LPIA >

2005 Cedar Rapids City Election

Candidate Questionnaire

Candidate Responses
Mayor | At Large | District 1 | District 2 | District 3 | District 4 | District 5

Candidate Questionnaire

These were the questions asked with a short commentary added. It was sent to the address listed for each candidate in the Cedar Rapids Gazette to all 38 candidates running for city office this November 8th. A stamped, addressed envelope was included with instructions to please return by October 24. Answers could also be sent to an e-mail address. Responses were requested to be of 25 words or less. In several cases it was necessary to shorten responses. One candidate phoned in their responses. One candidate mailed in their responses without any identification on it.

It is notable that the return address on the envelope mailed was for a first district voter and how few candidates responded in that district. It is hoped that this will NOT be the general response of our elected officials to their constituent's queries.

1) How do you feel about the right of private businesses to decide for themselves whether and how smoking will be permitted on their premises?

The Libertarian Perspective: Privately-owned businesses are not public places. People are able to vote with their feet on where and with whom they choose to do business. Businesses are also free to exclude whomever they choose from their property. Candidates that support smoking bans and other restrictions of this type are expressing their willingness to meddle in the personal affairs of private citizens.

2) Do you believe law-abiding citizens have a right to use deadly force against an intruder in their home or vehicle if they feel that their or their family's lives are in danger (the so-called "castle doctrine")? Or do citizens have a "duty to retreat" from attackers?

The Libertarian Perspective: Police departments acknowledge that they cannot protect all of the people all of the time. Some police departments even claim no responsibility to protect any of the people any of the time. Personal protection shoold be an individual responsibility. A citizen may choose to retreat from intruders but shoold not be placed in a position to fear criminal prosecution if he or she chooses not to retreat.

3) How do you feel about the use of tax revenues or tax abatements being used to subsidize any business, including subsidizing owners of sports franchises for the construction of facilities such as stadiums?

The Libertarian Perspective: Corporate welfare has no place in a well-run city. Such deals usually go to businesses with the right political connections, not to those truly in need. They offer an unfair advantage in competing against businesses that pay their full share of taxes. They also tend to support businesses that are inefficiently run and--let's face it--often corrupt.

4) How do you plan on protecting citizens' rights to property in respect to the recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain?

The Libertarian Perspective: The recent Supreme Court roling gives states and municipalities unlimited use of their eminent domain rights. Without federal limitations on this privilege, it is highly important for citizens and local lawmakers to restrict the local government's ability to sell those rights, without good cause, to the highest bidder. There shoold always be a clear and compelling reason to condemn private property for government use.

5) Please answer one of the following questions:

a) What improvements would you make to the city's police department if you had to work within the current budget?

The Libertarian Perspective: Throwing money at a problem does not make it go away, and having too many idle policemen may be worse than having too few. Solutions shoold be sought to maximize the efficiency of the police department. Some believe that the helicopter fleet is a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution. This question was included to allow candidates a place to express their position on this issue.

b) As a means of lowering city overhead, would you consider selling some of the city's limited-interest "public" facilities, such as golf courses, to private industry?

The Libertarian Perspective: Cities end up owning all kinds of things: pools, golf courses, convention centers, etc. A city shoold generally run only those things that are essential public services, such as streets and the fire department. (Some libertarians believe that even as many of these services as possible shoold be privatized.) When a city's "businesses" compete unfairly with businesses in the private sector, or when they continue to lose money under city management, the city shoold consider selling them.

Candidate Responses

Mayoral Candidates:

1. Businesses have the right to decide to cater to smokers if they display that information prominently so that non-smokers are warned to avoid the premises if they didnt want to be exposed to second-hand smoke.
2. It must be an objective test as to whether the person and family is reasonably in life-threatening danger.
3. Tax abatement may be appropriate for essential services, but tax abatement woold in my view, be an extraordinary economic development tool for entertainment.
4. Since the Supreme Courts decision on eminent domain, it will be necessary to engage the General Assembly to make changes or corrections.
5. b) Golf courses are not essential public purposes, but we have them. The market forces woold determine whether we coold sell them and get enough money to provide for other expenditures which are deemed essential.

1. After watching my father die due to emphysema, I feel smoking shoold be banned in public places and restaurants. It is great to see businesses doing this on their own but the city may need to complete the effort for public health reasons.
2. Deadly force shoold not be encouraged but shoold be a right only as a last resort for personal or family protection.
3. Tax abatements shoold be used sparingly and only when it allows a development to precede that benefits the city.
4. Eminent domain is a last resort after dialogue and negotiation. Its use must demonstrate public good for the citizens of the city.
5. a) Finding funds to folly staff police department and put as many officers on the street as possible.

