HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-07 Correspondencer
^ 4 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY 3 1
..m INN
ow COT MEMORANDUM
Date: May 5, 2011
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Ronald R. Knoche, City Engineer
Re: Competitive Quotation Results
EECBG Mercer Recreation Center Improvement Project
Competitive quotations for the EECBG Mercer Recreation Center Improvement Project
were opened on May 19, 2011 and the following quotes were received:
Merit Electric Iowa City, IA $ 72,900.00
Advanced Electrical Services Iowa City, IA $ 97,350.00
Olney Electric North Liberty, IA Bid Withdrawn
Engineer's Estimate $ 68,000.00
Public Works and Engineering recommended and the City Manager awarded the
contract to Merit Electric of Iowa City, Iowa. The project will be funded with EECBG
funds.
EECBG Robert A. Lee Recreation Center Improvement Project
Competitive quotations for the EECBG Robert A. Lee Recreation Center Improvement
Project were opened on May 18, 2011 and the following quotes were received:
Advanced Electrical Services Iowa City, IA $ 52,073.00
Merit Electric Iowa City, IA $ 58,100.00
Olney Electric North Liberty, IA $ 70,191.00
Engineer's Estimate $95,450.00
Public Works and Engineering recommended and the City Manager awarded the
contract to Advanced Electrical Services of Iowa City, Iowa. The project will be funded
with EECBG funds.
06 -07 -11
3 2
Marian Karr
From: Tom Markus
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:08 AM
To: 'katee. b.lynch @gmail.com'
Cc: *City Council
Subject: FW: Citizen Survey
Dear Katee:
Thank you for your email communication to the City Council. Council members do not receive their emails
directly. Your message will be forwarded to them and accepted as official correspondence at the next Council
meeting.
You pose some important considerations. Please allow me to provide some information that I hope you will
find beneficial. There are different thoughts on the best approach to conduct surveys. The City of Iowa City is
conducting a statistically valid +1 -5% of Iowa City registered voters from current information provided by the
Johnson County Commission of Elections. Registered voters are considered to be the best source of
information about local issues. Telephone numbers used are a combination of both land line and cell phone. A
telephone survey allows citizens to speak with a person and express concerns that may be captured for
additional analysis. Mail surveys tend to take longer to complete and may not be as reliable.
During our discussion to select a survey company we considered national firms that specialize in this area;
however, we chose The Thomas Group, a small locally owned family business that has been working with cities
for a number of years. National firms tend to offer off the shelf products, however, we felt we needed a survey
designed to meet the specific needs for Iowa City which is what our consultant did for us - working together to
identify the issues and develop survey questions.
While we understand focus groups can be many and varied, we chose to use the telephone survey process as a
method to receive input from our citizens. The survey process was chosen to provide statistically valid
stakeholder information for a cross section of our citizenry and businesses. While stakeholder focus groups
may have provided additional information we believe with the number of stakeholder groups located in Iowa
City that use of the surveying tool instead of multiple focus groups was a more efficient and statistically valid
approach to achieving stakeholder input.
Thank you again for writing, Katee. I hope you find this information helpful.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Markus, City Manager
Iowa City
From: Katee Lynch < katee. b. lncnch@ gmail .com <mailto:katee.b.lynch(i ,gmail.com>>
Date: May 14, 20119:51:29 AM CDT
To: <councilkiowa- city .org <mailto: council kiowa- c�or >>
Subject: Citizen Survey
I read your news release about an upcoming survey of citizens. This is
something I am studying as part of my political science studies in college.
I keep current with Iowa City happenings since I grew up here. Regarding
the survey I have the following comments and questions:
I notice you are relying solely on a phone survey. Have you considered
printed, mailed surveys? These can be done at much less cost. I am also
wondering what your methodology is to make ensure that cell phone users are
represented in the survey. University students and others of all ages are
relying solely on cell phones now and traditional phone surveys are often
at odds with the goal of reaching a representative group. University
students are also vacating the city for the year at this point in time
since the academic year is over. This might result in an
underrepresentation of university students in the survey.
