Roadmap to Zero

With a majority of voters saying “no” to the latest proposal for a new $94.5 million jail and sheriff’s office, and the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Brad Kunkel unsure of what’s next, we should talk about what the community wants. Or at least what I want.

It’s always dangerous to try drawing a clear meaning from a yes-or-no ballot measure, but with a majority of voters rejecting the latest proposal, some introspection is warranted on the part of county leaders.

As someone who knocked doors, I know some of it was cost1, some of it was size2, some of it was location3, some of it was the connection to ICE, some of it was just the idea of a tax increase4. 

There were plenty of political missteps as part of the work, too. Holding a man on an ICE detainer for five extra days in the run-up to voting, for example, and advocates refusing to grant a single criticism only played into the anti-jail narrative, while many opponents disarmed the advocates’ “but we have to” messaging by simply granting the premise that nothing wasn’t an option forever. 

Kunkel and other advocates also rejected compromise throughout the process:

  • Speaking against a diversion program that would dispatch trained mediators to help settle non-violent disputes. 
  • Ending a partnership with CommUnity Crisis Services and bringing the mental health liaison in-house, eliminating a firewall between law enforcement and the mental health worker and cutting off a network of resources. 
  • Walking away from a joint facility with Iowa City, which would have lowered the voter threshold to a simple majority, because it meant compromise with three jail opponents on the Iowa City Council who everyone paying attention could have predicted going in. 
  • And less than a month before the election, when I visited the jail with a University of Iowa class, Kunkel refused me entry on the tour.

Some opponents argued this was just a building voters should view it in that light, but what a jail is simply cannot be ignored.5 Jails are a key part of a system that disproportionately harms Black and brown folks, trans folks, immigrants, unhoused folks, and low-income folks. And, no matter how hard we try, they are not humane.6

So what would I see that might allow me to stand down? 

The start must be a wholistic plan that commits to a countywide goal of zero incarceration, which would frame next steps while also recognizing current state law and other realities make this an aspirational goal akin to other goals of zero we accept. And it must include a position, outside the County Attorney and Sheriff’s offices, to oversee county diversion and prevention programs with its own budget and oversight power. 

Things I would like to see in a proposal:

  • Direct outside views from cells
  • Access to outdoor exercise 
  • Contact visitation
  • Sheriff’s offices in a remodeled, preexisting building
  • Community co-design, including input from people who have been incarcerated in the Johnson County Jail and their families, public defenders and defense attorneys, and other service providers, facilitated by someone who has an interest and incentive to proposal a smaller jail
  • The elimination of third-party, for-profit communication tools for incarcerated people
  • Commitments to outside partnerships, including moving money currently used for transportation and out-of-county incarceration into diversion programs with metrics and goals
  • No contracts with outside agencies, such as ICE or other counties 
  • Disposal of the MRAP
  • Policies that protect the people under the county’s care and offer real accountability when they’re violated
  • 300 permanent supportive homes to functionally end homelessness in Johnson County

None of these are wild.

  1. The mailers from advocates didn’t even mention it, they were so afraid of cost ↩︎
  2. The proposal would have doubled the current capacity and laid the groundwork for doubling the incarceration capacity in the future. ↩︎
  3. The edge of town right next to a previously rejected site of the Historic Poor Farm was too on the nose or too far away. ↩︎
  4. The fact sheet and calculator actually showed the impact as about twice as high as what it would have cost residential property owners ↩︎
  5. The initial Shive-Hattery report also tells the lie, originally framing the building as a “civic landmark” that can “evoke community pride” and “instill a sense of safety and security.” ↩︎
  6. Yes, even with “trauma-informed design” bullshit ↩︎

What’s Next for Johnson County’s Jail Problems?

Trish Mahaffey for The Gazette:

[County Sheriff Brad] Kunkel told The Gazette he doesn’t know how to come up with a better plan than the one voters rejected.

“I understand the concern over costs, but we consulted experts because jails require standards and security measures,” Kunkel said. “I think we took a conservative approach on the size of the jail and what will be needed in the future. We didn’t ask for anything we didn’t need.”

He also pointed out how much money the county has already spent on a needs assessment and design plan and a community perspective study for the proposed jail and sheriff’s office.

The needs assessment study and design work by Shive-Hattery Architecture and Engineering Consultants cost $673,854 and ended with the proposal for 120-bed jail and sheriff’s office that was on Tuesday’s ballot.

Another $53,000 went to the University of Iowa Center for Social Science Innovation for a community study that polled a sample of county residents to gauge public input on a new jail.

