This Tuesday we had a local victory for community values. Our small town, University Heights, an enclave inside Iowa City, has been the target since 2009 of a developer called Jeff Maxwell. There is a long history, which I'll share below the fold, but the most recent twists and turns include a city council that refused to sign conflict of interest disclosures, a TIF that amounts to $6,000 per citizen, and a developer clear cutting the side of a ravine in defiance of his Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement.
It came to a boil about ten days before Tuesday's election. In addition to the dissident councilor who was running for re-election, one new candidate ran on the ballot, not enough to take back control of the council. An intrepid group of citizens decided to run write-in candidates for mayor and for three council seats. Write-in, right? What a waste of time, right?
No! We took the mayoralty and the crucial fifth seat on the council. Two incumbents who have served several terms are (almost certainly) returned to the council. But the dissident councilor took the highest vote total, the newcomer took second highest, and the fifth seat is going to one of two write-in candidates.
There is a one vote difference between them. Because we have an honest and conscientious auditor today there will be an administrative recount. Whether there will be an additional recount will probably turn on the outcome of today's recount.
The recount will be open to anyone who wants to attend. The County office building has free, open wifi. I thought kogs might enjoy hearing about politics from the grass roots, so I am going to liveblog the recount. Here goes!
11:57 am. The official party has unlocked the conference room and are having a private discussion about (I asssume) procedure. Waiting to go in: one of the write-in winners and a lawyer, a blogger who had come out strongly on the other side, another resident and myself.
The backstory (from one perspective)
2009
Jeff Maxwell hears that St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church wants to move. He swoops in and offers the church $4.3M for their land. Maxwell holds community meetings to sell his development. He waves around the city master plan, claiming to follow it, and answers a question from a citizen with "Developers lie." He proves this by having totally lied in his description of the master plan. The compliant city council promptly develops a more congenial plan.
During the summer a vacant seat is filled by appointment, although citizens requested a special election.
Elections that year had presidential level participation (normally more like 5-10%). Some of those elected subsequently acted differently than they had said during the run up to the election.
In the waning months of the year, a petition to exclude a ravine from the development garnered the signatures of a quarter of the citizens. The appointed city councilor is the deciding vote to follow the developer's preference and rezone the ravine.
2010
The appointed councilor loses a special election with presidential level turnout and decisive preference for the challenger, despite snow and freezing temperatures. Too late to overturn his vote to rezone the ravine, however.
2010-2011
A development-positive council fostered discussions of the development. City council meetings attracted dozens and sometimes scores of citizens expressing opposition. The early steps toward the development continued until in late summer Maxwell saw the face of a supportive councilor shift to sceptical.
In the middle of a council meeting, Maxwell consulted with his lawyer and then stood up. "I withdraw my application for a PUD." Sensation in the room!
In the fall of 2011, a council with a majority of development-sceptics is elected.
2012-2013
Relative quiet. Maxwell is not active. The church continues to make plans to move.
The city election in 2013 is again actively contested. One key point is whether the developer should get a TIF (tax increment financing). Participation is again high, especially from an apartment building that is normally inactive. It has locked doors and is difficult to canvass. Our suspicions are that the residents were targeted with a "Get a coffee shop! Lower your taxes!" campaign, but as it was not public we have no certain information.
A development friendly council is elected.
2014-2015
At first, the developer is silent. Suddenly a flurry of application and requests and in short order, the council approves a Planned Unit Development agreement and a six million dollar TIF. The dissident who tried to reduce the TIF asks the council to sign disclosures of conflict of interest; the other councilors do not even giver her motion a second, so there is no discussion.
In late September the developer breaks ground and clear cuts a ravine bank that was supposed to be preserved. Hell breaks out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough of the past! On to the recount -
10:10 AM PT: We're inside! There are six people who chose to do a manual recount rather than a machine recount. They are apparently three and three but the auditor person has not said who chose them.
The counters are all women, and one is African American.
10:17 AM PT: They are mentioning that at the absentee board there was a ten vote tally that was misreported but has been corrected.
Judy is talking now. "We are a bipartisan board" The two folks who made the ten point error are not here. The city council elections are not partisan, by the way.
There is a table at the back with bags of ballots from the early election sites, and the blue bag at the side is specifically University Heights. One provisional ballot has been approved and will be counted; that person's absentee ballot affidavit hadn't been signed so the auditor's office contacted them to alert them to their right to cast a provisional one.
10:23 AM PT: There were 2,090 absentee ballots cast in the county, and they are sifting right now to find the 147 ones cast for University Heights.
That 147 is the total of write ins detected by the machines. However if there are any ballots where someone forgot to fill in the little oval, the counters are allowed to add that to the total.
In the hand recount the counters can try to discern intent, so if someone leaves out a letter from a name they make an effort to decide whom the voter intended to vote for.
10:33 AM PT: The counters are still sorting out ballots. They have checked two bags of absentee ballots. There are twelve more to go.
This is the first recount for our county in three years. I can see why they don't do them lightly.
Democracy in action is not always exciting.
10:59 AM PT: The teams are tallying as they go along for each bag from an early site. Those ballots go back into the bag and are resealed after that tally.
Now working on boxes five and six. Sigh.
11:51 AM PT: Big excitement! They're about to open the precinct ballots, all 306 of them. 147 counted so far from the absentees.
The patient counters are being given a break. It's only been an hour and fifty minutes of counting, after all.
12:33 PM PT: The counters are making good progress through the precinct box. The table is nearly covered with the sheets for the "scattered" write in votes - every one that gets even one ballot gets a sheet.
The auditor is lounging by the door, watching as the recount nears completion. At the moment he's chatting with the TV camera man who is on hand for the final tally. The Press Citizen reporter left a little while ago after getting info from the various citizens who are watching.
Getting near the end!
12:44 PM PT: A ballot the machine missed! Three write ins where the voter failed to fill in the little oval. Because this is a manual recount, the nonpartisan group can and did choose to include these three.
The guide to counting that the county has based on the state code is a hoot. For example if most of the tallies are done right but one is a check or slash the odd one is ignored. However, if they're all done wrong, and done the same way (all slashes, all checks or whatever) then they do get counted.
1:20 PM PT: Some of the less serious write ins:
TIF sucks
Santa
Wally
Blank
Close to the end!
1:42 PM PT: And……it's final!
We have a new mayor.
We have a majority on the council.
Let's hear it for grass roots democracy!
The local paper already has their article online - it's quite accurate. Fun to see the "official" version for something I witnessed myself