyers and families, training programs, as well as jail cells. They could be designed for optimum efficiency by those using them.

There would be little or no public objection to architectural design. Security could be built in, rather than reconfiguring the Courthouse.

There would be no need to have this facility either near the Courthouse or more than a half-mile away. It would be a one-stop shop; a stand-alone facility.

There is precedent for removing functions from the Courthouse. Offices for all County Departments used to be in the Courthouse. They are now in a separate, County Administration Building a few blocks away with convenient, free parking.

3. There are reasons to preserve the integrity of the Courthouse. The Courthouse, like Old Capitol, is a valuable Iowa City asset. It is an attraction in an area the City wants to develop.

It may be "legal" to attach a modern architectural extension on this 100-year-old U.S. Register of National Historic Places structure, but why would anyone want to do so? Would we put such an extension on Old Capitol? Of course not. We shouldn't want to put one on the Courthouse either. Old Capitol needs its Pentacrest; the Courthouse needs its setting. [Photo credit: Iowa's County Courthouses.]

Do we want to make the downtown more attractive to potential residents, students and tourists? That appears to be a goal of the downtown merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the City Council, and others.

That being the case, of all the options for housing, entertainment venues, and other attractions south of Burlington, why on earth would we plop jail cells for criminals right in the middle of downtown?

That's nuts.

Particularly since we also despoil an architectural gem of a Courthouse in the process – one that might otherwise actually be an attraction of sorts for those walking or otherwise enjoying the area.

Iowa City is not like Washington, where the best one can hope for is the least worst alternative. We don’t have to settle. We can be creative.

We can have it all: improve the Courthouse’s interior, while preserving its exterior and setting. Detach a Criminal Justice Center from the ballot, and from the Courthouse; create one more efficient and pleasant to work in than anything dreamed of so far.

Vote “No” May 7th on the unrevised proposal.

Then, later, let’s (1) all vote “Yes” for what we do agree on – a refurbished Courthouse; and (2) begin planning, and then agreeing to vote “Yes,” on a Criminal Justice Center that will bring deserved distinction to Johnson County.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

_______________
Readers' Comments, My Responses, in Press-Citizen Online Edition
Rod Sullivan · Top Commenter · Iowa City, Iowa

The problem with this proposal is there is one Clerk's Office - the State will not pay for two - and one set of judges. So inefficiency and higher operating costs follow.

Friday at 7:48am


Nicholas Johnson · Top Commenter

Rod, I don't see the problem. As long as the County has more than one judge, and both civil and criminal dockets to which they are assigned, I don't see what difference it makes (in terms of your "one set of judges") whether the one presiding over a given day's criminal cases is located in a structure attached to the Courthouse, or in a spiffy Criminal Justice Center8 blocks away.

Similarly with the "one Clerk's Office." There would still be "one Clerk's Office" (as there would be "one County Attorney's Office") in the sense of organization charts. I assume the civil and criminal files are kept separate now. As with the judges, I see no legal distinction between taking records into an adjoining structure or taking them a few blocks down the street.

Neither one of us knows until the numbers are run, but I think lower operating costs are as likely (from what I believe would be a much more efficient operation, contrary to your assertion) as that there would be "higher operating costs."

Frankly, I would not object even if the operating costs did prove to be slightly higher (though I doubt that would be the case). As with any personal, public, or corporate expenditure, the issue is not "cost" in isolation, the issue is the "benefit-cost" relationship. By that standard, I think the benefits from what I propose far, far exceed those from what will be on the ballot, for the reasons I've set forth in the column.

Do you really think it was a mistake to move your office, and that of other Supervisors from the Courthouse to your new County Administration Building? I don't. If you agree with me about that, just think about my proposed Criminal Justice Center again: something designed for optimum efficiency, by the people who will be using it, with the advantages I set forth.

-- Nick

Friday at 8:53am


Deborah Thornton · Top Commenter

And we KNOW the majority of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors are AGAINST inefficiency and higher operating costs in all the things they do, and decisions they make! So we should vote for the new jail. Right! Wrong. Vote NO on the new jail. Spork the Jail.

Friday at 7:57am


Anne Stearns Tanner · Top Commenter · University of Iowa

Continue to pay every county in eastern Iowa to house our inmates. Certainly a wise economic policy.

Friday at 8:43am


Nicholas Johnson · Top Commenter

(1) As the column makes clear, I'm advocating for a Criminal Justice Center. (2) And your comment is obviously directed at Deb Thornton, not me; understood. (3) I take your comment to be sarcastic; that is, you think renting jail cells is not "a wise economic policy."

(4) I haven't run the numbers; I don't know whether renting cells is cheaper or not. But it's not as obvious to me that it is, as apparently it is to you.

We don't have a choice between "free" and "$1 million a year" (to rent cells elsewhere). It's a choice between $1 million a year and $40 million-plus this year.

Which is cheaper, to stay for "free" in the beach house you own, for which you paid $200,000, or to pay $1000 a week to rent it for a week or two each summer? Cheaper to buy a car and leave it at the beach house for when you're there so you can use it for "free," or to rent a car for a week or two once you get there? Cheaper to build an additional "guest house" on your beach property for when family drops in, or just put them up in the motel down the street? You get the idea.

It's at least possible that, looking at it only from the standpoint of our costs of holding inmates, it might very well be cheaper to save some of the multi-million-dollar construction costs and handle the occasional overflow by renting, rather than building, additional cells.

(5) I understand that there are other goals besides just saving money that cannot be met by renting cells. I propose achieving some of those goals with the Criminal Justice Center I describe. Those and other reasons may well justify the cost of construction. But so far I've never found the argument persuasive (I might in the future, once taking a hard look at the numbers), that the reason for spending $40 million-plus is: all the money we'll save by not renting cells for overflow.

(6) Finally, our County Attorney, Janet Lyness, and others have been working at alternatives to incarceration: fewer arrests, ankle bracelets, shorter holding terms, drug courts, mental health services, reduction of recidivism, and so forth. We're lucky we have such people. To the extent they are successful with these efforts we could well see a reduction in the need for additional cells in the future.

We'll still need whatever we still need. But regardless of future numbers we don't need enough cells to handle every single arrest 24/7/365. Calculating the optimum ability to meet daily need is a classic systems analysis peak load problem. Cost of renting cells is relevant. But, insofar as cost is concerned, there is an optimum combination of the number of cells we need to build and have on hand every day, and the number of days it makes more sense (at least financially) to rent others' cells a few days a year.

Friday at 2:10pm


Dave Parsons · Partner & CFO at Tallgrass Business Resources

It wasn't clear to me if you felt the Old Courthouse would not need the same security measures as the new one in your proposal. I was talking to an attorney who said that divorces, custody cases and foreclosures are often more emotional and contentious than criminal cases. # # #