The Morning After

May 8, 2013, 11:07 a.m.

More Jail Cells ("Justice Center") Strikes Out; Third Time's Not Charm

"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, 2013
"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.

Neither 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.)

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:

Still Many More Options for Jail
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".
# # #

There Are Alternatives

April 30, 2013, 11:45 a.m.

"Getting To 'Yes' by By Voting 'No' on Justice Center"

Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan, April 30, 2013, p. 4
Dave Parsons’ opinion column urged that we “Vote Yes for the justice center” (DI, April 29). He is a member of the committee actively pushing the proposal. As such, his was a commendably civil, best effort to make the most of his unpersuasive case.

University of Iowa students have a stake in this May 7 bond election, and hopefully, they will vote. Justice-center proponents start from a false premise: Opponents don’t understand the need for improvements in our justice-system facilities and procedures.

Not one of my acquaintances opposes the May 7 ballot proposition for that reason. Indeed, quite the contrary. Few, if any, even object to spending whatever taxpayer money we truly need.

No, the dispute doesn’t involve whether we need “something” — for reasons Parsons skillfully set forth.

The dispute is what that “something” should be, how much of it we need, where it should be located, and what reforms in incarceration avoidance should accompany new construction.

I’m not a member of either the “Yes” or the “No” committees. I just want to plan what we need, substantively and procedurally, and do it right, while not making things worse. Like the cable guy says, “let’s get ’er done” — get Johnson County voters to “Yes.”

Fundamental “getting to ‘yes’” strategy involves recognizing the distinction between parties’ “positions” and “interests.” Proponents and opponents share an “interest” in fixing the system. It’s the proponents’ “position” that’s caused the problem.

Proponents’ second logical failing is constructing a position on a conclusion that doesn’t follow from their premises: (1) The Courthouse and jail need fixing; (2) We have a detailed specific plan for doing that; (3) Therefore, everyone must vote for our specific plan.

As a law professor might respond to a student’s similarly faulty argument, “I follow you all but the ‘therefore.’” A need for “something” does not, “therefore,” compel adoption of their proposal.

Proponents’ stance is reminiscent of the late, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, sometimes called “TINA” because of her response to opponents who proposed alternatives to her policies: “There Is No Alternative” (TINA).

It’s like the line from the country song, “That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.” “That’s our proposal, and we’re sticking to it.” There is no alternative.

Landfills used to be like that. When one filled, there was no alternative to creating more. Today’s acceptance of alternatives — such as recycling and composting — has saved hundreds of acres of farmland.

America leads the world in jail and prison cells. That doesn’t mean, when ours fill up, “there is no alternative” to just building more.

It is no less offensive to attach a big-box modern structure to our National Historic Register, 100-year-old Courthouse — as proponents suggest — than attaching a similar structure to the Old Capitol.

Here’s one of many alternatives:

Many find a detached, stand-alone criminal justice facility more sensible and efficient — sheriff, judges, courts, and jail in one place. Proponents claim it won’t work. Apparently, they failed to tell that to the numerous Iowa counties that have already done it and like it. In fact it’s what we did when we needed more County administrative space: the separate administrative building an easy walk down the street.

This has the added benefits of preserving the integrity of the Courthouse exterior and setting, providing more space inside exclusively for civil proceedings, and avoids plopping a bunch of criminals in jail cells in the center of a downtown area the City would like to develop for tourists and residential use.

If the bond issue passes this time, “that’s all she wrote.” We’ll have to live with a desecrated Courthouse and other consequences. But if it’s defeated May 7 maybe, like Goldilocks’ porridge tasting, the third time they’ll get it right.

There are alternatives.

_______________
Nicholas Johnson
University of Iowa College of Law
www.nicholasjohnson.org
FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com

Addendum
Something I failed to include in this Daily Iowan column is a response to the proponents' argument that we should build their Justice Center first, and then think about alternative procedures, future trends, "peak-load" analysis (with the associated comparative costs of renting cells), and what our actual need for jail cells will be.

It reminds me of a School Board session during the years I was serving. A proposed new school was on the agenda. I had earlier wanted us to explore alternative approaches to school crowding (such as the recommendations of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year) and teaching (such as team teaching with block scheduling) that would have an impact on both school size and design. The other Board members wanted to go immediately to an architect and ask the architect what we needed. I responded, "You know, normally before you go to the architect you know whether you want her or him to design you a courthouse or an outhouse."

