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.

# # #

'Iowa Nice' & the Compromise Three-Step

November 16, 2012, 7:20 a.m.

"How the County Can Get to 'Yes' on the Justice Center"
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
November 16, 2012, p. A7

The Justice Center bond proposal was defeated November 6. What’s next?

That’s what the County Supervisors and their supporters are asking.

Some want to turn up the volume on their megaphone, spend more on better public relations and advertising, and push the original proposal one more time – kind of like a Hawkeyes’ fourth-and-goal brute force effort.

But Supervisor Terrence Neuzil says, "I’m not interested in putting the same proposal in front of the voters that just voted it down." He thinks, "the proposed center [could] use some changes." Supervisor Janelle Rettig notes the racial disparity of those who stay in jail for longer than a week. County Attorney Janet Lyness thinks supporters should include in their future discussions those who oppose the bond.

These folks are setting the right tone and strategy. Brute force reeks of the City Council's recent effort to end run a public vote when giving away taxpayers’ money to private profit projects. Or the School Board’s attempt to sell property owners on funding schools with a sales tax that will fall hardest on the poor – until the tail on this scorpion flips back on them years later.

The Justice Center, by contrast, can emerge from democracy at its best.

Consider: Many opponents acknowledge that “something” is needed. Many supporters have serious concerns. Unlike in Washington, D.C., a Johnson County compromise is possible.

Both supporters and opponents left a lot of alternatives on the table, and can bring to it a substantial reservoir of civility -- to everyone's credit.

There is no need for consultants, meaningless surveys, and endless discussions that never reach conclusions -- except the agreement to have yet another meeting. We can work this out.

I would make one suggestion that’s worked elsewhere.

Find one or two persons willing to do some writing. Task them to put forth each of the advocates' assertions for, and opponents' assertions against, the current proposal.

Second, have them meet, first with selected groups of supporters, and then with opponents, to come up with the best responses each group provides to the others' arguments. Revise the first 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. See what kind of a compromise proposal, if any, can be created when they meet.

My allotted 500 words don’t permit itemizing all arguments pro and con, let alone possible compromises. Many have appeared in these pages over the past few weeks, including an earlier column of mine embedded in http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2012/10/prisons-costs-and-challenges-of-crime.html. To them, Supervisor Rettig has recently added “building in stages.”

Discussion can be constructive; it is essential. But it can be multiples more efficient and effective if it is focused on written documents, revised as the discussion progresses.

In my experience, this approach can produce a tangible product from the discussion, greater likelihood of agreement, and a record of the process.

It also just might produce a Justice Center proposal with over 60 percent support.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law, formerly served on the local school board, and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

# # #