Ames Tribune - Gatehouse Media

A6

AMES TRIBUNE | Sunday, May 17, 2015

PAUL HEIDBREDER

OPINION Ames Tribune

MICHAEL CRUMB

PUBLISHER

EDITOR

T R IBU NE EDI TOR I A L

Secondhand goods ordinance should be scrapped

W

e hope Scott Nichols, the owner of Chester’s Coins on Main Street has a change of heart. We hope the Ames City Council does, too. Nichols this past week closed up shop, posted a sign on his door saying he was done and that to loosely paraphrase, the city had stuck it to him. That happened less than a day after the council, we’re sure with the best of intentions, adopted on a third reading an ordinance that would require some businesses, such as Nichols’, to collect personal information from customers who sell items to them. That information, including name, address and phone number, would then be entered into an online database police could use to, in theory, track stolen goods. Business owners such as Nichols, and Gary Youngberg and others, have vehemently opposed the ordinance since it was first proposed.

They attended council meetings voicing their opposition. They wrote a letter to this newspaper expressing their concerns with the proposed law. They spoke with council and city staff at their stores. But all their efforts appeared to be in vain as the council last Tuesday night voted unanimously to approve the ordinance. The next day, Nichols posted the sign and locked his doors, worrying neighboring businesses and friends. Let’s take a step back and take a look at the ordinance, titled “Pawnbrokers, Itinerant dealers, and Secondhand dealers.” It reads nearly four pages. It defines what businesses and items or property are covered. We’re not going to cite line-byline what it all says, but it appears the section that is under dispute is Section No. 3, which addresses “Records of Transactions and Retention of Purchases.” That section requires dealers to record a detailed account of the

C A L L I NG M O M

Mother’s Day redux A

way at college, I forgot about Mother’s Day when making the traditional Sunday night call on the pay phone in the dorm. There was a line of young women. Sunday was when college students called home. The long distance rates were cheapest then. Neglecting to send a gift or even a card, I was profuse in my apology. My mother interrupted me. “Fernie, please. Mother’s Day is a commercial, bullshit holiday. I know how much you love me every single day.” That was my mom. Irreverent. Calling the shots as she saw them. Her name was Ruth, and she had a memo pad that said: The Truth from Ruth. I was in college in the late sixties when I forgot to send that Mother’s Day card. It’s been years since I had a mother to call. I miss her still. My mom was a people person, warmly interested in the details of my day. A Jewish mother without the guilt. An adult friend once said: “I used to love to go to your house after school. Your mom always made me feel I was just the person she wanted to see.” Mom made people feel comfortable talking about their lives. One time, long after I had left home, my mom told me she was concerned about a boy she had met that day, a high school kid who carried her groceries to the car. She had asked him questions about his plans after graduation. He confessed he didn’t know if he should attend college, that he had just found out his girlfriend was pregnant and maybe he should marry her and get a job …” “Mom,” I said. “This boy told you all that as he carried your groceries to the car?” “Well,” she explained. “It was Saturday and the parking lot was very crowded. I was parked a long ways away.” I thought of my mom last Sunday, Mother’s Day, when my own kids — who know the iconoclastic roots from whence I came — began to call. I have my mom’s practical, nonsentimental vision of constructed holidays, of advertisers telling us how we’re supposed to feel. I’ve pretty much freed my kids from the obligation of having to buy gifts. Just call me, I say. Which they do all the time anyway. Last Sunday morning, my daughter called from Chicago. “Mom?” she asked. “I called last night. Where were you out so late?” Deep in the dark night of wildest Iowa, my husband and I had been to a dinner party. Gabi tells me she has just

“sale, purchase, pawn, trade or exchange” of items in their stores. That includes serial numbers, engravings, or other identifying markings or labels, brands, numbers of decorative precious or semi-precious gems, stones, or jewelry, amount paid, advanced or loaned, the date and time of each transaction, a clear digital photograph of each item if the item lacks a serial or model number, and here is the big sticking point: a description of the person they are doing business with, including their name, address, date of birth, gender, driver’s license or state-issued ID. Itinerant dealers and antique dealers are exempt from the rules, as are transactions at garage, yard and estate sales, the consignment of secondhand goods or sale of secondhand goods that were donated without compensation, or transactions at auctions. That leaves businesses such as pawn shops and those such as Nichols’ and Youngberg’s Ames