Many of the opponents' suggested alternatives (involving such things as cash bail, priorities for arrests, sentencing, dealing with recidivism, and treatment of those with mental illness, among many more) can have an enormous impact on the number of needed jail cells and the design of the facility.

Following that, there is a basic peak load analysis to be done that I have not seen referred to so far, let alone run and resolved. That involves looking at our costs of incarcerating prisoners here compared with putting them in other counties' jails. There has at least been an assertion that it's actually marginally cheaper to put them elsewhere. That's not necessarily a reason to do it. There are benefits to inmates, their lawyers and families to having them here. But it does affect the peak load question.

Once we agree on the reduction in need as a result of alternative approaches we can project what the maximum daily occupancy will be in any given year, and how many days it will reach that level. We are then left to address: how many days a year do we want to be able to keep all our inmates in a Johnson County facility? How many days a year -- 5? 50? -- does it make more economic sense, on balance, to ship an agreed upon percentage -- 3%?, 10%? -- elsewhere. In other words, how many cells are we willing to build and pay for, knowing that they (like the rooms in a motel) will be empty a giver percentage of the days every year?

The result of that analysis is essential before even designing a facility, let alone building it. (For that reason, it may be somewhere in the proponents' documents, which I confess to not having read and memorized in their entirety.)

_______________
What follows is my online comment in response to a Press-Citizen May 1 editorial, which is reproduced following my comment.

As much as I admire what the Press-Citizen has contributed to civic journalism on the Justice Center issues, I cannot agree with this editorial's conclusion. See, "There Are Alternatives; Getting to 'Yes' by Voting 'No' On Justice Center," http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/there-are-alternatives.html

From my lifetime of experience (yours may be different) I haven't found granting requests now, in exchange for promises of doing better in the future, to work out very well (e.g., "take me back, and I promise I'll never have another drink"; "I know I haven't paid you back that last loan, but if only you'll give me this one more loan I swear I'll start paying you back the first of next month").

Proponents' syllogism goes like this: (1) The courthouse needs fixing, the jail needs expanding; (2) We have a specific plan to fix that; (3) "Therefore," you must vote for our specific plan or forever be judged a naysayer. "There Are No Alternatives" (Margaret Thatcher's "TINA.")

That's the logic underpinning the op ed of the charismatic and able Mike Carberry in this paper today, and the League of Women Voters column in this morning's Gazette.

My response? "I follow you all but the 'therefore.'" In fact, there ARE alternatives, as Jeff Cox explains in his column this morning -- and they are alternatives that can have an impact on what we need to do and build. Contrary to the editorial, surely it's worth another 6 months before spending $40 million-plus on something we'll be living with for the next 30 years.

The proponents keep itemizing the need. That's a false issue, a straw man. Virtually everyone agrees "something" is needed. The issue is not whether we need "something" different from what we now have. The issue is what that "something" ought to be, how much of it we truly need, where it should be located, and what incarceration reduction efforts will accompany that design and construction.

"There Are Alternatives," http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/there-are-alternatives.html is a response to the proponents' argument that we should build their Justice Center first, and THEN think about alternative procedures, future trends, "peak-load" analysis (with the associated comparative costs of renting cells), and what our actual need for jail cells will be.

Proponents have it precisely -- but it's precisely backwards. This is a time, and opportunity, to be truly creative and innovative in response to our challenges, not to knee-jerk vote "Yes" for the first plan to come along, based on an assumption that if we are putting more people in jail the only alternative is to go on doing what we've been doing and just build more jail cells. We need to fix and plan first, then design and build.

We don't respond to overflowing landfills by taking more farm land out of production, rationalizing that "there is no alternative" to building more landfills. We think, we innovate, we recycle, we compost (see, among hundreds of others, the Gazette's page-one story this morning, "Road Map for Reducing Waste"). Can't we be equally creative with the jail challenge?

Many of the opponents' suggested alternatives can have an enormous impact on the number of needed jail cells and the design of the facility.

Following an evaluation of those alternatives, there is a basic peak load analysis to be done that I have not seen referred to so far (at least in local newspapers' coverage), let alone run and resolved.