Johnson County Residents Consider Jail Election Results, Future During Board Meeting

Lydia Gerety for The Daily Iowan:

Iowa City resident Nick Bergus explained he previously told the Board of Supervisors the jail bond would fail, and he felt that community concerns about the bond were dismissed.

“As we chart a path forward, leaders need to listen,” he said. “They need to actually hear us. They need to be transparent. We need to be honest about trade-offs. There is not one answer to this, and to present a single solution as the answer is a failure.”

North Liberty resident Daniel Mills spent time before the election door knocking to hear residents’ concerns about the proposed alternatives to a new jail. He said residents care about the conditions in the jail and the people who are being held.

“Our community does not believe there are disposable people,” [Daniel] Mills said. “The folks that are on this board also believe there are not disposable people.”

Mills said, moving forward, the board should focus on addressing policies at the jail to improve conditions for detainees.

Iowa City resident Malina Amjadi said she was excited that the bond was struck down. As the board considers future decisions, Amjadi asked them to improve current policies at the jail related to health care.

“My request is that we investigate that issue and do everything we can to make sure people currently in the jail get the care that they need,” she said.

 Johnson County Jail Bond Fails a Fourth Time

Trish Mahaffey for The Gazette:

The excitement quickly died by 10 p.m. at the watch party at Field Day in North Liberty when the results started rolling in. The packed private room had slowly filtered out before the final results came in, but Sheriff Brad Kunkel, who was confident earlier in the night, his family and few others remained to see the $94.5 million bond referendum didn’t pass. It received just over 46% (32,232 of 69,590 votes). The bond needed 60%.

We Deserve Better

Johnson County Deserves Better, the political action committee running the No New Jail campaign in Johnson County, Iowa:

Tonight, Johnson County spoke loudly: voters soundly rejected a $94.5 million debt for more of the same, expensive public safety strategies. They made it clear we deserve better.

Johnson County rejected a big, new, expensive jail and sheriff’s office, because we want to – and we can – do so much more. Because we deserve better than this. Because we deserve to be engaged about the tradeoffs, asked for input about our priorities, and offered clear explanations of how a proposed jail fits into the community safety ecosystem we envision and that we deserve.

We came to this conversation centering truth and logic, solidarity and interconnectedness, liberation and freedom, a deep desire to imagine more than cages, and love.

Tonight was a rejection of the status quo, of the idea that the community will sign off on plans county leaders devised without us. Johnson County rejected the false choice between this proposed jail and nothing. 

Now we hope county leaders will — finally — listen, and start to collaborate with the community as they should have from the very beginning.

Tomorrow, it’s vital that we set aside the acrimony from the election and look for ways to move the community forward. To talk about what community safety in Johnson County should look like. About how we can address safety systemically and holistically.

We have a year before voters might again consider a proposal. It is incumbent on county leaders — Sheriff Brad Kunkel, County Attorney Rachel Zimmermann Smith, reelected Supervisors Jon Green, Lisa Green-Douglass, V Fixmer-Oraiz, Mandi Remington, Supervisor-elect Sue Dvorsky, and even outgoing Supervisor Rod Sullivan — to have these tough conversations, and to have them with the community and without ego. We are ready to think creatively and to find solutions for hard problems. 

We understand the need to plan for the long term, which is why we know we deserve a plan that includes investments in the systems and infrastructure that prevent harm — meaning fewer victims — rather than those that react to it. A long-term solution means more care, not more cages. 

That’s how the Johnson County we know thinks and works. That is who we are. That is why, as we seek to responsibly provide safety and dignity for our community, Johnson County deserves better.

For-profit Water, Federal Cuts, and Climate Crisis are ‘Supercharging Water Rate Hikes’

Maya Yang in The Guardian:

Corporate-owned utilities charged the average household $823 a year, compared with $494 for publicly owned systems – a difference of $329, or 67%. Corporate systems accounted for just 11% of the 500 systems the study analyzed but represented 44% of the 25 most expensive systems. The study added that 70% of the top 10 were owned by for-profit corporations.

Capitalism eats everything.

Escalation

Yesterday, a coalition, including two members of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, announced a news conference in front of the Johnson County jail.

Today, the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department announced on Facebook:

Due to a planned protest in front of the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office tomorrow, October 9th, our public lobby will be closing at 11:30am. Access to the jail will be limited to law enforcement personnel only. We apologize for any inconvenience.

That, as the kids say, escalated quickly.

It seems just a little bit like one branch of the county government — the one with guns and a tank — firing a warning shot at another. I hope the Sheriff’s Department doesn’t get out of hand.

