Return to Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site

Return to Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
 
 

In the Press-Citizen . . .

Nicholas Johnson, Quotation was Misattributed

Mona Shaw, Correction in Vote No SILO Column

Vote No Silo, With Still So Many Many Unanswered SILO Questions, Don't Approve This 'Cash Grab'

    Misattributed quotation (present in Press-Citizen column as published, but removed from online version)

In The Gazette . . .

Nicholas Johnson, The Gazette Was Source of SILO Comment

Guest Column, Too Many SILO Questions Remain in Johnson County

    MIsattributed quotation (The Gazette)

In The Daily Iowan . . .

Guest Opinion, Too Many Unanswered Tax Questions

    Misattributed quotation (The Daily Iowan)

[Note: This material is copyright by the Press-Citizen, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of the Iowa City Press-Citizen.]

A guest opinion on Friday's Opinion page quotes me as having said words I never uttered. The line was, in fact, lifted by the author from a Gazette editorial questioning the wisdom of SILO. As flattering as it is to be credited with the ability to write editorials for the Gazette, modesty compels me to correct the record. In fact, I have deliberately not previously said anything about SILO in any local papers. I think the complexity of the issues makes the wisest vote much less clear than either the supporters or opponents represent.

My only comments about the local papers' editorial treatment of those complexities are in my blog entry of Feb. 4 at http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.*

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City

* The direct link to that blog entry (although not included in the hard copy letter to the editor) is: http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2007/02/ui-held-hostage-day-379-feb-4.html#SILO

On Feb. 6, I did a Google search on the SILO question and found the following link: www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/edtg0204.html. I assumed Nicholas Johnson was the author of the article based upon on how the information appeared when I opened it. I took a quote from the column and placed it in a guest opinion that appears on Friday's Opinion page.

I have since learned that Johnson did not write this editorial, but it was a column that he had linked to his blog. Understandably, Johnson is unhappy with me about this mistake. This mistake was mine alone, and no other member of VoteNoSilo member holds a shred of responsibility for it.

Naturally, I profoundly regret the error.

Mona Shaw
Iowa City

Next Tuesday, the Iowa City School administrators want you to agree to the School Infrastructure Local Option Sales Tax. Before you agree, you may want to consider the many questions that school officials haven't answered.

What's the rush? The school district has until mid-2008 to pass the tax so it can keep all of the revenues for the first five years (the "we don't want to share" deadline). Such an important issue shouldn't be decided so hastily. (If the need is so urgent, why wasn't the question placed on last November's ballot? It would have been nearly free to do so, but now this special election could cost as much as $70,000. Is the school district banking on low voter turnout in February more than caring how much it costs taxpayers?)

Why is it OK for Johnson County (one of Iowa's wealthiest counties) to keep all the tax money, instead of sharing it with poorer counties? We know that this is the incentive to pass the tax, but how can "progressives" believe that this is right?

Does the school district think it's fair to burden Johnson County's poor by increasing the most regressive type of tax that exists? A family making $15,000 a year pays 7 percent of family income in sales taxes, whereas the top 20 percent of earners pay only 3 percent. Is it right to ask even more of our most-burdened citizens?

Proponents of the tax haven't shown even lip-service compassion for those who will be hurt most by this tax; a handful of exemptions to the tax doesn't dent the tax's economic blow. Fifteen percent of Johnson County's families with children earn less than $10,000. Even another penny from these families' budgets is unacceptable, let alone a 20 percent tax increase (from 5 percent to 6 percent).

Where are the details about what the money would be used for? Yes, we've seen the hastily-compiled "wish list" of projects, but the cost estimates look like they were drawn up on the back of a napkin. The projects built by the $39 million bond issue three years ago ran 25 percent over budget. What assurance do we have that administrators have more precision regarding their fiscal needs now?

Why are there so many deferred routine maintenance projects on the wish list? The district claims it is because they don't have enough money in their annual budget. However, their budget is more than $100 million a year, more than $9,000 per student.

Why have safety/security and handicapped-accessibility projects been deferred for three years? Apparently, the school district believed that their over-budget, $1 million air-conditioning system was more important (for those two months a year when school is not in session). Are we the only ones who wonder if spending priorities might be out of whack?