Silversmithing. Those business owners argue the ordinance is a constitutional violation of a customer’s right to privacy, and they have more than hinted they are considering a legal challenge. After Nichols closed his doors, Councilman Matthew Goodman was quoted as saying he would support a change to the ordinance, “if necessary. “The last thing we’re intending to do is close any businesses,” he told the Ames Tribune Goodman said he hopes the council, after city staff reaches out to learn if the new reporting requirements would be “untenable,” would work quickly to fix it. Didn’t that happen before the ordinance was presented to council for a vote? Ames is lucky, and unique, to have such a vibrant, active Main Street full of business owners who care. And that’s true across the city, not just the Main Street district. We believe the council cast its

net far too wide and is now seeing the unintended consequences of its actions. We have heard that if something isn’t done, there could be a ripple effect resulting in damage to other businesses in the area, and that would be a shame. We have also heard the ordinance was passed without any evidence of increasing problems with the crimes police are hoping the ordinance will help solve. If there is a problem, the city should focus its efforts on those areas and businesses that are problems, and not just go fishing to see what problems it can find. If the city doesn’t take action to fix what we see as a shortsighted decision, they may find themselves at the center of a lawsuit challenging its decision, which would be expensive. But more importantly, they should rescind the ordinance as approved to be fair to those business people who have made Ames and its Main Street the vibrant community that it is.

M AT T W U E R K E R

FERN KUPFER Ames Voices

allowed her daughter, Ruthie, named after my mom, to walk to Lincoln Square with a friend. Even with cell phones, this new freedom gives my daughter pause. Now she worries on two sides of the generation gap. We talk for an hour. There’s a casual happy Mother’s Day before the goodbye. I know every single day how much she loves me. When I married my husband 25 years ago, he had custody of his two little girls and had been raising them alone for seven years. In those seven years, I don’t believe he had ever said no. “Then you came along and straightened us all out,” Katie would say with a smirk. Once I read some article it took about five years for a step-family to find its bearing, to make things work. I panicked: FIVE YEARS! Through some terrible teens, some tears and slammed doors, some counseling, some date nights where my husband and I did not permit ourselves to talk about the children, we endured. Better than endured. We became a loving and trusting blended family. Albeit, one that doesn’t make a big deal about holidays. My older step-daughter sent a Mother’s Day card. It was sweet and sentimental, just like she is. It came on Saturday. “Thank you for being such a wonderful mom,” she wrote. “I love you.” Then, when she called on Sunday, knowing my penchant for tidiness over sentiment, she asked: “So, Fern: did you throw that card out yet?” Katie, now living in Georgia, was the third caller last Sunday. She told me the details of her date the night before. “Tell me all the he-saids, she-saids” is one of the Southern expressions I have learned that is appropriate when one’s daughter is living far away. Katie wished me a happy Mother’s Day. Then she told me that she had sent a bouquet of flowers to her mom. “She really appreciates those kinds of things,” Katie said. I agreed. I said that was thoughtful of her. “I knew you wouldn’t care. If I sent you flowers through the mail, you would just say I shouldn’t waste my money,’“ Katie said. I said that I would. Then she added: “ But you know how much I love you.” “Every day,” I said. “Every single day.”

MATT WUERKER is a cartoonist for Politico.

YO U R L E T T E R S

A simple, easy step to feed hungry children Recently, I volunteered to assist with United Way of Story County’s Summer Food and Enrichment Program, which provides low-income children a free breakfast, lunch, snack and STEM activities for six weeks. It has been shown that good nutrition is necessary for good academic achievement. My own grandchildren are well-fed, but I worry about the other one out of five Iowa grandchildren whose family struggles to put food on the table. If cuts to the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act

become effective after Sept. 30, as proposed with this new federal budget, it is doubtful that United Way’s enrichment program will exist next summer. We know that learning retention diminishes when school is out, and being hungry also contributes to this loss. All of our kids need to eat as well as we can provide. Here is a simple, easy step you can take to help feed hungry children. Contact Sen. Chuck Grassley, in particular, and also Sen. Joni Ernst and tell them not to vote to cut the Child Nutrition programs that are up for re-authorization. These include the School Lunch; Breakfast; Summer

Meals; and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) programs. To contact Sen. Charles Grassley and Sen. Joni Ernst by mail, please write: Sen. Grassley or Sen. Ernst, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510. Or call the Capitol switchboard, toll free, at 1 (877) 429-0678, and ask for Sen. Grassley or Sen. Ernst. Many talk about keeping America strong, and this is one way we can all participate in doing that. Volunteer now to let our Congress know how vital food for poor families is. If you need help, go to www. bread.org. GLENDA EGGERLING, Ames

D O O N E S B U RY C L A S S IC

W H AT D O YO U T H I N K ?