I did not see the name of the national survey company in the news release.
There are several top ranked firms that deal exclusively with citizen
satisfaction surveys. The national city management assoc. also has a
relatively low -cost system that many cities use. The reason I ask this is
that it would be helpful to provide the name of the survey group in the
news release so that when people see that name on their caller ID, they
might be more apt to answer the phone. As you know, many use their caller
IDs to screen their calls, and if they don't recognize the name they will
just let it ring thinking it is a telemarketer.
Will their be any option for an online survey? I realize this would not be
considered scientific, but it might be a way to involve others that are not
one of the few hundred called for a telephone survey. The results could be
separated out from the phone results for purposes of the tabulation.
I read with interest the section on "focus groups ". I was really surprised
that only city staff are included along with Council in the focus groups.
This appears to be a lost opportunity to receive input from both local
leaders and citizens, such as business and industry executives, University
administration, church/non - profit representatives, etc. Focus groups by
definition are a way to inject fresh, outside ideas into an organization,
to keep it in touch with needs and expectations of its customers, in this
case citizens. Just having city staff, many of whom I understand have
significant seniority having been in place for several decades, may not be
the best way to get this process off to a good start as far as setting
innovative goals which may take quite a bit of management energy to
achieve. Certainly staff should be represented, but their opinions should
be balanced with those of the citizens. I don't believe the staff should
be the sole primary input group along with the City Council. Most similar
survey processes involve a facilitator who gathers input from many sources,
not just municipal employees. It makes the final end product more credible
if citizens are represented in the process.
Thanks for your consideration and best wishes on this project. I hope the
survey process will be repeated regularly to measure continuing trends with
citizen satisfaction and concerns, along with assessment of goal
achievement. I look forward to viewing the results on the city website
when they are released. I'll watch for a news release when that occurs.
ow
:31q (3
Marian Karr
From: Matt Hayek
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 4:18 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: FW: "dude" housing... a growing cancer for the NearNorthside
From: Steve Smith [stephenksmith @hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 7:47 AM
To: Matt Hayek; Mike Wright; Ross Wilburn; Susan Mims
Subject: FW: "dude" housing... a growing cancer for the NearNorthside
I am forwarding this to the other council members. Unfortunately, 2 members do NOT have email addresses
for the public to contact them. I respectfully ask that they join the world of modern communication, and obtain
email through the City - -makes it a lot easier and less expensive for us citizens to contact them. Perhaps one of
you who receives this email can send smoke signals or semaphor or pony express to Councilman Dickens and
Councilwoman Champion. Be sure and write it with a quill.
thank you, Steve Smith
From: stephenksmith @hotmail.com
To: regenia - bailey @iowa - city.org
Subject: "dude" housing... a growing cancer for the NearNorthside
Date: Fri, 13 May 201107:36:03 -0500
Dear Councilperson Bailey,
Hello! We hope you are well and the burdens you carry don't strain your trapezius!
I'm Steve Smith. My wife and myself live at 431 N. Van Buren St. (gray house, corner of V. Buren/Fairchild).
There is a persistent problem, and we don't know if anything can be done about it. Here's the issue: wealthy
parents buying their little boys houses in the Near North side, and their boy is a freshman college student who
then rents out rooms to his buddies -- making the house, essentially, a mini fraternity house or dorm house. The
greedy parents are happy, because they get the ever - increasing equity after sonny -boy leaves and they sell.
The problem with letting this type of property transfer occur in our neighborhood is that it's slowly beginning to
make us single - family folk reconsider staying in this neighborhood. Becky and I enjoy the mix of some student
housing (big old houses that have been sub - divided into rooms for a long time). Slowly but surely, there is a
dwindling number of families, retirees, working folks, etc. because of "dude -dom ".
If the "boys" (and most are freshman and uncivilized, screaming drunk and taking up the streets pretending
they're Coach Ferentz's new quarterbacks) live here, they often are loud, get drunk and scream at each other,
walk past our house yelling and being totally oblivious that their egos and "id" are not compatible with living in
peace with their neighbors -- houses close together. In the "olden" days gone by, one COULD live close to ones
neighbor because the neighbor WAS a neighbor and was conscious of being a GOOD one.
