Coming to 'Yes' on New Buildings and Demolition

June 30, 2015, 10:30 a.m.

And see: "But Seriously Folks . . . Preservation Policy," March 9, 2015.

Building Consensus on Iowa City's Vision, Future

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 30, 2015, p. A9
When it comes to building new structures, and preserving the old, Iowa City needs a process that produces consensus.

Iowa City’s downtown was laid out in 1839. Like Iowa’s 99 counties, it was literally designed for a horse and buggy age. One hundred years later, even with automobiles, the downtown neither had nor needed parking garages or parking meters. Its department stores, hardware stores, five movie theaters, barber shops (for the weekly “shave and a haircut”), Sears, Montgomery Ward and others with farm supplies, served Johnson County’s farmers on Saturdays and residents every day.

Today that function is served by the Coral Ridge Mall, with more than 100 businesses and 5,000 free parking spaces. There’s no way downtown Iowa City can regain its 20th century role in competition with that mall. And no way could it handle the crowds if it did.

For years I’ve advocated a vision for our downtown of a small, quaint, walkable, livable, residential center of history, entertainment and restaurants — along with the minimal number of banks, grocery stores and other businesses to sustain that resident population. That’s something downtown could become.

And because it is a vision shared by Marc Moen and the City Council, it is what it is becoming.

That’s not to say everyone agrees with every detail. There are disagreements about building design, height, and location; the housing balance between those living in half-million dollar condos and minimum-wage residents in low-income housing; and the destruction of historic structures, such as the Civil War cottages. (Photo credit: Josh O'Leary. Photo caption: "Three brick cottages, dating to the mid-1800s, stand in 600 block of South Dubuque Street in what was once the city's rail district. The Historic Preservation Commission deemed the cottages historically significant at its meeting on Thursday [December 11, 2014]." Andy Davis, "Panel: Dubuque St. Cottages Are Historically Significant," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 12, 2014.)

Then there’s the taxpayer funding of private ventures with TIFs and other benefits -— my major disagreement. See, http://tinyurl.com/pntu8gr. But even on that I agree with Moen, whom I also appreciate for his civic commitment, aesthetic creativity — and patience. As he said at the June 8 council meeting regarding the TIF decisions, “I know there’s a lot of controversy about this. ... It’s a political decision whether it’s a good idea or not.”

When a developer is invited to accept taxpayers’ money, whether from Congress or a city council, she should no more be criticized for accepting a foolish TIF than when she takes an irrational, legal, federal tax deduction. If blame there be, it should be laid at the feet of the politicians.

Moen is right. It is a political decision.

But political decisions call for political process. Democracy has never been perfect; it’s just the least worst of the alternatives. Lawrence Ferlinghetti wrote in 1958, “I am waiting for someone to really discover America.” Now at 96, he’s still waiting — and so are we.

Historically legitimate, traditional, public building projects, such as schools, libraries, court houses and jails, do have a democratic process. Governments can’t build them unless voters approve the sale of bonds — bonds repaid with taxpayers’ increased taxes.

Ironically, there is no similar democratic process to control government’s use of taxpayers’ money to fund for-profit, private building projects. It may be “a political decision,” but there is no political democratic process for arriving at that decision. Listening to citizen complaints after the decision has been made is not a meaningful democratic process.

The historic preservation process is worse. Many cities receive economic, as well as aesthetic, value from historic preservation. In Iowa City, with enough developer pressure, the council simply overrules the best judgment of historic preservation groups, zoning boards and previous planning documents. (Photo credit: Andy Davis. Photo caption: "Crews from Iowa City-based Noel’s Tree and Crane service work Wednesday [May 27, 2015] to tear down two cottages at 608 and 610 S. Dubuque St." Andy Davis, "2 remaining Civil War-era cottages on Dubuque St. torn down," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 29, 2015

Imagine if the council voted all the money necessary to preserve the homes and buildings we agree should be preserved, and the developers had to hold bake sales to add more floors to their high rises.

Maybe we need to vote. Maybe quality polling would be sufficient. What we must have is a better, more democratic process for evolving consensus regarding the Iowa City we want — and the “political decisions” about destruction of the old and building the new to get us there.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a native-born Iowa City resident, once served on the local school board, and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and the blog FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

# # #

Gays, God and Plaques

November 24, 2008, 10:00 a.m.

Iowa City History

The Press-Citizen has editorialized about the value of recognizing and maintaining Iowa City's historic homes and buildings. Editorial, "Iowa City's Rich History is Worth Efforts to Save," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 24, 2008, p. A9. I agree.