Write a letter to the editor Email: [email protected] Fax: (515) 232-2364

Mail or hand delivery: 317 Fifth St., Ames, IA 50010

Letters must be original works of 300 words or less from writers in the Ames Tribune’s circulation area. One letter per author per month. Name, address and phone number must be included. Letters may be edited.

Guest commentary Please request a copy of the Tribune’s Guest Commentary Guidelines before submitting your essay.

A10

AMES TRIBUNE | Sunday, April 5, 2015

PAUL HEIDBREDER


MICHAEL CRUMB

PUBLISHER

EDITOR


Time has come to extend Grand Avenue

W

e support extending Grand Avenue to the south to alleviate congestion on South Duff Avenue. It makes sense, both from a traffic standpoint and from an economic one. We don’t live in Chicago or other large cities where a commute of an hour or more is the norm, but we’ve all been on South Duff Avenue when it’s been jam-packed between Lincoln Way and U.S. Highway 30. We’ve all experienced what at times feels like a big-city traffic jam (and the sometimes reckless driving that accompanies it) and the frustration of wondering why a four-lane street in Ames, Iowa, has this problem. Last week, the city held a public meeting to discuss the idea of extending Grand Avenue from South Fourth Street to South 16th Street, an idea first discussed in 2000, but it never materialized because of the elimination of federal earmarks. The idea has surfaced regularly over the years with acknowledgment the big roadblock would be funding. But there also may be some environmental hurdles that

must be cleared if Grand Avenue is to be extended, and it will include the incorporation of a flood mitigation study completed for the city last year. Four options were laid out for the approximately 40 residents who attended this week’s meeting: Connect South Grand Avenue at Squaw Creek Drive to South Grand Avenue north of South 16th Street, follow a trail corridor in the area to connect South Grand Avenue at Squaw Creek Drive to South 16th Street, follow a similar corridor route but turn south to connect to South 16th Street at Mulberry Boulevard, or improve South Duff Avenue without extending either South Grand Avenue or South Fifth Street. Some people would like to see things stay the way they are. They run or ride bikes on the trail and enjoy the seclusion from the hustle and bustle they perceive will develop if Grand Avenue is extended. A traffic study shows if Grand Avenue is extended, about 7,600 vehicles a day would traverse the new roadway. With the extension, traffic on South 16th Street would grow to 18,500 vehicles a day, from the

H E A LT H C A R E

projected 13,800 without it. The effect on South Duff Avenue would be noticeable, according to the study. By 2040, traffic on South Duff with the Grand Avenue extension would be just over 22,000 vehicles a day, compared to more than 28,000 without it. We believe extending Grand to South 16th is really the only viable option if the city wants to reduce the growing congestion that is seen in the South Duff Corridor. What is not an option is making improvements to South Duff without extending Grand Avenue. We acknowledge traffic control along Duff will be an ongoing challenge that won’t be cured by only extending Grand Avenue. Other measures should be taken, too, but those improvements alone are not a solution. Extending Grand would do more than just relieve congestion on South Duff. It could even help keep residents, particularly those living on the south side of Ames and even maybe further south from traveling elsewhere to do their shopping. It’s commonly said that for someone

who lives on the far south end of Ames, it’s just as quick to drive to Ankeny down U.S. Highway 69, as it is to navigate through Ames to get to North Grand Mall, an area that has undergone a major revitalization in the past two years and offers many of the same shopping opportunities found in Ankeny. A Grand Avenue extension would provide a clearer, and faster path from the south side of Ames to the North Grand shopping district. We encourage residents to support the plan, and we encourage city officials to keep looking for money to bring the project to fruition. The city has budgeted nearly $18 million for the extension through the 2020 fiscal year, but city leaders need to find the money to help pay for it. Extending Grand Avenue to alleviate congestion on South Duff, increasing safety there, and maybe keeping some shoppers in town, is well worth the effort, and the cost. The time to extend Grand Avenue to the south has come. It just makes sense.