I have been told that there is an ordinance to prevent "nursery houses" for us to "raise" someone else's kids.....
call the police... tell them to be quiet .... over and over. They are spoiled rich kids, and quite frankly, raising one
family is enough for us. We shouldn't have to "raise" and civilize other folks kids.
So here's what happens. To get around whatever ordinance or law there is about single - family ownership, Papa
and Mama in Illinois decide that rather than put their little darlings in a dorm, they can treat our neighborhood
like a dorm, buy the kid a house, put his name on the title as 1 % owner with Mom -zie and Pop -zie as the true
absentee owners. So basically, Junior and his buddies have skirted the regs, and have made a lovely nuisance
house for us all to endure.
Is there no way to prevent this from happening? I see so much work going into making this an historic
district. The city makes programs available to keep the houses well- maintained by low - interest loans. We all
want this neighborhood to thrive and to keep its unique nature. Don't let parents turn nice homes into fraternity
houses.
But if you allow absentee ownership of houses, they will immediately turn into there "dude" houses. I was
talking with one of our neighbors across the street, and she said she and her husband were getting to the point
where they were debating whether or not to stay. They love their old house as do we. They've sunk money into
making it a nicer place (as have we). All that's threatened by this silliness of the Game of Titles going on under
the council's "nose ".
Mrs. Keith across from us has grown infirm and has just moved to assisted living, and HER house is now on the
market. So now we wait, shivering with fear that it will become another "dude" house, directly across from our
houses.
I beg you and the council to consider that making historic district designations, putting up Goosetown signs, etc.
etc. are not enough. We need action from the council to keep these mini -dorms from destroying the character of
our neighborhood. Once a house is a single family unit, it should not be secretly made into "multi ".
Because, if you do NOT act, I guarantee that soon, people like the Smiths, our friends the Dreiers may be forced
out by this silliness. And if we go, what happens to the Packers next door? They have a baby and Eva who's
about 6 or 7, and who wants to be surrounded by screaming dudes from all sides. I'm sure it's not pleasant for
folks with little kids.
If there are ordinances /zoning on the books that aren't being enforced, then let's enforce them. If there are not in
place the correct ordinances to keep these nuisance houses from growing like a cancer, then the NearNorthside
is doomed to dorm -dom. Period. No more families. No more trick or treaters. No more kids for Horace
Mann. Or two sons had such a wonderful youth, roaming the alleys in safety. Walking to school only 3 blocks
away. That's priceless for a family. And having a front porch to sit on and meet your neighbors. This is very
unique and a vanishing way of life in America, where everyone doesn't know their neighbors, and they face
inward living on sidewalk -less subdivisions and never meeting anyone.
And we truly do enjoy the well- behaved students walking by-- especially during the fall when it's football
time. It's fun to live in a mixed neighborhood where the "kiddies" have a few places, but only a few.
If the City of Iowa City keeps a blind eye to this, then no matter what ordinances you pass on keeping the
houses looking "original" or trying to preserve them..... the "kids" will destroy it all if it's only them who are
left. They don't give a damn about the houses. A house to them is just a place to "crash ", process beer through
their systems, and scream bloody epithets that resonate up and down the block.
Thank you for your time,
Steve Smith (and for Becky), 431 N. Van Buren St. 52245 354 -1895
Marian Karr
From: Mike Moran
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:53 AM
To: 'julia- ham @hotmail.com'
Cc: Council; Marian Karr; Kathryn Johansen
Subject: FW: A move for the Farmer's Market?
U04
Thank you for submitting your comments on the Iowa City Farmers Market. I wanted to give you some additional
information regarding the process and the timeline. The City received a request from the Downtown Association (DTA)
to discuss their idea of possibly moving the farmers market from the Chauncey Swan Parking garage on Saturday
mornings to the downtown area for the 2012 season. Preliminary discussions have begun with several City departments
and the DTA to gather more information on what they have in mind regarding this process.
