Showing posts with label QC Local. Show all posts

Tomorrow, March 3rd, residents of Davenport, IA have an opportunity to vote on The Davenport Promise. This is absolutely a major deal here locally. This is a move to improve residency and educational incentive in Davenport without any prominent financial burden on its residents.

What exactly is the point of Davenport Promise then?

Well the goal is to provide a college scholarship to all Davenport residents of high school graduate/GED level regardless of what school they went to or what school they are going to. It will also give a home-buyers grant for returning military and increase public safety. All of this is to be done without increasing property taxes.

Funding will be through reallocating the Davenport one cent sales tax.

Current Tax Allocation:
60% Property Tax Relief
40% Capital Improvements

Proposed Tax Reallocation:
60% Property Tax Relief
30% Capital Improvements or Davenport Promise
10% Public Safety Investment

Anyone see a problem here? I see that we are now intentionally running this tax at at least 30% over budget overall with capital improvements running 10% under budget. Now understand this isn't the sole funding for capital improvements either so actual numbers are in reality less than a real 10%, but it is still be under budget. So with this, they state that other projects have run under budget and money can be pulled from there though nothing is intentionally allocated to this or labeled in any official manner.

Okay so they want to attract new people to increase real estate values and increase the population to invest into the community and the Davenport Promise Task Force Report states that years of disinvestment in our economy is behind the poverty levels and dropouts in our children. This is may be not a cure all but the right step for us to take to get back on track as the task force and city council have declared overall. Note that not all approve of this and one who has disapproved (out of numerous) is Alderman Bill Lynn.

There are so many potential issues with this and actual issues to start with, first being running the tax over budget. However, there are many what-ifs to consider here one being: What if people come in mass at first but then stop do to increased property values and tuition rates that keep rising? Okay so with this the investment for new people to move here and continue this project is not as great anymore, and let's say with that significantly less come here. Now we have less enrolling students to count on for government funding and assistance in our public schools requiring more money for that was less before. We will then also have many going out which we will have to fund for college and we have to get that money somewhere. With more people utilizing public roads and public resources we in theory cannot afford to cut capital investment funds later down the line so where will this money come from? Another problem with this is that being based on a regressive tax this will have difficult time balancing out economically as it does not account for inflation. An even other concern is the 10% to public safety. This will actually go to a general fund with the intention of use in public safety. So to the firemen and policemen of Davenport their may be intent, but there are no guarantees; no real promises. My fear is that this will end up as more play money for the city.

Where will any of this money come from in these situations? Well, March 24th there was a Davenport Promise Forum at the Red Stone Room hosted by the QC Times, where Davenport Promise Task Force Member Ken Croken stated, "If and when these things happen we will handle them." So they have no real plans for the future; only reliance on the predictions of one analysis done by one, Upjohn, Institute. If these things happen an unknown board not appointed will handle these issues. Well are these board members going to be credible for the positions? We aren't going to know as they haven't been chosen, and will not be till after the fact. Croken also said there were no guarantees for the future either in regard to promises made now. So essentially they will not raise our taxes now, but if push comes to shove (and they are confident they won't) it could all be broken promises for us.

These numbers I look at with Upjohn's report show that in a bad case scenario we could be as much as 2.2 million in debt by year 4, and yet their answer is basically that they'll get around to it. If this is some kind of protectionist policy for questionable future direction then where is the protection from our own solution? Note I am not anti-education, but how could I consider a policy that is meant for my children which could just as likely hurt them or even worse in the end? We already pay the federal government taxes which go to educational grants already such as Pell, and where this goes right in being non-discriminatory we are again seeing taxes go to this thing for up to $1000 more per year for what could be an even worse economic disaster. It should also be noted that it is rightly requiring 400 hours to be able to get it but unfortunately doesn't require a minimum GPA to maintain it. This altogether should have been treated with more profound care.

You can count on me voting no on this policy. It could possibly be worth considering, but absolutely not when it is so fiscally negligent. This is not worth it right now under its current state, and I cannot bear this massive cloud of potential burden on every other citizen of this town. For any Davenport residents please vote no. There are numerous scholarships and grants available, including Pell already present. President Obama even amended the Hope tax credit with the current stimulus bill, increasing the college tax credit to an annual $2500 (and even refundable up to $1000). We have other resources available so please vote no until the city is forced to reevaluate this and treat it more responsibly for us all.

Related Documents:
The Davenport Promise Task Force Report here.
The Davenport Promise CIP Impact Report here.
The Upjohn Institute Analysis Report here.
The Anti-Promise Presentation from NoMorePromises here.

Related Sites:
City of Davenport, Davenport Promise Task Force Information here.
No More Promises Anti-Promise Initiative here.

Well James A. Weaver has been let loose on the masses once again after his second OWI conviction, and has had his license reinstated to practice law once again...

James Weaver was once a judge in the Quad City area, and back in 2002 he was reprimanded by the Iowa Supreme Court for his first OWI. This caused him to be forced out of the judiciary, and he was granted disability retirement based on alcoholism and depression. He also had to undergo substance abuse treatment and pay $1,340 in fines as part of the sentencing.

Soon after the conviction, approximately one month, he opened a private practice in law.

Following this in 2004 he received his second OWI. This time the prosecutor recommended $1,500 in fines and seven days in jail. However his judge, Denver Dillard, saw otherwise with the recommended sentencing of residential imprisonment not to exceed two years.