JOE HEL LER

The future of Medicare

T

he U.S. Senate adjourned for Easter break, leaving the vote on the bill regarding the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) Formula until they return in April. The House last week passed the HR 2 bill 392-37 to repeal the SGR formula permanently, so there appears to be bipartisan support to finally end the large physician payment cuts that have been mandated by the SGR formula since Congress started it in 1997. Temporary patches (borrowing) to avoid SGR cuts had been used 18 times over the years. Since the deadline for the SGR was April 1, the mandated 21 percent SGR payment cuts for physicians will start in mid-April if the Senate fails to act on April 13. There was widespread agreement that the SGR formula needs to be eliminated, and the large majority of representatives voted for HR 2 even though the bill does not find “pay-fors” or offsets for about twothirds of the $214 billion it will cost over the next ten years. Of the Iowa U.S. representatives, Rep. David Young and Rep. Dave Loebsack voted with the majority to repeal the SGR formula, while Rep. Steve King and Rep. Rod Blum were two of the 37 who voted against the HR 2 bill. King wrote that he objected to the lack of an offset for two-thirds of the SGR cost. The future of Medicare is going to be debated for many years, including the 2016 national elections. As mentioned in these previous columns, there is not a complete “pay-for” for the Medicare Part D drug plan either, so both Medicare Part B physician payments and the Part D drug costs will be coming out of future federal borrowing and will add more to our already large national debt. The political debate is basically about how to moderate the increases in Medicare costs, and how to pay for it rather than constantly adding to our national debt. President Obama and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Burwell in January released their plan to reduce some of the costs of Medicare by changing the way the government pays hospitals and doctors, emphasizing payment for value (higher quality and efficiency) rather than for volume, i.e. the number of tests and treatments given. Burwell announced their goal of having 50 percent of the Medicare payment to doctors and hospitals by 2018 be made on the basis of quality, not quantity. This would help to keep people healthier and utilize fewer services that might not be needed because the providers would be given incentives to prevent illnesses and complications — unlike the current

DR. MICHAEL KITCHELL Ames Voices

Medicare payment system which rewards more tests and treatments that may not all be needed to keep people healthy. In March the House Republican leadership released their long term budget proposal that would eliminate federal deficits within 10 years, largely by changing entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The Republican House budget proposal would reduce entitlement spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, and as expected they would repeal Obamacare. The details of how Republicans would reduce Medicare payments are not specified in this long-term budget proposal, but the speculation is that the Republicans will propose more premium support models that would give more responsibility and choice for payment of insurance premiums to individuals. A previously announced Republican proposal to reform Medicare by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would utilize the same cuts to Medicare that Obamacare has made, and offer premium support in the same way that Obamacare gives tax credits to individuals to buy their own private insurance. Those premium support subsidies however may not be enough to buy full coverage for all maladies in the future. But there would be more benefit design options with various coverages and benefits, ranging from cheaper coverage that is limited to fewer providers or treatments, to broader coverage that would be more expensive, through private insurance products like the current Medicare Advantage Whether it is the current SGR crisis or the long-term debt that Medicare is accumulating, politicians and voters will have tough choices to make. The question is who will be held responsible for reducing the cost of healthcare: 1) patients, with limited benefit choices and paying more out-of-pocket costs; 2) the government, by not offering enough premium support for all benefits and coverage; or 3), providers, who will be paid for higher quality and lower costs, and be faced with taking financial risk for the higher costs of care they give?

CARTOONIST JOE HELLER can be reached at [email protected].


Reviving the estate tax debate In late March, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee voted 22-10 to eliminate the Federal Estate Tax (a.k.a., the “Death Tax”) on the .2 percent of estates now estimated to be burdened with paying estate taxes on inherited wealth. What other laws would our Congress spend time on that impact only two estates out of 1,000 or, the other way around, will not impact 998 estates out of 1,000? Since the 1980s, wealth has been going into fewer hands and one of the reasons is drastically reduced estate taxes. At present, spouses can eliminate taxes on estates up to $10.86 million. That’s right, a single heir can walk out of the estate settlement with almost $11 million and not pay a single dollar toward defense, care for veterans, farm programs, government debts or anything else

that the United States provides for some of the most privileged citizens who have ever lived. By the way, Sen. Chuck Grassley was quoted as being hopeful that Washington can “cross the finish line” to completely eliminate the estate tax this time. Last time, they only got a law that eliminates taxes on estates up to $10.86 million. BILL VOGEL, Ames