Several things need to happen to get this started. The DTA has been asked to bring the City a proposal showing us the
particulars of what it is they want to do. They have been asked to have discussions with the Parks and Recreation
Commission, the Farmers Market Vendors and eventually present their proposal to the City Council.
As of today, we are waiting for a proposal from the DTA. Once that is received, additional discussion will be held with
the Commission, followed by the vendors and then the City Council.
Please remember, this proposal is for the 2012 season which will give all of us ample time to react to and comment on a
proposal during the 2011 market season. If you need any additional information or have further questions please feel
free to contact us.
Michael Moran CPRP
Director
Parks and Recreation
220 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
319 -356 -5104
From: J. Ham [mailto:julia- ham @hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 20118:34 PM
To: Council
Subject: A move for the Farmer's Market?
Please say it isn't so - move the Farmer's Market? I was in town for the first Saturday market, Mother's Day
weekend. No doubt the perfect spring weather was a draw for the crowd, and welcome to the vendors. As I made my
way through the market I heard commnts /concerns that the Council is considering moving the market from it's current
location to downtown.
I make regular visits to Iowa City as I have family that live in town. The farmer's market is a regular stop on
these weekend visits. Just like the postman, we have attended in any and all types of weather. Each time we comment
on how nice it is to have the market in such an ideal spot to provide shelter and parking so close at hand (and thanks to
the city for the parking meter exemption in the Rec Center lot).
From what I can tell, the Market enjoys an extremely loyal vendor and customer base. Has there been any meaningful
dialogue offered with either of these groups to this possible move? What rationale could be presentede to move the
market to a more inconvenient location - inconvenient for the vendors, for the customers, for citizens of Iowa City due to
closure of city streets during market hours. My guess is that downtown merchants are seeking a piece of the action.
Please don't make a short- sighted decision. You have a real gem in the market, in it's current location. While images of
vendors lining the downtown streets will make for great publicity opportunities, truth be known that Iowa summers are
notoriously warm and humid. What a welcome relief to shop in a shaded and cool environment.
Thank you,
Julie Ham
1428 Northwestern Avenue
Ames, IA 50010
515- 232 -2862
M116) Marian Karr r
From: steve @irenew.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:21 PM
To: Council
Cc: irenew @irenew.org
Subject: Fw: I -Renew solar cell phone charging
Dear Iowa City Council members,
Last week I sent a request to Kathryn Johansen requesting permission to offer free cell phone charging in the
Pedestrian Mall. She responded this week by telling me our educational not -for profit COULD NOT do this.
After scouring the code I cannot see why we would be prohibited from doing this.
We have not built the charging device yet because if we cannot use it in our own town it would diminish it's
usefulness. It will be about the size of a rolling suitcase and would be used to educate citizens on how even
small electrical loads add up to substantial demand and offer a free small solution.
I was hoping that you might be able to assist or shed some light on why not. I called Tom Markus who differed
to Dale Helling but I have not heard back and thought that the matter should be brought to your attention.
Steve Fugate
I -Renew Managing Director
Office: 319 - 338 -1076
Cell: 319 - 331 -4831
Fax: 319 - 338 -2182
From: steveCabirenew.orci
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:19 AM
To: kathryn- johansen(aiowa- city.org
Subject: I -Renew solar cell phone charging
Kathryn, Here at I -Renew we are working on ways to help illustrate reduction electrical demand and carbon
footprint and came up with the idea of offering FREE solar powered cell phone charging. This would be a
mobile unit with about a 2'x2' footprint that would allow us to offer to charge electronic devices with the sun.
There would be no electricity required and would be free to passers by. I was thinking we would sit on one of
the benches near the fountain that the sun hits during the afternoon. Would we need some sort of permit?
Steve Fugate
I -Renew Managing Director
Office: 319 - 338 -1076
Cell: 319 - 331 -4831
Fax: 319 - 338 -2182
Arlington Development
RE: Stone Bridge Preliminary Plat
To: Iowa City, City Council
Council members,
The preliminary plat for Stone Bridge Part 7, 8 and 9 were approved at the end of July, 2009. The
preliminary plats are only effective for two years. Due to the slowdown in housing I would like to ask
the council to extend parts 7,8 and 9 for two more years from the date of expiration.