Why the emphasis on so much infrastructure anyway? We're not talking about the basic buildings, but about the "need" for two gymnasiums in elementary schools, fiber-optic networks and $6.2 million performing arts facilities. Does West High really need a third gym, when teachers must pay for school supplies out of their own pockets?

Do the proposed facilities really promote learning? As former school board member Nicholas Johnson expressed it: "The broad needs of the districts are real if the goal is to maintain an outdated public education system that consumers way too much money for infrastructure."

Why aren't Johnson County's rapidly-rising property taxes enough? While the number of students has been increasing 1 percent a year, school property tax receipts have been increasing 7 percent a year since 1999. At this rate, the schools will get an additional $173 million more than the current annual amount during the next ten years. That's more than the SILO would bring in, and it should be enough to fund the new buildings (and cover routine maintenance), without disproportionately hurting the poor.

District administrators haven't answered these questions. Until they do, we should not approve this "cash grab."

Vote "No" Tuesday.
_______________
The founding members of Vote No SILO are Beth Cody, Mona Shaw and Mike Thayer. They can be contacted at www.votenosilo.org.

An op-ed column in the Feb. 9 Gazette quotes me as having said words I never uttered. The line was, in fact, lifted by the author from a Gazette editorial questioning the wisdom of SILO. As flattering as it is to be credited with the ability to write editorials for The Gazette, modesty compels me to correct the record. In fact, I have deliberately not previously said anything about SILO in any local papers. I believe the complexity of the issues makes the wisest vote much less clear than either the supporters or opponents represent. My only comments about the local papers’ editorial treatment of those complexities are in my blog entry of Feb. 4 at  http://FromDC2Iowa.blog spot.com

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City

[Note: This material is copyright by The Gazette, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of The Gazette.]

  What’s the rush? The school district has until mid 2008 to pass the tax so it can keep all of the revenues for the first five years (the ‘‘we don’t want to share’’ deadline). Such an important issue shouldn’t be decided so hastily. (If the need is so urgent, why wasn’t the question placed on last November’s ballot? It would have been nearly free to do so, but now this special election could cost as much as $70,000. Is the school district banking on low voter turnout in February more than caring how much it costs taxpayers?) Why is it OK for Johnson County (one of Iowa’s wealthiest counties) to keep all the tax money, instead of sharing it with poorer counties? We know that this is the incentive to pass the tax, but how can ‘‘progressives’’ believe that this is right?

  Does the school district think it’s fair to burden Johnson County’s poor by increasing the most regressive type of tax that exists? A family making $15,000 a year pays 7 percent of family income in sales taxes, whereas the top 20 percent of earners pay only 3 percent. Is it right to ask even more of our most burdened citizens?

  Proponents of the tax haven’t shown even lip-service compassion for those who will be hurt most by this tax; a handful of exemptions to the tax don’t dent the tax’s economic blow. Fifteen percent of Johnson County’s families with children earn less than $10,000. Even another penny from these families’ budgets is unacceptable, let alone a 20 percent tax increase (from 5 percent to 6 percent).

  Where are the details about what the money would be used for? Yes, we’ve seen the hastily-compiled ‘‘wish list’’ of projects, but the cost estimates look like they were drawn up on the back of a napkin. The projects built by the $39 million bond issue three years ago ran 25 percent over budget. What assurance do we have that administrators have more precision regarding their fiscal needs now?

  Why are there so many deferred routine maintenance projects on the wish list? The district claims it is because they don’t have enough money in their annual budget.

  However, their budget is more than $100 million a year, more than $9,000 per student.

  Why have safety/security and handicapped-accessibility projects been deferred for three years? Apparently, the school district believed that its over-budget, $1 million airconditioning system was more important (for those two months a year when school is not in session). Are we the only ones who wonder if spending priorities might be out of whack?

  Why the emphasis on so much infrastructure anyway? We’re not talking about the basic buildings, but about the ‘‘need’’ for two gymnasiums in elementary schools, fiberoptic networks and $6.2 million performing arts facilities (Mona Shaw disagrees on this one). Does West High really need a third gym, when teachers must pay for school supplies out of their own pockets?

