Category: Iowa City

Iowa City Targets Freedom of Movement

At a time when liberals around the country are criticizing Arizona’s new immigration law as encouraging discrimination and criticizing Rand Paul’s rhetorical questioning of the federal governments authority to ban discrimination by private businesses, liberals on the Iowa City council are making such discrimination mandatory. The new city ordinance bans members of a certain “lesser class” of adult legal-citizens from entering some private business establishments while allowing members of a more privileged class of citizens to enter those same businesses. So much for the supposedly “liberal” principles of fairness and equality.

The new ordinance states that anyone under 21 is barred from being in drinking establishments after 10 p.m. The problem is that people over 18 are legally adults. This is a curfew for adult Americans, restricting their rights to freedom of movement, peaceable assembly, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble[,]” even in bars. The Ninth Amendment serves notice that the people have rights too numerous to be listed. It reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The people (even young adults) can do whatever they want, so long as they don’t harm others.

Article I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa states: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights–among which are those of enjoying […] liberty […] and pursuing and obtaining […] happiness.” [Emphasis added.] The Iowa City ordinance does not treat its young citizens as “free and equal” and infringes their rights of “enjoying liberty” and “pursuing happiness.”

By the way, “liberty” is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary thusly: “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.” [Emphasis added.]

Although I don’t put much stock in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Iowa City liberals generally do and it is now taught in our schools with more enthusiasm than the U.S. Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration states: “Everyone has the right to […] liberty[.]”

Other provisions include: Article 13: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement[.]” Article 20: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” Article 24: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure[.]” Article 27: “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community[.]” The Iowa City ordinance violates even this, the liberals’ sacred screed.

University of Iowa (UI) students and local business owners collected thousands of signatures for a petition to put the new ordinance up for a vote by the people on the November ballot. Unfortunately, city hall invalidated fully 60% of those signatures, putting the petition well below the legally-required number of signatures to allow a vote. Since many of the signers of the petition were college students and first-time voters, they didn’t appear on the city clerks voter list, so the ordinance stands. (Signature collecting efforts are still underway.)

This law is only the latest onerous effort by the Iowa City council to curb drinking in its city, especially by under-age college students. What results have their previous efforts yielded? A new report shows that alcohol-related offenses at UI rose 53% last year, even though a UI police official said they had “not significantly increased alcohol-related enforcement.” Drunk driving citations at UI shot up 97% last year!

So, when this latest effort also fails to reduce drinking, the city council and UI will have to come up with even more restrictions upon the liberty of young adults between 18 and 20, as well as local business owners. Who knows what atrocities await as Iowa City seeks a “final solution” to its “young-adult problem.”

Iowa City: First Things Last

On January 22 an unidentified man assaulted a 7-year-old girl outside of an Iowa City school. The man ( an adult, black male with a shaved head, 5 feet 9 inches and of medium build) ran off and is still at large.

Watching the local evening news, I’ve noticed similar stories of street crime coming from Iowa City (I.C.) on a pretty regular basis, at least every month. Mine is a fairly rural area where such events still make the news. The crime scenarios coming from I.C. are usually pretty similar: a pedestrian victim is attacked on or near a street or walking trail. I wondered if I.C. has a crime problem and, if so, why?

Iowa City, as I’ve noted in other posts, is probably the most liberal town in Iowa. This is no doubt due to it being home to the University of Iowa (UI). The University is the city’s biggest employer and is so marbled throughout the community it’s hard to tell were UI ends and the city government begins.

What about I.C. is so liberal? I.C. has led the way in new “health regulations,” from public smoking bans to drinking bans. I.C. has been most noticeably supporting (and licking it’s chops about) the prospect of a new Iowa law allowing cities to impose income taxes on it’s citizens. It is proudly home to one of Iowa’s few remaining abortion mills.

The community’s central pillar, UI, is a typically liberal public university. It embraces “diversity” in all its forms, except for white skin. When a black female student was arrested for sending threatening emails in 2000, UI’s then Vice President and spokeswoman Ann Rhodes famously declared that white guys between 25 and 55 are the root of most evil.

The instructor of a required course at UI forced students to watch videos of gay sodomy, even after several protested. (Gays should be allowed to do whatever they want, just don’t force our kids to watch it!) The UI school of law is currently facing a lawsuit alleging that it discriminates against conservatives. (We libertarians might want in on that action.)

Back to crime in I.C.: I wanted to know if the stories I was always seeing on the news were just anecdotal or did I.C. have crime rates higher than others. Looking online I found that neighboring Cedar Rapids had per capita crime rates higher than I.C. in all categories except for forcible rape and aggravated assault.

Believing that these two crimes, particularly rape, might be problematic for college towns, I decided to compare I.C. with the towns housing Iowa’s two other public universities, Ames and Cedar Falls. I used crime statistics for 2006 from areaconnect.com.

Of the three towns, Iowa City had the highest per capita rates in forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and vehicle theft. Ames, home of Iowa State University, led in burglary and larceny theft. University of Northern Iowa’s hometown of Cedar Falls didn’t lead in any category. (That was surprising since Cedar Falls borders Waterloo, which had relatively high crime rates across the board.) None of the three college towns had any murders in 2006. Confirming my suspicion, all three college towns were above the national average on forcible rape.