(It involves, but is not decided by, looking at our costs of incarcerating prisoners here compared with putting them in other counties' jails. There has at least been an assertion that it's actually marginally cheaper to put inmates elsewhere. That's not necessarily a reason to do it. There are benefits to inmates, their lawyers, and families to having them here. But it does affect the peak load question.)

Peak load analysis. Once we agree on the impact on need of alternative approaches, we can project what the MAXIMUM day's occupancy will be in any given year, and how many days a year it will reach that level. We are then left to address: how many days a year do we want to be able to keep ALL our inmates in a Johnson County facility? How many days a year does it make more economic sense, on balance, to ship an agreed upon percentage -- 3%?, 10%? -- elsewhere; 5 days a year, 50 days? In other words, how many cells are we willing to build and pay for, knowing that they (like the rooms in a motel) will be empty a giver percentage of the days every year?

For example, if the largest overflow occurs because of drunks on football weekends, we certainly don't need to build and maintain empty jail cells 365 days a year for THAT purpose.

Answering those peak load questions is essential before even designing a facility, let alone building it.

Let's get this one right. There ARE alternatives.


Editorial, "Vote 'Yes' and Keep Addressing Concerns"
Iowa City Press-Citizen
May 1, 2013, p. A12
As a newspaper editorial board, our natural inclination is to side with those who are fighting against the power structure.

• To fight for those who have documented how about 40 percent of the people in the custody of the jail on any given day are black when blacks make up only 5 percent of the county population.

• To champion the causes of those who point out how the jail population has grown five-fold over the past 30 years while the county population has grown only by about 150 percent.

• To back those who are working to reduce the number of university students who graduate with a non-violent drug or alcohol charge on their record in addition to the one, two or three majors that they’ve managed to complete.

But we think those struggles should continue in conjunction with — not in opposition to — the new justice center being proposed.

If you removed every single black inmate from the responsibility of the Johnson County jail, the sheriff’s office would still be responsible every day for farming out overflow inmates to neighboring county jails

If you removed everyone charged with marijuana possession alone — as opposed to in conjunction with domestic assault, driving under the influence or some other charge — it would have almost no effect on the daily population of the Johnson County Jail.

Back in 1981, county officials caved to public pressure and requested a bond for a 46-person jail that in no way met the county’s needs for an inmate population. And even worse, the county agreed to a design that didn’t include options for expansion.

In 1993, the jail inspector allowed the county to double bunk inmates and thus increase the jail’s total bed population to 92 — even though everything within the jail was designed for half that number.

The overcrowding finally reached a boiling point in the late 1990s, and the sheriff’s office tried to make a case then for why a larger jail was needed. Unfortunately, the sheriff and other supporters failed to show that they were interested in finding jail alternatives for non-violent offenders who offer no risk to the public.

In hindsight, their proposal deserved the nearly 2-1 trouncing it received at the polls in 2000.

But that 13-year-old bond issue is very different from the recent proposals for a justice center that will address the problems of a grossly overcrowded jail as well as the space, security and accessibility concerns of a century old courthouse.

And especially since Lonny Pulkrabek was elected in 2004, the sheriff’s office has been working with the county attorney and others to establish credible, workable, successful jail diversion and alternative programs.

Some opponents of the current justice center proposal suggest the county officials should separate the jail component from the courthouse and then find the additional money and political will required to build a larger jail on county land near the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Highway 218.

Other critics say that the most cost-efficient plan would involve tearing down the century-old county courthouse — a historic structure — selling the land and starting the planning process over.

But we’ve long supported the plans to purchase more land near the courthouse and build a joint justice center that would cut down enormously on the risks and costs involved with transporting jail inmates.

Other critics argue that the current plans for a justice center would detract from Iowa City’s plans for developing the Riverfront Crossings neighborhood. Yet MidWestOne Bank officials — knowing full well that a justice center is a likely possibility for the area — recently announced that they are looking to build south of Burlington Street.

Although we share many of the opponents’ concerns over the county’s incarceration rate, we don’t think this project should wait another six months or a year. Maintaining the status quo means that, any given day, about 50 Johnson County inmates are being farmed out to jails in neighboring counties. That costs the county in the neighborhood of $1 million a year — down from a high of $1.3 million in 2011.