  Do the proposed facilities really promote learning? As former school board member Nicholas Johnson expressed it, ‘‘The broad needs of the districts are real if the goal is to maintain an outdated public education system that consumes way too much money for infrastructure.’’

  Why aren’t Johnson County’s rapidly rising property taxes enough? While the number of students has been increasing 1 percent a year, school property tax receipts have been increasing 7 percent a year since 1999. At this rate, the schools will get an additional $173 million more than the current annual amount during the next 10 years. That’s more than the SILO would bring in, and it should be enough to fund the new buildings (and cover routine maintenance), without disproportionately hurting the poor.

  District administrators haven’t answered these questions. Until they do, we shouldn’t approve this ‘‘cash grab.’’ Vote ‘‘no’’ next Tuesday.
_______________
  Beth Cody, Mona Shaw, and Mike Thayer are the founding members of VoteNoSILO (www.votenosilo.org).

[Note: This material is copyright by The Daily Iowan, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of The Daily Iowan.]

What's the rush? The School District has until mid-2008 to pass the tax so it can keep all of the revenues for the first five years (the "we don't want to share" deadline). Such an important issue shouldn't be decided hastily. If the need is so urgent, why wasn't the question placed on last November's ballot? It would have been nearly free to do so, but now this special election could cost as much as $70,000. Is the School District banking on low voter turnout in February more than caring how much it costs taxpayers?

Why is it OK for Johnson County (one of Iowa's wealthiest counties) to keep all the tax money instead of sharing it with poorer counties? We know that this is the incentive to pass the tax, but how can "progressives" believe that this is right?

Does the School District think it's fair to burden Johnson County's poor by increasing the most regressive type of tax that exists? A family making $15,000 a year pays 7 percent of family income in sales taxes, whereas the top 20 percent of earners pay only 3 percent. Is it right to ask even more of our most-burdened citizens?

Proponents of the tax haven't even shown lip-service compassion for those who will be hurt most by this tax; a handful of exemptions to the tax doesn't dent its economic blow. Fifteen percent of Johnson County's families with children earn less than $10,000. Even another penny from these families' budgets is unacceptable, let alone a 20 percent tax increase (from 5 percent to 6 percent).

Where are the details about what the money would be used for? Yes, we've seen the hastily compiled "wish list" of projects, but the cost estimates look like they were drawn on the back of a napkin. The projects built by the $39 million bond issue three years ago ran 25 percent over budget. What assurance do we have that administrators have more precision regarding their fiscal needs now?

Why are there so many deferred routine maintenance projects on the wish list? The district claims it is because it doesn't have enough money in its annual budget. However, its budget is more than $100 million a year, more than $9,000 per student.

Why have safety/security and handicapped-accessibility projects been deferred for three years? Apparently, the School District believed that its over-budget, $1 million air-conditioning system was more important (for those two months a year when school is not in session). Are we the only ones who wonder if spending priorities might be out of whack?

Why the emphasis on so much infrastructure, anyway? We're not talking about the basic buildings but about the "need" for two gymnasiums in elementary schools, fiber-optic networks, and $6.2 million performing-arts facilities (Mona disagrees on this one). Does West High really need a third gym, when teachers must pay for school supplies out of their own pockets?

Do the proposed facilities really promote learning? As former School Board member Nicholas Johnson expressed it: "The broad needs of the districts are real if the goal is to maintain an outdated public-education system that consumes way too much money for infrastructure."

Why aren't Johnson County's rapidly rising property taxes enough? While the number of students has been increasing 1 percent a year, school property-tax receipts have been increasing 7 percent a year since 1999. At this rate, the schools will get an additional $173 million more than the current annual amount during the next 10 years. That's more than the local-option sales tax would bring in, and it should be enough to fund the new buildings (and cover routine maintenance) without disproportionately hurting the poor.

District administrators haven't answered these questions. Until they do, we shouldn't approve this "cash grab." Vote "NO" on Feb. 13.
_______________
Beth Cody, Mona Shaw, & Mike Thayer
Founding members of VoteNoSILO (www.votenosilo.org)