I.C. has higher per capita violent crime rates than other similar Iowa college towns. If I was an I.C. taxpayer I would be angry that my city government always had the time and resources to harass smokers, bar owners and Wal-Mart, but can’t keep the streets safe.

If the local government won’t defend its citizens, you would think that they would at least allow them to defend themselves. Not so!

While Iowa allows citizens who have passed background checks and safety courses to apply for a permit to carry concealed firearms, it is up to the county sheriff whether or not to issue the permit. Some sheriffs simply refuse to issue them to anyone. This map from IowaCarry.org shows the issuance policy of each county. As you can see, Johnson County (of which I.C. is county seat and largest city) is red, meaning it is all but impossible for a citizen to get a permit. Of course even if you do get a concealed carry permit, you can’t carry your gun on campus. Only deranged killers like Gang Lu are allowed to do that.

There are reams of statistics suggesting that an armed citizenry lowers crime rates. Denying citizens the means to defend themselves is the exact wrong answer.

A study by the Carter Justice Department found that of attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. If the woman was armed with a gun or a knife only 3% of the attempted rapes were successful.

When faced with a spree of rape in the 1960s, Orlando Florida set up a course to teach women how to use guns. It was highly publicized in the local press. Orlando’s rate of rape dropped by 88% in one year (while remaining constant in the rest of the state). Those in I.C., who pride themselves on “empowering” women, would never stand for such a course.

As a libertarian, I disagree with liberals on matters of limited government and economic freedom, but I AGREE with them on many matters of personal freedom. So I don’t mean to pick on liberals in general or Iowa City in particular. Rest assured, if I see evidence of a major Iowa town that is as consistently and buffoonishly conservative as Iowa City is liberal (perhaps one that finally outlaws that oh-so-phallic Chapstick) I’ll let you know, dear reader.

In the mean time, Iowa City residents and city council members need to decide whether Wal-Mart or the thugs roaming its streets represent a greater threat to the populace. They might want to ask the parents of a certain 7-year-old girl.

Happy Hour Cancelled- Miserable Hour Starts at Five

No doubt many denizens of Iowa’s bastion of liberalism, Iowa City, are rooting in favor of gay marriage in the Varnum v. Brien case now before the Iowa Supreme Court. Unfortunately liberals, just like conservatives, seek to expand freedom for their chosen groups while seeking to restrict it for others. Iowa City officials are currently advancing their jihad against alcohol drinkers in general and bar owners in particular.

Facing a “crisis” of binge drinking because of all the young folks attending University of Iowa, city officials are pushing for an ordinance to end drink specials such as the age-old “happy hour” wherein drinks are cheaper. Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey said, “Our objective … is to reduce price specials and pricing that encourage excessive drinking,” reported the Cedar Rapids Gazette on Wednesday. Iowa City already bans two drinks for the price of one and all-you-can-drink specials. Not happy with just throttling bar owners in their own town, city officials are also leaning on the state legislature for a similar state-wide ban.

Gazette columnist Todd Dorman, on his blog, predicts that at least the statewide ban faces bleak prospects in the Iowa legislature this time around. Since the legislature has spent the last couple of years doing everything except waterboarding bar owners, Dorman states that legislators may be reluctant to give the businesses “another kick in the shorts.” A similar ban failed in the Iowa Legislature in 1997.

No doubt the city ordinance will go through however. And when it comes to pushing for laws to make us Iowans healthier (and less free), the liberals are a tenacious bunch. Iowa City was one of the first to ban smoking and started the trend that is now a state-wide ban. We can expect to see similar bans on drink specials introduced every year until they get their way.

As I see it there are three primary reasons to oppose this ban.

Firstly, it impedes the right of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit and the rights of patrons as well. Bar owners already must navigate a labyrinthine set of government regulations, zoning laws and licensing procedures. They don’t need more red tape and more potential fines.

For bar patrons, the ban restricts their right to live their lives as they see fit, even if that involves getting plastered. Raising prices to control people’s choices is just paternalistic government overreach. As long as patrons are of legal drinking age, aren’t causing problems or getting behind the wheel of a car, it’s no one’s damned business if they drink too much. Legal drinkers might want to use one of the liberals’ own favorite catchphrases against them: “My body, my choice!”

Secondly, this is an unnecessary infringement on the private market. (This might just be another way of stating my first objection.) Many folks like myself belief that the government shouldn’t interfere in the market unless there is some coercive or non-consensual activity involved, such as fraud or theft. If bar owners were holding guns to the heads of patrons, forcing them to drink excessively, the government should get involved.

Bureaucrats should not be controlling the prices for drinks or any other consumer product, the market can set prices just fine. Looking at their balance sheets, bar owners will set drink prices appropriately low to get people in the door, but high enough to turn a profit. Since politicians from Iowa City to Des Moines to D.C. don’t seem to mind meddling in the free market, this argument is probably a lost cause.

Lastly, the ban probably won’t help much. If you chase binge drinkers out of the bars, they’ll just drink elsewhere, probably in less structured environments. That’s if it chases them out at all. I know that in my wild and woolly younger days, my buddies and I didn’t pay any mind to drink prices. The only thing that mattered was when our wallet was finally empty. Even if it did work, any slight reductions in binge drinking would not justify the first two intrusions in personal liberty.

I hope this ban doesn’t go state-wide. First the people controllers went after the smokers. Now it’s the drinkers. Next it will be sin taxes on junk food or God knows what else. That’s when I might have to put down my bag of pork rinds and fight!