Weaver reportedly called Dillard dishonest (and claiming this punishment too harsh), in the Muscatine Journal, and appealed the case. The Iowa Court of Appeals denied his appeal and the Iowa Supreme Court denied any review. He did serve his out his sentence being allowed to claim his $2,500/mon. state pension during his term.

After being released his license to practice law was suspended for three months, but has now been reinstated.

I would ask anyone reading this article, for someone who has had difficulty following the law and even challenged judgment passed calling your sentencing judge dishonest would you like this person practicing law for you?

And an even larger concern is him back behind the wheel. According to Iowa law is that you lose your license for two years with your second offense. Well this was served in imprisonment so he is eligible to drive once more.

Will he learn the third time or not? Pre-conviction with the second offense he did not reveal much remorse, but post-conviction this has yet to become clear. So what will he do? Only time can tell at this point.

If he does drink and drive and receive a third conviction Iowa law states the following for sentencing:

Third conviction: A third offense within a 12-year period is a Class D felony that will earn you up to five years in jail and a $2,500 to $7,500 fine. You'll lose your license for six years.

In addition to spending time behind bars, paying a hefty court fine, and losing your driving privileges, you will also need to complete a course for drinking drivers and undergo a substance abuse evaluation or treatment program―whether this is your third offense or your first. Iowa law requires that you pay for these services at your own expense. You'll also be hit with a $200 fine that goes toward the state's victim restitution fund.

If you are caught driving while your license is revoked, you'll be charged with another misdemeanor and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.

Sources:

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/12/04/news/local/doc4938aae1202ce815012300.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/10/05/news/local/doc47066a93cc1fb861959940.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/28/news/local/doc47ed0c2fa4678318766570.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/03/17/news/local/doc45fb70be5a687050668937.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/03/10/news/local/doc45f24a844fd6e523669832.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/02/24/news/local/doc45dfcfbccdef2590628021.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/12/07/news/local/doc4577b0809a53f911522163.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/10/26/news/state/doc4540473d63801991036022.txt
http://www.muscatinejournal.com/articles/2007/06/10/opinion/letters/doc466c3d9f75a3d809543497.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/multimedia/documents/weaver_court_ruling_080328.pdf
http://www.dmv.org/ia-iowa/automotive-law/dui.php

Okay to backtrack a bit to the campaign for president and the election of Barrack Obama in regards to the "race card" issue...

I admit I may be slightly more conservative though more in agreement with Libertarians naturally, and beyond that admittedly with Republicans more frequently than with Democrats. That doesn't necessarily make me entirely pleased with the current Republican party, but that is a topic to be covered later in another post as it is a large enough topic for discussion all on its own.

But back to Obama... I agree there is indefinite significance to his election as it does signify the end of an era of racism in the United States. This is a great and fantastic milestone! I do not disagree with this at all. However, I am concerned with some of the reasoning behind some of the votes he received.

I had the opportunity to go to the Democratic Poll Party for the Quad Cities, and even though I am typically in disagreement with Democrats for the most part, it was worth getting involved in for the experience. This was due to a personal connection who is an active democrat and whose family is friends with Iowa House Rep. Jim Lykam. I am incredibly thankful for the opportunity to see inside things even at this minor level stating off with my political education, and I hope that this post will not come off as any disrespect or lack of appreciation either.

While I was there and it came down to Obama winning the election as you would expect there was cheering, smiles, and lots of expression in happiness for the results. There was not even ten feet away from me a upper middle-aged African-American women belted out, "We made history baby! We made history!" I found myself entirely shocked by this.

I am still fairly young as an adult and had not been alive during Martin Luther King Jr's time. Yes, I missed that time period and its discriminations so I admit I might not be aware of everything, but I do understand this event's significance. But why would this be the first thing to come from one's mouth? This is almost appalling. Look at those words... The history to be made here is that fact that he is the first African-American president. This is what she is most happy about. This is evident because it was the first thing she wanted to say to everyone around. But why when making value decisions based on skin-color is the exact type of thing that MLKJ preached against?

The news in various places had brought up the topic of Obama getting votes due to this and a lot of objection to this kind of claim was made. I don't think that this is any kind of majority view, but I do not have any doubts at all that this is fact now.

I find myself somewhat disheartened to see that this reverse racism occurs. To vote him on his color over another and not because of policy or cabinet? This is sick step backwards in my opinion. This in itself discredits the value of this historical event; this shouldn't be acceptable. I admit I didn't say anything because I was a guest in someone else's house - per say. But no one else said anything either.

Race should never be the core value for any vote. That does not promote the equality or fairness that this country is supposed to hold true! I had my doubts with Oprah Winfrey as well. A person who didn't express interest in politics until this point, and with this occurrence I find it even harder to believe that Obama's color wasn't the prime issue for her support in him anymore. Another personal example is from my mother, who told me she has a co-worker who said to her specifically that the significance of this event was the soul reason she voted for him. Two evident occurrences of this over two peoples networks is by far a large number, but still...

This is a scary thing in these already scary times. I don't know... I still find myself in shock and in disgust with this. I hope that this isn't going to be a precursor for us walking backwards anymore than this. I hold confidence in this country and will continue to believe otherwise. Unfortunately, I do find myself a little doubted and hope that this was only a single hiccup of human nature.

These are pressing times and we cannot afford to be taking any steps backwards.