Letters to the editor

‘Iowa Nice’ becomes ‘Iowa Hostile’

Recently, Chris Gloninger, chief meteorologist of KCCI in Des Moines resigned, citing mounting harassment and even death threats resulting from his linking changes in Iowa weather patterns to human-driven changes in our global climate.

Never mind that Mr. Gloninger’s reporting was rooted in tens of thousands of published scientific studies and near-unanimous consensus among the world’s climate scientists. Instead, let’s focus on the extreme intolerance and vitriol with which it was met, increasingly the new normal in Iowa and throughout the country.

How did “Iowa nice” become “Iowa hostile?”

Iowans have always held opposing opinions on political and social issues. But up until the last few decades, those differences did not negate our fundamental respect for one another. After all, in spite of our disagreements, we were all still Iowans.

So what happened? How did the regard for our shared values — family, God, and country — devolve into death threats? And, perhaps more importantly, what can we do to turn back the clock?

We might ask two less obvious questions: Who benefits from our ever-intensifying political divisions and loss of civility? And what do they gain?

As for who benefits, the most obvious answer is mercenary media and power-hungry politicians. As for what they gain, the simple answers are, respectively, money and power.

“News” media, including cable channels, know that viewership translates into advertising profits. Following in the footsteps of master-provocateur Rush Limbaugh, some of these outlets have decided that the most effective way to grow and maintain their audience is to fan the flames of political tribalism and “fear of the other.”

The more these media can invoke enmity for those with opposing views, the more money they make. Plain and simple. Oh, they’ll pretend to care about protecting us from the growing threat of the “enemy within who is out to destroy America,” meanwhile raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits at the expense of our shared goodwill.

Then there are those power hungry politicians who have mastered the art of divide and conquer. They know painting our differences in the most antagonistic, bellicose terms is the surest way to capture the allegiance of their bases. Think the “Two Minutes of Hate,” from George Orwell’s 1984, where people were assembled to vent their fury toward political opponents.

Did these self-interested financial and political forces create our capacity for fear and hatred? Of course not. Do they intentionally pander to and exploit our darkest, most primitive nature? Absolutely!

Is there a way back to “Iowa nice?” Here’s a first step. The next time you’re listening to a politician or “news” station using language meant to invoke fear, anger, distrust and division, ask yourself, “Who’s the real enemy here?” Your fellow citizens who care as sincerely and deeply for our nation as you do, but who happen to embrace different views? Or is it the unscrupulous profiteers and political carpetbaggers who are more than willing to sacrifice not just “nice,” but the strength of our democracy, for their selfish gain?

United we stand. Divided we fall.

Jonas Magram

Fairfield

Where is the transparency?

SF 496, Education, Parental Rights, and Transparency, is just one of several vague bills that Iowa produced in 2023. Among the key provisions of the law is a potential book ban that takes effect on January 1, 2024.

The details of the bill have been tossed to the Iowa Department of Education (DOE), referred to in the bill as the BOE. DOE initially stated it would not come up with a set of rules, but someone must have pointed out that this legislation made it. The rules have now been moved to in process with no expected release date.

Will there be public hearings as these rules are developed? Where will the rules be published? If the goal really is transparency, that would be a minimum requirement. Yet the rules are supposed to take effect five months from now. By then the school districts must adapt their current guidelines to match the DOE rules. Usually that would take a couple months of board meetings.

They also likely will create a task force to review the current contents of the library and publish a list of books that potentially could be banned. Add several more months for that. Once that is done, let’s involve the community because we do want parental rights as a major focus. It’s doubtful there will be unanimous consent.

And let’s not forget that no money was designated to accomplish these goals.

This is why book bans don’t succeed. There is no definite definition of age-appropriate – each family, each parent can have a different assessment. In our society, no one family or group should dictate what another can have access to. We all develop at different paces, stages. Access to a broad scope of information is essential.

This law fails to deliver transparency or parental rights. It can cause harm, and that is not what good legislation does.

Bob Mueller

Mt. Pleasant

Clarifying development objections

It appears there is a need to clarify misunderstanding arising from the article which appeared in the July 21 issue of the Southeast Iowa Union regarding an out-of-town developer backing out of plans to build an apartment complex in the northeast part of Washington. What the article only briefly mentioned was the primary objection: the planned complex would require “spot rezoning” the land to R4 – multi-family residential – from a large surrounding zone designated R2- single- and two-family residential. Based on my roughly 10 years on the Planning & Zoning Commission, it has been my experience that whenever appropriate and practicable, we have endeavored to make zoning areas more consistent with adjacent properties, not less consistent. Chapter 165.19 of the city zoning regulations regarding planned developments provides in part:

“The proposed project will constitute a residential environment of a sustained desirability and stability; it will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and ensure substantially the same type of occupancy as obtained or may be expected to be obtained in said neighborhood …”

In conversations with many residents living in the area of the apartment complex, their objection was to having a large multi-story apartment complex of any kind built in the middle of an area of one-story single-family residences. The schematic renderings of the proposed apartment complex, as initially provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission in June, appear to show as many as 72 apartments contained in either two-story or three-story buildings built on a relatively small tract of land.

The secondary concern immediately raised was that the dramatic in vehicular traffic coming and going from this proposed large apartment complex would primarily go southbound on North Fourth and North Second avenues, directly past Stewart Elementary, the attached preschool/daycare facility and the North Park Playground, all of which are situated within one block from the proposed apartment complex, an area where school buses are loading and unloading children, parents are dropping off and picking up their children, and may children are crossing those streets and riding their bikes. The potential for accidents and serious injuries would be high.

There are other concerns as well, including the necessity of building infrastructure sufficient to prevent water and/or sewer problems in surrounding homes, an area where drainage issues already exist.

Nevertheless, in a careful reading of the July 21 article, it does not say that the developer is backing out of Washington entirely, only that plans are “on hold.” There is undoubtedly a need for affordable housing in Washington, but there are multiple factors that need to be considered, including the impact on the surrounding area.

There are existing R4 zones in or near Washington that can be developed for apartment complexes. According to local Realtors, there is also a great need for affordable single-family homes, which would be a much more appropriate way to develop the land in question in northeast Washington and would be in comformance with zoning regulations.

Susan Fisher

Washington