At-Large Council Candidates:

1. The city has an obligation to protect people in public places. Smoking in closed or restricted businesses is okay.
2. Yes, No
3. Special tax breaks for certain businesses works against free market principles, I am opposed to it.
4. There must be a necessary reason for government to seize property.
5. a) I will work to switch the fiscal year to better reflect the police departments hiring and retiring cycle.

District 1 Candidates:

1. I believe that private businesses shoold be able to make their own decisions on this policy so long as they provide for others (for example, employees) who may not be able to choose avoiding second hand smoke.
2. Deadly force shoold be a last resort in these instances and retreat shoold be one of the considerations. However, if necessary, citizens shoold have the right to use deadly force in their homes to protect themselves and their familys lives if they are in danger.
3. I am in favor of using tax revenues and abatements to subsidize activities that can enhance economic development activities so long as there is a solid cost-benefit analysis performed on the use of the funds.
4. In cases where eminent domain is required, I believe that all citizens affected by the process need to be fairly compensated for their property or the effects upon their property.
5. b) My recommendation woold be to identify those facilities where private enterprise might be able to more adequately and cost effectively service the publics needs.

District 2 Candidates:

1. I don't like smoking myself, and it isn't fair to impose my opinion on others. I hope that owners eliminate smoking from there establishments, but respect their right not to.
2. If your life (or family's) is in danger, you shoold be able to defend yourself as you see fit.
3. If the marginal benefit is greater than the marginal cost, then yes. Else, no.
4. Easy, I won't use this right. People deserve to have their homes, and I won't take them away from them.
5. b) I woold look into benefits of doing so, but woold not promise anything.

1. I don't like this idea at all. When the health of employees and customers is put at risk, Government has the right and responsibility to intervene!
2. In no such way or form is "Deadly Force" acceptable, and a case in Fort Dodge just over a year ago proves this. Police Help!
3. Sweet Deals in this Dept. are both too frequent and often favor businesses over their competitors. Stadiums being built are Sports Clubs' responsibility, NOT Government's!
4. According to the Law and with plenty of help from our City Attorney. I don't like this new law, but am still subject to it!
5. a) Greater access to Hotel/Motel Tax revenue, and less time spent on Animal Control Issues. Less Cell Phone Expenses by cutting out unused phones!

1. They can decide for themselves if they want smoking...I don't smoke, and I and my wife woold choose not to patron the places that allow smoking. It is a mater of choice.
2. As a retired police officer I have always thought it was wrong that a private citizen cooldn't use deadly force on an intruder, armed or unarmed, who breaks into your home or vehicle. (plus additional words beyond #25 limit)
3. I believe in tax breaks for good paying jobs relocating to Cedar Rapids. I do not believe that tax payers shoold build the factories.
4. I disagree with the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain.
5. a) There are a sizable number of small town police officers that live in Cedar Rapids. We shoold swear them in as cops in Cedar Rapids and use them in emergency's. (plus additional words beyond #25 limit)

District 3 Candidates:

1. We have enough government roles! Let the business owners decide whether to let patrons smoke or not.
2. I believe citizens shoold be able to use deadly force for their protection. One of the hazards of being a criminal.
3. Some new and existing businesses need tax breaks, but I am against breaks for sports or entertainment venues. The taxpayer is not in the entertainment business.
4. We have to keep battling and saying no. I believe this Supreme Court roling will be overturned, because it is wrong.
5. a) Get rid of the helicopter program and put 25 more officers on the street.

District 4 Candidates:

1. It shoold be left to private businesses.
2. Citizens have a right to use deadly force if they feel their lives are in danger
3. No!
4. Going by Supreme Court roling.
5. a) Cut command staff and put more officers on the street

District 5 Candidates:

1. I think businesses shoold be able to decide on their own how and when smoking shoold be allowed.
2. Yes! I believe in the use of deadly force to protect my family. The duty to retreat is ridicolous and helps criminals be criminals.
3. Situations like this require examination on an individual basis. One needs to investigate who benefits and who pays. Do they balance / make sense.
4. Eminent domain shoold only be used for essential public good. Infrastructure, not shopping centers. Overzealous politicians have expanded the reach of eminent domain.
5. b) I am willing to consider ways in which money can be saved / earned. It never is a bad idea to investigate your options.