Sincerely,
1
John Moreland, Jr.
3 7
N
-Ti
�1
"[
N
tV
tv
3 8
Marian Karr
From: Veronica Tessler <veronicatessler @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:41 AM
To: Council
Subject: Issue with opening new business on Ped Mall
Dear City Council:
I am writing as a resident and prospective small business owner in Iowa City that was denied the opportunity to
open up my business as planned. After months of financial investment and preparation for an opening, I was
recently informed of my inability to move into the desired store location despite successful lease negotiations
and recent approval of my floorplan by the City Manager's office.
My proposed business is a novel, family - friendly, alcohol -free eatery, yet I am being denied the ability to open
my business indirectly by the city's zoning ordinance pertaining to new liquor stores. The storefront which I had
intended to move into is located at 108 E. College St. (132 S. Clinton St. per the City Assessor's office). The
building -132 S. Clinton St.— consists of two units. The plan has been to start my business in the smaller unit
that is currently occupied by Sauce, a convenience /liquor store that is looking to expand to the larger, adjacent
storefront. The issue is that my ability to move in is contingent upon Sauce's successful relocation to the
adjacent larger unit. Since Sauce sells alcohol, it needed approval to relocate by the City's Attorney. Just last
week, I learned that the city attorney's office recommended denying Sauce's request, citing the zoning
ordinance that prohibits new liquor stores from opening within 1000 feet of existing liquor stores. Because
Sauce's proposal to relocate is considered by the city as a new liquor store, they cannot move, and that prevents
me from leasing their current space as planned. I have been actively searching for a small shop to open up my
business for nearly one year now, and 108 E. College is truly the ideal size and location for my shop. As you
well know, smaller commercial spaces in the downtown area are very hard to come by, so I felt very lucky to
have come across the space for rent.
The unintended consequence of the ordinance keeps a new, family- friendly business from operating downtown.
My proposed business is a self -serve frozen yogurt shop, whereby the customer chooses the yogurt flavors of
their lilting and adds fruit and candy toppings. Self -serve frozen yogurt shops have been opening all across the
country, including in nearby cities such as Chicago, Madison, Omaha, and Kansas City. My shop would be the
first of its kind in Iowa City. I was planning on initiating modeling of the store as of June 1, with the goal of
opening for business July 4 weekend. My business would contribute to a family- and student - friendly
atmosphere in the downtown Ped Mall area.
I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you at your earliest convenience how this decision
has impacted me, a potential small business owner in downtown Iowa City. I can be reached by cell phone at
808 - 631 -9020. I hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Veronica Tessler
w
Marian Karr
From: Regenia Bailey <bailey @avalon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:48 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: FW: Decriminalize Marijuana
Attachments: SurveySpreadhseet.pdf; Research Paper. pdf
From: regenia - bailey @iowa- city.org [mailto:regenia- bailey @iowa- city.org] On Behalf Of S Flatte
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 20119:43 AM
To: matt -hayek @iowa- city.org; ross- wilburn @iowa - city.org; connie- champion @iowa- city.org; mike- wright @iowa- city.org;
terry- dickens @iowa- city.org; regenia - bailey @iowa- city.org; susan -mims @iowa - city.org
Subject: Decriminalize Marijuana
Dear Iowa City Council members.
For my AP Government class, I researched the issue of marijuana decriminalization. From a combination of
student surveys and research, I have arrived at the conclusion that marijuana penalties in Iowa are too harsh.
The full results of my survey are available in the attached spreadsheet, and the conclusions drawn from it are
available in the attached research paper (both .pdfs). Some of the most important conclusions include:
That the use of marijuana would increase only from 12% to 14% in the event that marijuana was
decriminalized.
That the use of marijuana doesn't have sufficient health consequences to justify incarceration as a penalty for
use
That the use of marijuana doesn't cause violent crime, meaning that there is no justification for incarceration as
a penalty for use.