Strong start critical to children’s future As we cross into the second half of this year’s legislative calendar, our governor and elected leaders should not forget to provide our youngest learners a strong start — expand preschool for all Iowa kids. I am a junior at Iowa State University studying child, adult and family services. I’ve learned how cycles of family instability and insecurity are crippling

the next generation and have eliminated opportunities for children. More than half of our state’s 3- and 4-year-olds are not enrolled in a preschool program. When kids don’t have a strong foundation for learning, it only creates further instability in their home and insecurity in their future. Why should half of the next generation begin kindergarten already behind their peers? I am encouraged by Gov. Branstad’s desire to offer our students the best education in the world, and I believe the place to start is at the very beginning with preschool. Investing in preschool programs is not just investing in education, it’s an investment in the future stability of our families, in the future economy and in reducing inequality at its roots and supporting the next generation’s ability to make the world a better place. MOLLY PETERSON, Ames


DR. MICHAEL J. KITCHELL is a neurologist with McFarland Clinic in Ames. He serves on numerous state and national health policy boards and commissions.






A8

AMES TRIBUNE | Sunday, August 23, 2015


MICHAEL CRUMB EDITOR

D R I V I N G I N I OWA

More safety needed at uncontrolled intersections

I

f you drive off the beaten path, which for many of us in rural America is a daily routine, you undoubtedly have seen it. You’re on a gravel road and you approach an intersection where there is no stop sign. Between November and June, you can see across the fields and know whether you need to yield to another vehicle. But this time of year, that visibility may be blocked by the lush, green stalks of tasseled corn as they reach for the sky. While we reap the economic benefits of being the nation’s top corn-producing state, there is a downside to all that corn: increased risks to drivers as they approach those rural intersections. On Aug. 14, a crash at an uncontrolled intersection near Maxwell in southeastern Story County claimed a life. While the jury is out on whether tall corn was a factor, officials with the sheriff’s office said it wasn’t being ruled out. A look at a photo of the intersection today suggests other factors may have been involved, but it’s hard to tell. But just the week before, in eastern Iowa, three young brothers were killed in a crash at an uncontrolled rural intersection where tall corn was considered a factor. No charges were filed in that case.

In a report from WHO-TV, Robert Deo, who lives on the same road where the Maxwell crash occurred, said, “It doesn’t matter where you go around here, any of the gravel roads this time of year, the corn is tall and you can’t see anything.” What we wonder is if there is some way to improve safety at those intersections. Records from the IDOT are only current through 2011, so it’s difficult to truly ascertain the frequency of accidents at these intersections, or the seriousness of them. But two accidents in two weeks is concerning. While tall corn may be a factor in some crashes, we’re hesitant to place blame on farmers and their planting practices. Other factors, of course, are that the intersections are unmarked, and, probably more importantly, driver error. Officials with the Story County Sheriff’s Office say people who frequently drive on those roads know them well and often don’t pay close enough attention when approaching a crossing. One sheriff’s office official acknowledges seeing a motorist while he was offduty drive right through such an intersection without slowing down. It seems that if the intersection is obscured by objects, whether it be tall corn

G L O B A L WA R M I NG

or overgrown bushes, more caution should be taken when driving our rural, gravel roads. We are told farmers cannot plant corn any closer than 33 feet from the center of the road. That measurement is used to determine where the right-of-way begins. I’m sure most farmers do abide by that law, but mistakes can happen and yes, maybe there are some that try to skirt the rules to squeeze every last kernel out of their crop. If corn is planted too close to the road, the right-of-way should be enforced. A Radcliffe farmer we spoke with said there are measures farmers can take, such as cutting the stalk after the last ear of corn once it matures, or cutting their crop back 10 feet at a 45-degree angle at intersections to help improve visibility. We like those suggestions, and we encourage all farmers to take similar measures. The issue of visibility isn’t just one for uncontrolled intersections on our dirt roads. It’s obvious driving down paved roads and highways that objects, such as tall corn or large trees or bushes, can be just as hazardous. The difference is that they are controlled with either a stop sign or a stop light. Would that help on the rural intersections where sight lines are reduced to near

zero and cross traffic may not be seen until you’re in the intersection? Maybe, but officials cite costs of installing stop signs at uncontrolled intersections and risk of vandalism to temporary signs as reasons for not placing them at the crossings. People who drive those roads regularly should know the risks, but in today’s world of distracted driving all it takes is a second for tragedy to strike. For people less familiar with those back roads, the risk is even higher. Something needs to be done to increase safety at those crossings. Maybe it’s just a reminder for people who drive these roads to take the time to be more cautious. Slow down and look both ways before crossing. And yield if another vehicle is approaching. Those are simple lessons we teach our children. Maybe it’s time for a refresher course for us adults, as well. It’s also a good lesson as school kicks into full gear this week across central Iowa and more students will be driving on those roads. And if tall corn is a factor, something we take so much pride in shouldn’t be the source of someone’s sorrow.

