A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper
On Monday, Sept. 14 at 10 a.m., the Iowa Utilities Commission will hold a scheduling conference to set dates and locations for a hearing on Summit Pipeline’s permit request to construct a three-mile section of pipeline connecting the POET Arthur ethanol plant to the proposed Summit mainline. The IUC is required to obtain public input on scheduling. Logically, the conference should be held near Arthur, where those most directly impacted could participate more easily. Instead, it will be held at the IUC building in Des Moines for the convenience of the IUC, Summit, labor unions, ethanol and other project supporters.
More than 10 directly impacted landowners, including myself, have filed a motion to participate because we believe the conference is premature. After five years, Summit still has no route, no destination and no end use; it remains a pipeline to nowhere.
In response, Summit has filed a motion to exclude us from participating. The IUC has yet to rule on this motion.
First, this does not seem like a genuine attempt to solicit public input, but rather an attempt to create the illusion of input while keeping directly impacted citizens at a distance and unable to affect the proceeding.
Second, Summit appears intent on excluding impacted members of the public from having input on its project, all while claiming it would provide a “public service.”
This kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvering is typical of how Summit has advanced toward permit approval.
This will be the first of several scheduling meetings, so public response before Sept. 14 is critical. If you object to holding hearings for the convenience of the IUC and Summit rather than those directly impacted, or to limiting full public participation, please call the IUC at 515-725-7300 and leave a message stating your opinion.
Donald Johannsen, Potosi, Wis.
This election season is beginning to heat up! It is great to show your support for the candidate of your choice, but be sure you know (and the campaigns should also know) what is permitted when displaying signs in Iowa.
“Iowa campaign sign laws permit signs on private property with the owner's permission, but strictly ban them from public rights-of-way and utility poles.” That means that you are not allowed to place signs in ditches or wherever DOT workers are responsible for mowing and spraying, for example.
You can place signs on residential property, family farm operations, and non-corporate business property if you get permission from the property owner or tenant.
In Algona, for example, campaign signs are prohibited on city-owned property and within public rights-of-way, such as the grassy strip between the street and the sidewalk.
The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB) and the Iowa Department of Transportation enforce the state's main rules regarding where political signs can and cannot go.
Take the time to understand the law. It will benefit everyone, especially our DOT and city workers who have to take care of the public right-of-way.
Mary Kae Hanson, Wesley
Interesting article on the six political factions, two of which did not really exist 12 years ago. The MAGA Republicans emerged with Donald Trump, first and foremost with the belief that illegal immigration and the lack of border security was a threat to the nation. This is why he was elected in 2016 and 2024. Also, foreign entanglements and forever wars were a terrible mistake. Secondly, the belief that the free-market capitalism and trade was not serving the United States well. Third, the belief that unelected bureaucrats — the Deep State — were making decisions that should be made by Congress. Others were DEI, skepticism that NATO relying almost solely on the United States for military security, the UN was impotent and not aligned with the goals of the United States, and often hostile.
As a member of the traditional Republicans, who believes in free market capitalism, free but fair trade, opposes broad based tariffs, supports limited government, low personal income and corporate taxes, cutting spending and reducing the federal debt, but still believes in alliances with NATO, and Canada and Mexico, and a strong military, I am at odds with some of MAGA goals but aligned with others, such as border security and enforcing immigration laws.
With the social and religious, faction, I have some crossover, opposing abortion on demand, in all three trimesters of pregnancy, supporter of charter schools and school choice, and not allowing biological men to play women sports.
My guess is that the three factions of the Democratic Party have crossover as well. With the exit of Donald Trump in two years, the MAGA faction will diminish, especially with the unpopularity of the Iran War, and the inflationary result of the broad-based tariffs.
However, the Democratic Socialists of America, even though not winning all their elections, is in their ascendency, with the fire and enthusiasm of the young, and the firm belief that Socialism is far preferable to Capitalism. This will drive the party further to the left. With a radical agenda, such as eliminating the Presidency, Senate and the Supreme Court, private property rights, establishing universal rent control, and severe reductions in the military, the “radical” MAGA agenda pales in comparison, with the lunacy of the Democratic Socialists of America. A serious threat to the republic and to democracy.
Vic Massara, Omaha, Neb.
This past week my favorite author, Wendell Berry, passed away, aged 92. He lived a long and full life, but it is still a bit sad to think we will have no new writing of his to enjoy.
