By David Sterling, Iowa City
On Tuesday, Sept. 16, the four members of Iowa City’s City Council majority engaged in divisive behavior toward the public, revealing a deep‑seated contempt toward any opposition from their constituents. Despite being good-hearted people with good intentions, Councilors Alter, Harmsen, Moe, and Mayor Teague showed they are out of touch with the public, and the political realities we face.
Central to the meeting was a proposal by Johnson County to join them in creating a new, larger jail that Iowa City Police could move into, to be partially run by a new board appointed by both governments. Despite 100 percent public opposition at this meeting, and none of the councilors having run on ceding City Council power in such a manner, four councilors (Alter, Harmsen, Moe, Teague) voted in favor. They acknowledged but disregarded uncertain logistics, a padded price full of waste touted as $10 million in unexplained “savings,” and a contentious location. But these were just the surface of the complaints.
The county jail has long been misused as a cheap alternative to investing in rehabilitation, resulting in overflow inmates being shipped elsewhere in a costly and inhumane manner. This new building’s addition of extra jail beds wouldn’t just delay systemic failure, but also delay proven long-term solutions like diversion, rehab, and housing.
Of further concern was the board that would take control of this project. It was to include a single appointee from the City and County each, plus a third appointee requiring agreement by both, or else the governor’s office steps in. No other city in Johnson County would have a voice, giving Iowa City undue influence and preference over regional policing.
Alter primarily focused on the state of City Hall being intolerable, failing to address that this would only replace half of that building.
Moe assured that the city could back out later, not acknowledging how doing so would waste city funds and council’s time.
Harmsen visibly lost his temper, dismissing opponents as simply being anti-jail. He then praised that this was “more democratic” because it would circumvent the need for 60 percent county voter approval by lowering it to 50 percent.
Teague promised to vote no further down the line if the location wasn’t changed, but the city attorney clarified it was inherent to the proposal.
None could confidently explain the proposal’s key details, including how $10 million would supposedly be saved by going this route, and none showed an understanding of why it was being opposed. None could even recognize the clear compromise of replacing the jail at current capacity and running it better.
Iowa City spends about $17 million annually on its police department. Local funds for housing crisis programs and worker/renter protections are at least 10 times smaller. Police can only respond to a small percentage of crimes in our city, and only after they’ve happened. We spend comparatively little to inoculate regular people against a large percentage of crimes before they happen.
Meanwhile, federal and state governments threaten us with fascist tactics, dividing communities, stripping our tax power, and threatening military crackdowns. To give away voting power, waste city funds, and spend time opposing the public in favor of a flawed experiment will only deepen our divisions and increase crime.
The councilors supporting this resolution have a history of this behavior. Earlier this year they endorsed a council candidate who had voiced a desire to “work with” the Reynolds administration and ICE. Were he on council and were this expanded jail to pass, it could be used to incarcerate the very council and county boards approving it.
Alter, Harmsen, Moe, and Teague are too invested in maintaining an unsustainable system that presents itself to them as equitable, but serves an increasingly monied few. They do not see that if they can fund a superjail, they can also fix our roads and staff our buses.
Three of these four are up for re-election this November, and only one needs to be unseated to end the majority that led to this wasteful, divisive exercise. No matter how gloomy things might look in terms of state and federal elections, we still have power here at the local level. Even if not all of our city councilors appreciate that.