I concluded that decriminalization of marijuana would be overall beneficial to Iowa City and provide for a
punishment that better fits the crime.
Thank you for your time
Shecharya Flatte
Co
II
cl-
Ca a)
+i +!
(U 0
3 0
(U
E
me
0 co
_r_ CY)
ca
(j) � U) U). w U) U) U)� U)l Ul U), U)
+
+
i i |
| | | | |
m� ! |
E | |
� +| +| +�
�
'
�
+�
!
)
!
oo�
��
�
m
E au))�
| | !
| | | |
| | |
0 co
m��
� i |
+!+|+ + +/+ + +|+ +/+� +�
i � | '
�
i |
`
|
|
�
CU,
|
�
!
!
! | |
!
� (
)
! �
i
| /
| !
!
m� ! |
E | |
� +| +| +�
�
'
�
+�
!
)
!
oo�
��
1. 18 out of 49 respondents had tried marijuana, with 4 preferring not to respond. Approximately
40% of the student populace. Students surveyed were a combination of AP Gov. students and
State /Local students. 4 respondents indicated that they habitually use marijuana.
2. 27 out of 42 respondents thought current penalties for marijuana use are injust. This is about
65% of the students.
3. All habitual users thought penalties for marijuana use are injust. They also all believed
marijuana should be legalized.
4. 12 out of 17 (70 %) people who have tried marijuana once think current penalties for
marijuana use are injust.
5. 23 out of 45 (51 %) respondents thought marijuana should be legalized. Slightly more than
50%
Of those 23, only 6 respondents believed they would be more likely to try marijuana if it were
legal.
6. 24 out of 43 (55 %) respondents believed current penalties for marijuana use do not deter
use. 9 of those who believed this had tried marijuana. 6 people who believed penalties did deter
use had tried marijuana.
7. 37 out of 49 (75 %) respondents indicated that they would not be more likely to try marijuana
if it were legal. 4 of those who believed they would be, had already tried marijuana, causing a
corrected percentage of 82%
Research paper
[analysis of survey]Comparing items 6 and 7, respondents probably irrationally believe
marijuana laws do not deter use, while at the same time are deterred. 75% of the student
populous indicate that they would not use marijuana even if it were legal, yet 55% of
respondents believed penalties do not deter use. It is clear that there are other factors aside
from laws that prevent use. As much as 30% of students who wouldn't use marijuana if it was
legal still thought that it was the law that deterred use. Furthermore, the remaining 18% of
students (based on corrected percentage in #7) who have never tried marijuana would not
necessarily try it if it were legal. The question asked whether a student would be "more likely"
to try marijuana or use it habitually. It did not ask whether the student would. This question
most likely caused false positives for . In addition, of 17 people who had tried marijuana, only 4
reported habitual use. That indicates an —25% chance that any person who tries marijuana
will become a habitual user. Taking into account that students who refused to respond to the
question about habitual use probably use marijuana habitually, in a "worst -case scenario ",
only 16% of students would actually become habitual users, compared to 12% now. In a
far more likely scenario, we'd see about 13 -14% of students becoming habitual users.
Marijuana use is not dangerous to others. Ignoring health risks of 2nd -hand smoke (which will
be addressed in the "danger to self' paragraph, the only potential danger to others from the
use of marijuana is dangerous actions taken while high. Marijuana use has not been linked to
violent crime.[1] Marijuana use is characterized by a "peaceful" high, relieving pain and stress. A
person who is high on marijuana is actually less likely to be willing or capable of hurting another
person. Furthermore, accidental deaths from marijuana highs are unlikely. Studies show that
marijuana use does not impair driving. Drivers compensate for their high by driving more slowly,
and often are less given to have "Road Rage ".[2] The two major causes of death from other
drugs such as alcohol (accidental and violent) are non - linked to marijuana use. While marijuana
use may impair your ability to perform certain tasks, it does not do so at even close to the level
of alcohol.