JOE HEL LER

What if we are wrong?

T

here are myriad opinions, theories and facts floating around about the causes and consequences of climate change. What if we are all wrong? There are at least two perspectives on the subject in the public and political domains. There is adequate evidence of human activity causing climate change and we need to move aggressively if we wish to preserve the planet for future generations. The climate is changing but the climate has always been changing. We don’t know why changes are occurring today or who causes them. We don’t want to initiate any remedial actions that may not be necessary. Within the first camp there is nearly unanimous agreement that burning fossil fuels to meet our energy requirements generates atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is responsible for warming the world and contributing to global climate change. Dealing with the root cause of climate change will require rethinking many of our cherished norms and possibly altering life styles in ways that will range somewhere between inconvenient and draconian. We will be burning less fossil fuel, utilizing more renewable energy sources, and leaving coal, oil, and natural gas in the ground. We will also be required to develop adaptation techniques to deal with the impacts of global warming that we are already experiencing; more frequent and more intense weather events, changes in plant and animal habitat ranges, higher sea levels, higher world temperatures, increased desertification, and increased pressure on all natural resources. We will spend billions of dollars in the process. What if we are wrong? What if we take steps to reduce or stop carbon dioxide discharges to the atmosphere and implement measures to adapt to the perceived changing conditions and then miraculously figure out that carbon dioxide is not the If we are totally wrong and we take the actions outlined, what have we lost? We will have preserved our fossil fuel resources for use by generations to follow. We will have developed alternative

LARRY KOEHRSEN Ames Voices

sources of energy. We will have provided adaptive measures that will provide benefits even if we only experience normal cyclical climate changes. We will have created jobs and invested resources in actions that will have long-term paybacks. In short, if we are wrong and we do the things we think we need to do to combat climate change, we will make the planet a better place to live. Those with a different view of the state of the world believe that; climate change is a low priority issue, we can continue to utilize fossil energy sources, any supposed climate change impacts are normal and temporary, and we do not need to consider altering our life styles to cope with climate change. What if this line of thinking is wrong? If we pursue this strategy of minimal intervention and we are wrong, all of the current dire predictions and fears about the future will be upon us. The longer we go on this current course, the deeper the hole we find ourselves in if we ultimately recognize the wrongness of our ways. The science of world climate and climate change is extremely complex. The system is so vast and there are so many variables that predictions about tomorrow, a year from now, and a century from now are fraught with uncertainty. However, the body of scientific evidence regarding the causes and impacts of climate change is strong and growing rapidly. There is no good reason for waiting to act in the hope of getting all the answers. If we are right, or if we are wrong, the world is better off if we take decisive actions now. LARRY KOEHRSEN is a graduate of Iowa State University with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in civil engineering. He worked in the consulting engineering business, focusing primarily on environmental issues and projects. He is now retired and lives in Ames. He can be reached at [email protected]




Letters must be original works of 300 words or less from writers in the Ames Tribune’s circulation area. One letter per author per month. Name, address and phone number must be included. Letters may be edited. GUEST COMMENTARY: Please request a copy of the Tribune’s Guest Commentary Guidelines before submitting your essay.

CARTOONIST JOE HELLER can be reached at [email protected].


Affordable housing should be a priority In the Aug. 16 article on the affordable housing shortage, there seem to be contradictory messages from real estate professionals. Joe Shafbuch from Century 21 indicates that it’s a profitable time for agents and landlords in Ames. Then Kurt Friedrich says that developers cannot afford to create lower-cost housing without “substantial financial resources” from the city. While some find it disheartening that new professionals cannot find housing in Ames, I find it disheartening that people in the service industries and merit classification staff at Iowa State University cannot afford to live in Ames when they make the lowest salaries. These lower-paid workers then have to pay more money in gas and wear and tear on their cars to get to work when there is no public transportation option between Ames and the lowercost cities of Huxley, Boone and Nevada.