The inmates who are farmed out don’t have ready access to their lawyers. Nor do they have ready access to their families or any other support system. And basic logistics say that the inmates who are going to be in the jail the longest are the ones who can be sent furthest away.

And the unfortunate truth is that some inmates with special needs actually might fare better in those other, larger jails because those facilities will have space for the programming that the Johnson County jail has no space to offer in the current jail.

We recognize that the odds are very much against county officials managing to muster 60 percent support for a necessary county service that most people would rather pretend doesn’t exist — or at least would rather pretend doesn’t affect them. But kudos to county officials for trying. And kudos to the 56 percent of county residents who voted “yes” for a slightly larger version of this proposal less than six months ago.

Tuesday’s election won’t have the presidential candidates on the ballot to help bring people out. But we still hope that those county residents who are interested in providing a more secure and safer environment for county employees — as well as for innocent-until-proven-guilty jail inmates — will come out and vote “yes.”

And then we hope, on Wednesday, proponents and opponents alike will continue to work on addressing concerns over the racial disparity among local incarceration rates and will continue to push for those jail alternative/diversion programs to be fully staffed and better funded.

# # #

Justice Center's Proponents' Faulty Logic

April 27, 2013, 9:30 a.m.

Arguments for Justice Center Proposal Built on Flawed Foundation
Surely it is not really the case that in order to resolve our current justice system challenges, "There Is No Alternative" to despoiling our National Historic Registry, 100-year-old, architectural gem of a Courthouse like this:












When we could resolve our challenges with a more efficient, detached "Criminal Justice Center" for roughly the same cost, leaving our Courthouse's exterior and setting to look like this:













I've got good news and bad news.

Let's start with some good news; an example of a community's successful, innovative responses to a challenge.

When I was a young boy, American communities' response to an increased supply of material needing transformation was to acquire more land to be used for landfills. It wasn't that opponents' proposed alternatives to this approach were rebuffed; it was that such alternatives weren't a part of the communities' policy dialogue. (Recycling during World War II, like rationing, was sold to the public as a part of the war effort, not as a way to avoid additional landfills.)

The late, former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was sometimes referred to as "TINA," because of her oft-heard response to the Loyal Opposition's proposals of alternatives to her policies: "There Is No Alternative." It was the response of some in Johnson County to recycling, or other alternatives to ever-more land devoted to landfills.

There is still not unanimity of opinion regarding today's alternatives. I have a couple colleagues who refuse to recycle.

But there appears to be ever-increasing innovation and participation. Consignment stores recycle clothing, furniture, housewares, and many other things that might otherwise have been discarded. Habitat ReStore has used building materials and appliances. Goodwill Reboot recycles computers and related gear -- a major diversion from landfills, as well as savings for users. We pay refunds for the recycling of drink contains made of aluminum, plastic, or glass. We have a recycling center that accepts cardboard, plastic, glass, tin cans, newspapers, magazines, telephone books, and other paper. City trucks pick up recyclable items from containers at curbside. Unused food and other material is being turned into compost and mulch. Some things have become a source of methane gas, or fuel to create heat or electric power. As a result, Johnson County has preserved land for farming, parks -- or suburbs -- that would otherwise have been turned into landfills.

That's the good news. That's an example of what innovative "creative corridor"-type thinking can contribute to resolving a modern community's, or county's, challenges.

Unfortunately, it stands in sharp contract to how we're approaching the challenges confronting our justice system.

The County is proposing to build a shiny, big box, modern architecture "Justice Center" and attach it to the Johnson County, National Historic Register Courthouse. Defeated by the voters last November, it's up for another vote May 7, 2013.

The proposal has sparked a lively exchange of views throughout the community.

Unfortunately, the debaters have yet to join issue.

The proponents continue to lean on a straw man that cannot bear their weight. They point out that the Courthouse needs more than just a facelift, and that the way we're running our criminal justice system in Johnson County we're going to need more jail cells -- specifically, we have to have precisely their proposed structure, located exactly where they propose to attach it and nowhere else. Like Thatcher, they insist, "There is no alternative."

The problem with the proponents using these assertions as their basic premise is that those urging a "No" vote agree that the Courthouse needs fixing; many even agree that we may need more jail cells that we now have.

Here is an example of their rhetoric, beginning with the comment I put on the Press-Citizen's online version of a recent column written by one of the Justice Center proponents.