Historic preservation is always a balance between nostalgia and history on the one hand and cost and "highest use" on the other. But all too often the lure of the latter is permitted to outweigh the former, such that our search for profit ends up producing our loss.

But there are even simpler, and ever so much cheaper, things to preserve our architectural history that ought to be supported by everyone from the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association to the Johnson County Historical Society and Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission.

Some years ago I wrote a column noting how little most UI students (and new faculty for that matter) know of those for whom, say, the buildings on the Pentacrest are named, and the history of their construction and use over the years. I suffer no illusion that the column had any impact on anyone's subsequent decision, but I did notice some plaques ultimately sprung up.

The same sort of thing could be done for Iowa City's downtown business buildings. What was the first business to occupy this location? What were the subsequent businesses? Where was that ice cream shop on Iowa Avenue near Clinton? The Iowa, Varsity and Pastime theaters? Winter's Barbershop? The Co-op grocery store on Clinton in the 1940s, long before New Pioneer? How many people recognize that the sculpture near where 9 East Market Street used to be was originally a part of the wading pool in the yard outside the building containing one of the world's first institutions devoted to the study of normal children, the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station?

There's a plaque on the west end of the Benton Street bridge with some interesting history about early travel over the Iowa River, and on the Coralville end of the footbridge about Coralville's early history.

So it's not like we haven't done this at all; I'm just suggesting we do more of it.

Is a plaque the equivalent of the historic preservation of a building? Of course not. But it will cause at least some people to pause for awhile, learn a little bit more about their town, and maybe be a bit more willing to support historic preservation when the time comes.

Gay and Lesbian Marriage

That gay and lesbian couples should be permitted to enjoy the status of "marriage" has always seemed such a no-brainer to me -- whether as a matter of constitutional law, public and social policy, basic fairness, or even economic policy -- that I've not bothered to comment about it.

Now that the Iowa Supreme Court case is putting the issue back in the local news -- including Editorial, "A Case of Civil Rights," The Gazette, November 23, 2008, p. A9, and Jeff Charis Carlson, "Don't Listen to Straw Men," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 23, 2008, p. A9 -- it's probably appropriate to remove any possible ambiguity as to my position.

Any of those of us heterosexuals who are truly concerned about "family values" and "the sanctity of marriage" should reflect upon Pogo's wise observation: "We have met the enemy . . . and he is us" -- up to and including some of our heterosexual public officials and even those ministers who seemingly find it easier to preach than to practice "family values."

There are two separate issues and institutions here -- the state, and religion -- and it is equally important for the integrity of both that their role in "marriage" be kept separate.

This is not just a matter of finely parsed constitutional provisions and language from Supreme Court opinions -- though I believe they support my interpretation. (The First Amendment prohibits the state from either "establishing" or preventing "the free exercise" of religion.) Even without this constitutional protection, as a matter of social and public policy religious institutions should have the right to admit and exclude whomever they choose -- however abhorrent their standards may be. None should be required to provide marriage services for anyone.

Similarly -- and for reasons not limited to constitutional guarantees -- the state (that is, any unit of government) should not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference when it comes to the dispensation of basic civil rights and human rights. Any denial of a marriage license by the state should have to be grounded in significant and legitimate (and constitutional) interests of the state -- such as, say, a minimum age requirement, or waiting period, equally applicable to all.

Many of our disagreements regarding acceptable behavior could be at least moderated, if not eliminated, if we could focus on, and agree that there are distinctions between: (a) this is the behavior required of those who belong to our religion, and if you are unwilling to behave that way we will ban you from our religious organization, and (b) this is the behavior required of those who belong to our religion, and we believe so deeply in the importance of these standards that we insist the state to adopt and apply them to everyone on pain of fines and imprisonment. It is a distinction embodied in the bumper sticker: "Opposed to abortion? Don't have one."

In sum, gay and lesbian couples should have the right to obtain a marriage license from the state, but should not have the right to insist that a reluctant religious institution perform a marriage ceremony for them.

Which brings us to the use of the word "marriage" rather than, say, "civil union" -- in a case in which the substantive legal rights granted by either would be identical. Words do matter; wars are fought over them. And I can understand (while rejecting, and not sharing) the feelings of those who feel threatened by gay "marriage" but not by gay "civil unions."

Nonetheless, I guess on balance I think it's a little silly -- and even a bit mean-spirited -- if we are going to grant gays and lesbians the rights of married couples (by whatever name), as I believe we should (and believe the constitution says we must) -- to deny them the added primarily social benefits that flow from being able to characterize their relationship as "marriage."

# # #