I just completed reading Linda Tirado’s book “Hand to Mouth,” and she speaks frankly of the ways it costs more to be poor and how people with more resources unfairly judge those with fewer resources. We will all benefit from having more economic diversity in the Ames population. I value that I live in a mixed rent and own neighborhood. We do not have to put affordable housing on the edges of our new developments — let’s make them a required and integral part of new developments. Let’s make affordable housing a priority for Ames. SUZANNE ZILBER, Ames

Better solutions than lawsuits, regulations The debate surrounding water quality in Iowa is very important. Unfortunately, lawsuits and expanding regulation seldom seem to be the best answer. Instead, focusing on promoting practices through collaborative efforts that actually reduce


nutrient runoff in the field is a far more efficient approach. On the land I farm, we have done a number of things to reduce our impact on the environment. We have practiced minimum and no-till, as well as utilized cover crops, such as cereal rye, where needed. We follow a manure management plan when applying our animal nutrients, and we use split application of nitrogen. Soil is tested so fertilizer is only applied where necessary. In addition, we have restored wetlands. This allows the plants to maximize their needs for nitrogen while reducing runoff. There would be no benefit to me, or my farm, to ever over-apply any crop nutrients, whether they are animal- or commercial-based. Sustainability is important to me because I hope my son returns home to farm, and I want him to have the same opportunities I had along with my father and the three generations of family before him. BRIAN SAMPSON, Beef Board member, Nevada

A6

AMES TRIBUNE | Sunday, December 13, 2015

SCOTT ANDERSON


MICHAEL CRUMB

PUBLISHER

EDITOR


Potential risks outweigh benefits for Bakken pipeline

W

e’ve sat patiently, hearing all the arguments, rhetoric and hyperbole in the debate over the proposed Dakota Access pipeline, commonly referred to as the Bakken pipeline, which if approved, would be built across 18 Iowa counties from the Bakken oilfields in North Dakota to Illinois. In Story County, the pipeline would cut south of Ames and east between Huxley and Cambridge, crossing farmland and dissecting the Heart of Iowa Trail. It would also cross parts of Boone County. The debate has centered around two main issues: the ability of the government’s use of eminent domain to take someone’s land for a project such as this; and the environmental impact of the pipeline once it’s built and the associated risks should a spill occur. In short, we oppose the pipeline’s construction. But we are not jumping on the opponent’s bandwagon and fear they try to generate by claiming catastrophic consequences should a break occur.

No one can predict the future, but we prefer informed arguments rather than fear mongering. Yes, there would be a risk. Dakota Access has told us that should a leak be detected they could turn off the flow remotely from a control center in Texas. We would hope so, but as anyone who sits at a computer all day knows, technology doesn’t always work the way it’s designed. We’d like to believe in the company’s confidence, but we’re skeptical. Iowa is the nation’s largest corn and soybean producer. Much of that crop goes to feed our nationleading pork production and top five or six in the nation cattle production. Our farmland is precious not only to those who work it for a living, it’s precious to our state’s economy, which relies heavily on the ag sector. Any disruption to the land is unwanted. Even if a small spill occurs and Dakota Access detects it quickly and shuts it down, the amount of oil spilled would be detrimental to the land, even if only a small area

‘B O R I N G’ WO R D S

‘Said’ is not dead T

hey will wrest “dull words” from my cold dead hands. According to the Wall Street Journal, there is a movement — or, as I prefer, “epidemic,” of English teachers telling people to ditch “boring” words like “said.” “Said,” handouts proclaim, “is Dead.” This is nonsense. Keep “said” where it belongs. Lose everything else. Every other possible word you could use in place of “said” is, loosely speaking, terrible. “Barking” is for seals and carnival promoters. “Yelps” should be used sparingly, as should “gasps.” No one who is not a character in a Bronte novel should be allowed to “ejaculate,” ever. (If you snickered at that last sentence, that only strengthens my case.) “Expounding” is what you do when you save a dog from being euthanized. “Wailing” is for Captain Ahab. “Hollering,” back or otherwise, is all very well for Gwen Stefani (yes, all right, I’m dating myself here) but it should be kept to a minimum otherwise. “Implore” is the stories imps tell themselves. “Pronounce” include “I, Me, He, She and They.” “Bawled” is what Patrick Stewart is. “Assert” is what rude people on Reddit are always accusing those who disagree with their social positions of being. “Bellow” is a man named Saul. “Cry” is what arbitrary dictums like this make me wish to do. Unless you are writing a Victorian melodrama (hey, do you, friend!), nobody should “shriek” or “beseech.” We “declared” once in 1776, and that should have been enough. “He breathed” is one of the telltale signs that the writer of whatever you are reading is under 14. (If you are currently under 14 and trying to make something of yourself in the Supernatural fandom, or whatever fandom the tweens are into these days, that is the last thing you need hanging around your neck. The same goes for “whimpered,” “groaned,” “moaned,” “choked,” “panted” or any other verb that enjoys hanging out in bodice-rippers. If you wouldn’t want to imagine your parents doing it, don’t use it as a substitute for “said.”) “Voiced” is no good. I have never seen anyone successfully voice anything that was not a concern. If it is used in any other situation, I am the one with the concern. The same goes for “articulate.” These are both words that you can use when you are paraphrasing what someone said — he voiced that concern, say,

