Johnson County Land Conservation Bond Squeaks Through

Thanks largely to 70% of early voters who voted "yes" for the Johnson County land conservation bond issue, the issue withstood 61% of Johnson County residents outside of Iowa City who voted against the $20 million bond over 20 years on election day. The issue passed by slightly under 61% of the vote.

The issue was a grassroots campaign managed by Janelle Rettig, her partner, Robin Butler, and a small, but committed group of environmental and recreation-minded volunteers. The issue was opposed by a small and anti-tax advocacy group who relied on, by some accounts, distorted figures about the cost to taxpayers to make its case.

With the issue needing 60% of the vote to pass, it would not be surprising to see the vote total challenged by the "Flip No" advocates. Stay tuned.

$2.20 Says We All Can Conserve Land Now!

Now I am not a big new taxes kind of guy, but opponents of the Johnson County Bond Initiative that is on the November 4th ballot to create a land trust for conservation fail to understand that this is one of the cheapest bonds we will ever pass. Heck, its paid for in no more than the next 20 years. At no more than $20 million, it's two million dollars a year or $2.20 per month to the average property owner. I'll gladly forego a couple cups of coffee a month for land that will serve as a buffer between the Iowa River and me, provide recreation opportunities, and will give wildlife a chance.

This local investment will be leveraged with grants, donations, and federal, state and private money for a likely multiplying effect of 2.5 to 3 times, for a total investment of $50 to $60 million for our land, water and recreation areas.

Another other thing is the land that is put into conservation is sold voluntarily, no eminent domain issue here.

Finally, and best of all, the land conservation will be managed by the Johnson County Conservation Board that is open and transparent. The plan will be flexible, comprehensively developed with citizen input, and will be subject to annual audits.

But like all issues involving differing opinions, there are two sides.

The "FLIP No" side says we have enough land in conservation, that the bond does not spell out what land will be bought with the money and has no time limit for expiration.

Here's one side of the story
and here's the other