Marijuana use is also not dangerous to the self, or at the very least is safer than both cigarettes
and alcohol. First, marijuana is less addictive.[3], and from the study I performed, only 25% of
people who had tried marijuana were habitual users. If 75% can simply stop, it is significantly
less addictive than both alcohol and cigarettes. Marijuana is also not a "gateway" drug,
according to a 12 -year scientifically rigorous study by the University of Pittsburgh.[4] People are
more likely to choose a drug based on relative availability than because they've tried a different
drug before. Finally, marijuana use does not carry with it the health risks that tobacco does.
Lung cancer has little to no tie to marijuana use.[5][6]
The problems, and the solutions.
A strong majority (65 %) of students believe that penalties for marijuana use are injust. After
doing some research into the penalties for marijuana use, I agree. State law sets a penalty
of 6 months in jail, and a $1000 fine for your first offense (possession). In order to justify
incarcerating a person, that person must be a danger to themselves or others. Incarceration
as a penalty for nonviolent crimes sets a dangerous precedent for law. Merely possessing
marijuana does not constitute a threat to anybody, in the same way that owning a gun doesn't
constitute a threat to a person until it is used. Similarly, the sale of marijuana also does not
constitute a threat to anybody (with the exception of tax evasion, questionably a threat given the
impossibility of paying taxes on an illegal substance). Either way, imprisonment should not be a
penalty unless the person arrested is found to have used marijuana.
If marijuana use is not dangerous to others, it is difficult to justify incarceration for use.
Incarceration fulfils two roles in society. First, it is a way to get dangerous criminals away from
potential victims. People who have been locked up are incapable of hurting others. As I have
shown in the previous paragraph, marijuana users are not any more likely, and are probably
less likely to be dangerous, nullifying this possibility. Second, it acts as a form of deterrence
and retribution. People who are locked up are effectively "paying" for their crime, and the fear of
being locked up is enough to prevent many people from taking an action. In order to determine
if retribution or deterrence is successful, we must look at whether the government has a vested
interest in deterring or claiming retribution from marijuana use. Given that marijuana use is
either not dangerous or less dangerous than other legal actions such as tobacco and alcohol
use, Government does not have a vested interest in deterring or claiming retribution for
marijuana use, and thus marijuana use should not carry a penalty of incarceration.
Hence the primary solution: Iowa City should pass a city ordinance reducing the fines for
marijuana use, and cease using incarceration as a punishment entirely. Iowa City should also
devote less police time and tax money towards finding drug users. In the interests of preserving
educational benefits for children, anti -drug campaigns in schools should continue, as well
as imposing harsher punishments on students for marijuana use. Distribution of marijuana
to students under the age of 18 should carry a substantially higher fine than distribution to
adults in order to deter sales to children. Such an action would free up a substantial amount
of money from the costs of incarcerating marijuana users. It would also reduce the workload
and cost of the police force. It would still carry many of the deterring effects of marijuana
use and distribution (Identified in my research paper as illegality (55 %) and general ethical
concerns (20 %)), while at the same time reducing excessively harsh punishment for use of
a nondangerous drug. It would not lead to a substantial increase in habitual marijuana users
(12% to 14% is likely), and it would avoid federal conflicts over legalizing actions the federal
government has banned.
1. httr)://www.justice.clov/ndic/pubs07/997/mariduan.htm Connecticut department of justice.
In the opening paragraph, it says explicitly that marijuana use does not cause violence. The
distribution of marijuana causing violence is a seperate issue and one solvable by legalization
2. http://ccciuide.org/driving. php A variety of studies are listed, the only impairment to driving
under the influence appeared to be tracking ability (found in one study), while many studies
showed improvement in driving.
3. httr)://www.erowid.orci/r)lants/cannabis/cannabis myth9.shtml
4. http: / /sciencebloci com/ 12116 /study- says- marijuana -no- gateway -drua/
5. http' / /www washingtonpost com /wp -dyn/ content / article/ 2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.htm1
6. http: / /www webmd com /lung - cancer/ news / 20060523 /pot - smoking- not - linked -to -lung- cancer
7. Survey of AP Gov and State /Local students at Iowa City High, May 2011