Headlines

The Associated Press Stylebook offers this guidance for the adjective police- or officer-involved:

Avoid this vague jargon for shootings and other cases involving police. Be specific about what happened. If police use the term, ask for detail. How was the officer or officers involved? Who did the shooting? If the information is not available or not provided, spell that out.

Local newspaper, television, and radio headlines failed to follow this basic advice, instead parroting the official release from the City of Iowa City headlined “DCI investigating Iowa City Officer-involved shooting“:

The Gazette: Iowa DCI investigating Iowa City officer-involved shooting

KCRG: Iowa DCI investigating Iowa City officer-involved shooting

KCJJ: DCI investigating Iowa City officer-involved shooting

The stylebook further offers this guidance around initial reports, emphasis added:

Be cautious about initial news releases or statements from law enforcement or other officials. Accounts by police, especially in the hours just after a crime, are very incomplete and can be inaccurate, whether about specific details or about motivations behind the crime. Press for details and substantiation: How do authorities know? If key details aren’t known or can’t be confirmed, say so in the story.

Attribute carefully and thoroughly.

If descriptions change, say so. For example: The police chief initially said the shooting was not a hate crime, without explaining that conclusion, but later said she believed the victim’s race was the motivation. She said the suspect had posted racist rants on social media.

Also remember that police may release information before officials review footage from body cameras, dashboard cameras, surveillance cameras or bystanders’ cameras. What they see later in that footage may change the story.

That’s why it is crucial to always work to verify and corroborate official accounts by talking to witnesses, victims, relatives and other sources. Use verified or vetted user-generated content to give you eyes and ears on the ground if you can’t be at the scene. Look for livestreamed videos and call nearby homes and businesses to find additional details for your coverage.

Local newspaper, television, and radio headlines also failed to follow this basic advice, instead parroting the official release language that the police “observed the subject with the knife making threatening statements and gestures”:

Iowa City Press-Citizen: Iowa City police shoot, kill person wielding knife

The Daily Iowan: IC police officers shot and killed person armed with knife

Iowa News Now: Iowa City police officers shot and kill person armed with a knife

KWWL: Iowa City police shoot suspect armed with knife on Southgate Ave

Only one local outlet seemed to tread carefully and follow this simple guidance:

Little Village: Iowa City Police Department officers fatally shoot a person while responding to call Tuesday evening

I appreciate you, Paul Brennan.

The State of Play and Where To Next

With just two months before we’re asked to sign a $124.7 million check for a new jail and sheriff’s office, some folks who have been silent about other issues of inhumanity have decided that it’s time to get loud about the conditions of our county jail under the notion that building nicer cages is more humane.

I reject that premise.

I also reject the premise that we are just “talking about the building” and we are unable to try to address any aspect of the larger criminal punishment system.

My biggest disappointment is how much of the planning for the jail proposal has happened without the public and without having these larger conversations. We cannot accept the idea that this is “just a building” outside of the context of the system itself, which disproportionately harming Black and brown folks, trans folks, immigrants, unhoused folks, low income folks. 

I believe most people really do want safe communities. How we get there is important.

Meanwhile, we continue to see the dehumanization of the people incarcerated in our jail consistently showing up in this conversation. Do they deserve less space than a dog? Do they deserve to be housed in a cage instead of a home? Do they deserve to die while in the state’s custody?

A surprising number of people seem to say yes.

I agree that the county has a responsibility to humanely house incarcerated people under its care, but humane treatment has never been limited to a building.

We should have pause seeing Sheriff Kunkel end his partnership with CommUnity for a mental health liaison, speaking against field mediation as a dispute resolution outside of law enforcement, and walking away from a collaboration with Iowa City. If this is a “yes, and” moment and we build a new jail, will the sheriff work on the important partnerships that give us our diversion and prevention programs? Yes we can build a new jail, and we can commit to sustaining and growing our alternatives?

All too often, we see “yes, and” become just the “yes.”

Should there be a future proposal, or modifications to the current one, after Nov. 3, I would like to see these included: Direct sunlight into cells. Access to outdoor exercise. Contact visitation. The elimination of third-party, for-profit communication tools. Commitments to outside partnerships, moving money currently used for transportation to diversion programs with metrics and goals, and not contracting with outside agencies. Disposal of the MRAP. Fewer cells. A reduction in the office spaces. Policies that protect the people under the county’s care and real accountability when they’re violated. A position outside the County Attorney’s and Sheriff’s offices to oversee county diversion and prevention programs with its own budget and oversight power. And a community-wide goal of zero incarceration, even if it’s not in our lifetimes.

Some of these are inconvenient. Some are hard. Some will require compromise. But we have always been a community that doesn’t settle for conventional solutions, and we shouldn’t here, either.