I first encountered his writing as a recently repatriated Iowan in 2018. Upon returning with my family to my native land, after many years of living amongst peasant farmers in Asia, there was much of life and farming in Iowa that felt very foreign. Why are the fields so big? Why is everyone trying to outdo each other all the time? Why are there so few people? And why aren’t there any cows, water buffalos, pigs and chickens wandering about?
Mr. Berry had similar questions (he was more of a draft-horse kind of guy, not as interested in water buffalos). He didn’t always have answers but wasn’t afraid to grapple with complex ideas. I normally understood his biblical references but often got lost when he started into Homer and old English poets. That’s ok, his writing challenged my thinking.
I also appreciated his refusal to be boxed politically. He was at home condemning both the “liberal freedom of unrestrained personal behavior, and the conservative freedom of unrestrained economic behavior.” I enjoyed his writing because he spoke as a Christian who cared about God’s creation.
Most of all, I appreciated his love of family, farm and the local community.
Neil Peterson, Fonda
The constitutional amendment on our Iowa November ballot requiring a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to raise personal or corporate income taxes would tie the hands of younger and future Iowans. That is fundamentally wrong.
Since taking total control of Iowa government in 2017 Republicans have consistently favored the most financially comfortable Iowans: from the “flat” income tax which gives over $20,000 tax cuts to the top 1% of earners (and an average of $402 to the middle 20%); to unlimited exclusion of retirement plan benefits; to private school vouchers (ESAs) with no family income limitations. At the same time, they are running annual state budget operating deficits of $1.2 billion which will blow through reserve funds by 2030.
Republicans’ reason for making income tax increases essentially impossible is clearly based on the Kansas experience. After Kansas Republicans enacted major income tax cuts in 2012, Kansans soon realized the reduced revenue endangered essential services, especially schools. The Kansas legislature raised income taxes in 2017. Iowa Republicans want to lock the door to that happening here. Younger and future Iowans are going to have to make serious repairs. This constitutional amendment would restrict them to using property and sales taxes, license costs and fees to raise needed revenue. Our children and grandchildren deserve a full toolbox.
Al Charlson, Waverly
We ask you to vote for Stephanie Steiner for Iowa House District 6. We would like you to share this information regarding Stephanie Steiner for Iowa House District 5. Pictured is Stephanie Steiner from Sutherland and Colleen Cleveringa Lemkuil from Spirit Lake. Stephanie with her husband Mark and her family was in the Sutherland Labor Day parade and the Sheldon Labor Day parade. Stephanie walked down the street, handing out USA flags and candy with her 10 volunteers. Mark and she had a nice float with the words O’Brien County Democrats and all Democrat candidates’ signs. At the podium, the announcer spoke about her support for public education and healthcare reforms for all. Stephanie needs your vote on Nov. 3. She is a livestock farmer and a retired nurse. She is the mother of seven and a grandmother. For more information, go to info@SteinerforIowa.com
Stephanie understands the needs of Iowa families. I am a retired Public Health nurse, and I am endorsing Stephanie; she is also endorsed by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa.
Colleen Lemkuil, Spirit Lake
Back in February, I wrote a Letter to the Editor called Gibbs Rule 13. After reading The Times Aug. 21 issue, I’m sorry if I made the TIF lawyers mad. They must think Storm Lake is flush with money by their fees. I do have the phone number for price gouging if you want it. Back to Gibbs Rule 1; it’s “Don’t screw over your partner.”
Shouldn't the city and county be partners as they have the same job — serving people. If the taxpayers are getting bent over the fence, I don’t think that’s how they want to be served. My research says “Supporters argue TIF enables development in blighted acres that would not otherwise occur.”
Years back I had to work in Storm Lake from time to time and I don’t remember blight then. The Civic Federation (est. 1894) says “TIF is the most widely used and often misunderstood economic tool local governments use to fund redevelopments.” They say “TIF may set different urban areas and different levels of government in competition over funding.” They must know what they’re talking about. They also say “TIF is controversial because of disagreements over effectiveness, fairness accountability and transparency.”
Bingo! Your Aug. 21 issue says “A frozen, district level base value had been ‘manually changed’ by the county in December 2016.” “Under TIF a FROZEN base value isn’t supposed to change.”
Seems clear enough. The county lawyers claimed producing the audit logs could freeze the county auditor’s computer. Ya like high tech, I thought computers were supposed to make life easier. Maybe we should go back to paper or ever hear of a printout? Remember Gibbs Rule 13? I think Gibbs rule 26 applies now. “If you think you are being played you probably are.”
P.S. Where are you taxpayers? You must have a lot of extra money.
Dave Haynes, Duncombe
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here