Scott McKeag provides reasons why "something" needs to be done about the Johnson County Courthouse and Jail.

What he fails to address is why he believes in the late former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's theory of "TINA" -- "There is no alternative" -- in this case to the proponents' concept of a modern "Justice Center" attachment on the historic Courthouse.

He acknowledges that even "the 'no' campaign's biggest voices... agree the justice center has to be part of a larger solution" -- the latest of which is Karen Kubby's column, along with McKeag's, in this morning's Press-Citizen. Karen Kubby, "Supportive of Justice Center, Yet Voting 'No,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 26, 2013, p. A7.

There may be some local citizens who believe in doing nothing about the conditions of our Courthouse and jail. But there are none among my acquaintance or persons I have ever met.

McKeag's is a false argument. I'm tempted to respond with the old line, "I follow you all but the 'therefore.'"

The controversy is not about whether "something" should be done. The controversy involves precisely what that "something" ought to be.

There are as many sound objections to the proponents' specifics as McKeag provides reasons for doing "something." See, "Vote No 'Justice Center," -- and give special attention to the links to its "Why vote NO" and "Opinions" pages.

And the opponents have as many positive suggestions for what those better alternatives might be as they have objections to the May 7 ballot proposal. See, for example, the very thoughtful collection of alternative approaches in American Civil Liberties Union, Smart Reform is Possible: States Reducing Incarceration Rates and Costs While Protecting Communities (August 2011), or any and all of John Neff's research and writing.

If the proposition passes "that's all she wrote." But if it fails again, which is always a possibility, what do we do next?

In "Vote 'No' to Justice Center; 'Yes' to Courthouse, Detached Criminal Facility," I propose ways we can "get to 'yes'" on both needed Courthouse improvements and a detached Criminal Justice Center.

Is it really the case that the citizens of Johnson County are genetically incapable of bringing the same kind of creativity, the same kind of willingness to consider alternatives, to our justice system challenges as we brought to our landfill challenges? I just can't believe that is the case.

For some of my other writing regarding the County's Courthouse and jail needs, "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.

Now here is the column of Mr. McKeag that prompted my response, above.

"County Residents Agree, So Let's Move Forward"
Scott McKeag
Iowa City Press-Citizen
April 26, 2013, p. A10
I spent my entire undergraduate career at the University of Iowa opposing the idea of a new jail.

I had heard the opposition’s points, read their amusing fliers and took their word for it, knowing that our country has a historical track record of inequities in its justice system. I would have voted “no” to any proposal put in front of me up until two years ago.

At that time I was working with area high school students about how to use local research tools as they worked on civics projects of their own, and I began to see the data for myself. I began paying more attention during my visits to the aging courthouse, however infrequent.

Almost accidentally, I began to think for myself. I remember thinking about how and where I would want my tax dollars spent and about how important it is to ensure we aren’t depriving civil liberties and rights for the accused and incarcerated.

I also recognized the importance of empathy and the promise for a better future for those historically on the wrong end of society’s prejudices. Eventually I had the courage to admit to myself and others that building a large enough jail to meet the current and projected needs of the county did not conflict with my desire to see better race and socio-economic relations in our county, state and nation.

More importantly, I realized I could best oppose the misguided “War on Drugs” by demonstrating that lobbying my state and federal representatives is more appropriate and effective on these larger issues, rather than protest voting against my own best interests as a county resident.

Last November I supported the justice center, and I support it now, because I recognize that our jail isn’t full of recreational drug users and “newly drunk” to “sobering up” students. In fact, an April 8 report showed that of the 125 individuals in our jail at that time (which is 79 more than the original capacity of our 1981 jail); zero persons were in for only having marijuana or only having too much to drink over the weekend.

Those 125 were there because the laws above the county level said they had to be.

I support the justice center because you cannot have the most progressive jail diversion and treatment programs in the state if you are forced to use a hallway as a meeting area.

I support the justice center because our hardworking county employees shouldn’t have to risk breathing in mold spores and falling down 100-year-old stairs to file my paperwork in a room that is out of space.

I support the justice center because we need to have adequate facilities to ensure those who are legally mandated to stay in jail don’t have to do so in other counties.

And after observing the “No” campaign’s biggest voices making public comments saying they, in fact, do support the building of a justice center, it becomes clear that we all agree the justice center has to be part of a larger solution. Their issue is with the increased capacity of the proposed jail, which itself accounts for only about one-third of the project’s total cost.