is affected. For that landowner, that damage could affect their yields, not only that year but in the future. Maybe more serious is the disruption of the land and the lasting impact construction of the pipeline might have. Tom Fenton, a professor emeritus at Iowa State University’s agronomy department, wrote a report that said damage to farmland from burying the pipeline could take hundreds of years to correct. Fenton talks about the possibility of soil compaction that results from construction equipment and the process of building a pipeline. Compaction causes a loss in soil structure and fertility. In his report, Fenton talks about how there are regulations construction companies are supposed to follow and how those regulations are seldom enforced. Should the Iowa Utilities Board approve the construction of the pipeline, as many people believe they will, we urge the board and other governmental entities involved to strictly enforce those

regulations to the letter of the law. Fenton was asked to prepare his report by a landowner and the Sierra Club explaining the possible effects on soil should the pipeline be built. Yes, the potential bias there is not lost on us. This issue is full of maybe’s and what-if’s, but we believe the potential risks far outweigh the potential benefits. The second main issue is eminent domain. We are opposed to using eminent domain to take people’s property for this project. As we said, that property is precious to us for so many reasons. It crosses farmland that in some cases has been in a family for generations; it is the lifeblood for a major part of the Iowa economy; and most importantly, we don’t believe people should be forced to relinquish their property for something where the public good is in question. Another point of contention is the economic benefit of the pipeline. Proponents claim an economic boon to the state should the pipeline be built. They suggest it would

be a job creation mechanism for the state. The company suggests as many as 4,000 jobs would be created, many of them skilled workers. Only a dozen or so permanent positions would come after construction. Dakota Access says $50 million in sales and income taxes would be generated during that time, and that the pipeline would generate more than $24 million in property taxes for the state. Independent economists with Iowa State University suggest those numbers are inflated and the economic impact would not be that great. We fall on the side of the independent experts and suggest caution in believing too strongly the company’s economic claims. The concern over possible environmental risks from the pipeline; our skepticism over the economic benefit of the project; and our belief the public good does not meet the threshold needed to use eminent domain brings us to our decision to oppose the construction of the Bakken pipeline across Iowa and Story County.

BR I A N DU F F Y

ALEXANDRA PETRI Washington Post

or she articulated her thoughts on the matter, but when they take the place of “said,” the substitution is noticeable. “Hi there,” he articulated. Who is he, a robot? Most things that end in “ulate” are no good, come to think of it. The only time you should use “expostulate” is in the sentence, “When I asked my ex to pause before ending our relationship, my expostulate.” As Gabriel Roth writes at Slate, you do not have to be Hemingway to want to eschew attenuated asseverations. You merely have to have a respectful working relationship with the English language. Dull words are what make many bright sentences shine. They do not call attention to themselves. As Will Rogers said, “We cannot all be heroes, because someone has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” This goes for words, as well. Not every word can be the star of the sentence. With these awful colorful words, you cannot hear what a person is saying over how he or she is being forced to say it. “Said” replacements would not be so bad if they would only avoid drawing attention to themselves. But they cannot help it, poor things. You want to forget they are there, but they will not let you. So please, I entreat you, send your colorful words away. Release them back to three-volume Victorian novels, where they will have good and stable homes. Save them for when you know what you are doing. They are fine to add spice to your writing, every now and again, but if you bedizen every sentence with one, you wind up with a thick awful melodramatic stew, heaving and whooping and scolding and vowing every which way. In fact, I will go further. If anyone reading this has the ill fortune of both being in middle school and having a teacher who wants you to replace “said” and other noble workhorse words with something flashier and more gimmicky, tell your teacher to send me a note. I handle words for a living, and I will attempt to remonstrate with him or her. Or harangue, as the case may be. Or maybe we will just say things to each other.

CARTOONIST BRIAN DUFFY can be reached at [email protected].