A “no” vote will only serve to make this problem bigger and more expensive down the road for current and future taxpayers. There is something in this proposal for everyone, and current city and county leadership has even begun to explore deeper societal structures to continue its efforts to engage both the public at-large and the opponents of the justice center.

So let’s fight the state and federal battles together tomorrow. It’s time to stand for Johnson County today. Vote “yes” on or before May 7.

Scott McKeag is an Iowa City resident.

# # #

Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime

October 15, 2012, 9:10 a.m.

November 8, 2012, 9:00 a.m. -- POST-ELECTION, BOND DEFEAT UPDATE:

The Johnson County Justice Center bond proposal on Tuesday's [Nov. 6] ballot went down to defeat. That is, although a majority (56%) of those voting on it voted "Yes," that was not enough to clear the 60% hurdle required by Iowa law.

So the County Supervisors and allied supporters of the proposal have been meeting to decide what to do next. Lee Hermiston, "Justice Center Group Plans Next Move; Deciding Whether to Go Back to Voters; Critics Vow Same Plan Will Not Pass," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 8, 2012, p. A1. [And see also, Gregg Hennigan, "Johnson County leaders discuss possibility of another justice center vote; Another vote would have to wait at least six months," The Gazette, November 8, 2012, p. A2; and Cassidy Riley, "Johnson County officials say justice-center battle is not over," The Daily Iowan, November 8, 2012, p. A1.]

As I commented on the online version of Lee Hermiston's story, "Many of the proposed Justice Center's opponents acknowledged that 'something' was needed, and that they'd support it. Many of the supporters had serious concerns. A chance to revisit these issues may prove to be the best outcome for Johnson County. Unlike Washington, compromise is a real possibility."

Some supporters are advocating physically pushing through the proposal in a subsequent vote just as soon as possible. Presumably, this means they would simply raise more money, to repeat their failed talking points with greater volume and quantity.

Frankly, I think this would be a mistake, whether opponents prove to be right or wrong in their prediction that, "This will not pass, I guarantee you" (as Hermiston quoted Sean Curtin). The comments from both supporters and opponents have left a lot of possibilities for compromise on the table. Johnson County citizens have a substantial reservoir of civility and compromise that this exercise in democracy could draw upon -- to everyone's credit.

Supervisor Terrence Neuzil thinks "the proposed center [could] use some changes." He's said, "I’m not interested in putting the same proposal in front of the voters that just voted it down." Hermiston also reports, "[S]upervisor Janelle Rettig said some issues still need to be addressed, such as the racial disparity of those who stay in jail for longer than a week;" and that "[Johnson County Attorney Janet] Lyness . . . suggested that members of the opposition be involved with those [future] discussions" of the committee of supporters.

These folks are setting the right tone and strategy. Otherwise it's going to reek of the City Council's recent effort to cut the public out entirely on a bond vote regarding grants of taxpayers' money, not for a public, traditional governmental project (such as jails), but for a private entrepreneur's profit-making venture.

There is no need here to outsource our design and decision to expensive out-of-town consultants, meaningless surveys, and endless discussions that never reach conclusions -- except an agreement to have yet another discussion. We can work this out.

I would make one more very specific suggestion that seemed to work for the School Board when creating its somewhat contentious governance policies. Come up with one person who is willing to do the writing, someone who either voted "No," but sees the need for some improvement, or someone who voted "Yes," but sees real problems with the failed proposal -- or possibly one of each. Task them with coming up with, first, as complete, factually accurate, and neutral a paper as they can create putting forth every one of the advocates' assertions for, and opponents' assertions against, the current proposal. Second, have he/she/them work -- separately -- with selected groups of supporters and opponents whose job it will be to come up with the best responses they can provide to the others' arguments. Revise the paper accordingly (including both assertions and responses). Third, select representatives of both camps who seem to be the most inclined to rational, analytical, data-driven, civil discourse on these issues to see what kind of a compromise proposal, if any, can be created.

An illustration of a possible contribution to the latter comes from Supervisor Rettig, as reported by Gregg Hennigan in this morning's Gazette: "Supervisor Janelle Rettig said . . . she’d support the county paying more for the project up front to reduce the amount bonded and not fully building out the facility at the start." Gregg Hennigan, "Johnson County leaders discuss possibility of another justice center vote; Another vote would have to wait at least six months," The Gazette, November 8, 2012, p. A2.

Discussion can be constructive; it is also essential. But my experience has taught me that it is multiples more efficient, effective, and speedy if it is focused on a written document at the outset. As the discussion progresses, the document is revised. This produces both a tangible product from the discussion, greater likelihood of agreement, and a record of the the process.

Just a thought. You're welcome.

What follows is the blog entry entered here October 15, 2012:
Humankind has struggled with virtually every aspect of crime and punishment since we came down out of the trees. See, e.g., "Criminology," Wikipedia.org.

The economic and human cost of the "solution" called incarceration have created both a multi-billion-dollar industry and human failures. "With more than 2.3 million people locked up, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of 100 American adults is behind bars -- while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison [NJ: a grossly disproportionate percentage of which are minorities and the poor]. This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry." "Billions Behind Bars; Inside America's Prison Industry; CNBC Goes Behind the Razor Wires to Investigate the Profits and Inner-Workings of the Multi-Billion Dollar Corrections Industry," CNBC, October 2012.

Prisons have now become America's most fully occupied, and expensive, public housing program.

Nor have Iowa, and Iowa City, remained outside these challenges. Johnson County's supervisors, and sheriff, are recommending local residents approve a near-$50-million bond burden on top of their current property taxes to provide a substantial expansion to our local contribution to the prison industry and our own public housing.

Here is my own effort, in this morning's [Oct. 15] Press-Citizen, to keep to the requested 500-word limit on my own thoughts about the challenge:
_______________

Voting "Yes, but. . ." for the Justice Center
Iowa City Press-Citizen
October 15, 2012, p. A7
Nicholas Johnson

I’ll be voting for the justice center. Some increase in jail cells and courtrooms seems warranted, notwithstanding dispute about numbers.

But questions, concerns and unused opportunities remain.

• Big picture, big debt. Iowa taxpayers’ debt service obligations are about $2 billion. We’ve just promised $250 million to a foreign corporation: jobs for Iowans, profits for Egyptians. Our local school district is eyeing its $281 million borrowing capacity. Downtown development takes millions in TIFs. The justice center adds $48 million-plus. There’s no central rationalization of priorities on taxpayers’ behalf.

• Regional centers. For 100 years — the 1830s to 1930s — Iowa’s horse-and-buggy 99 county governments made sense. They don’t anymore. Politically, counties can’t be abolished. But mental health services now are transferring from counties to “regions.”

Why not regional jails — the low-cost alternative to 99 jails designed for peak occupancy?

Our $1 million a year sending inmates elsewhere compares favorably with the jail’s share of $48 million. Why not continue it for those serving week, month or longer sentences? Wouldn’t that reduce the cells needed for the football drunks and those awaiting trials?

Why are neighboring counties’ jails not full? Is it possible future policy and funding changes with mental health and dependency populations, social and political attitudes, technological and other innovations will further reduce the need for jail cells? Won’t rationalizing our continued, though reduced, use of others’ jails give us more future flexibility?

What would a peak load analysis suggest as our optimum number of additional cells?

• Criminal consolidation. How about a standalone criminal structure — courtrooms, meeting and class rooms, along with jail cells? It would improve efficiency, consolidation and eliminate courthouse security concerns. Potential, adjacent, full city block locations are available southeast, south, and west.

Our courthouse is one of Iowa’s greatest early, Romanesque structures. More than 110 years old, it deserves, and should continue to be, maintained in its original setting — like Old Capitol. That was the wise choice when moving courthouse offices to the current County Administration Building five blocks away. It’s the wisest, win-win choice now.

Moreover, this would enable limiting a refurbished, more secure courthouse to civil cases.

• Holistic approach. A significant proportion of the criminal population suffers from the mental health and chemical dependency challenges that make them repeat visitors. Jails are neither their answer nor ours. Johnson County has made commendable progress transferring these individuals from jails to specialized courts and programs. But might it not be cheaper, more effective and humane, to budget as well as administer to this population’s total needs with a single program? Can we do even more to reduce the need for jails?

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.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City native and former school board member, teaches at the Iowa College of Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.org.

# # #