By Carolyn Szczepanski

carolyn@dmcityview.com

If the latest election cycle is any indication, local races are getting greener. And many say that doesn't bode well for the environment.

Last month, Arthur Sanders, professor of political science at Drake University released the first phase of a first-of-its-kind state study investigating campaign contribution patterns. While armchair cynics and federal research suggest that money does, indeed, equal power, Sanders' data shows that, even in Iowa, winners are propelled by increasing amounts of cash from large donors, whose giving patterns reflect more than a will to simply propel candidates into office. But the trend toward more pricey elections, he says, isn't confined to the capitol, but rather is trickling down to city halls were the money meets the road.

"Certainly campaigns are becoming more expensive and we see that filtering down," Sanders says. "And as costs go up, concerns about money have to be greater."

Citizen outrage was high when it was revealed last month that developers, who just happened to be exceedingly generous political contributors, got a sweet deal in the state's purchase of land near Ankeny for the Department of Transportation. But look at the local elections and those same names are making even non-competitive races pricey endeavors. And many say that, even if the pay-off isn't as brazen as the Ankeny interchange, it certainly shortchanges critical debate about sustainable development.

A telling example, some note, is the preponderance of developer money in the Des Moines City Council races last month. Most striking, at-large incumbent Michael Kiernan has, to date, reported nearly $62,000 in contributions for a race against a clearly beatable challenger, the vast majority of which came from developers, some of whom (including Bill Knapp) coughed up several thousand dollars. It's the kind of money that makes even an academic like Sanders muse, "I can't imagine anybody with any political sophistication thought he faced any kind of challenge, so you have to wonder, why were they giving him all this money?"

Kiernan counters that, although he "suppose[s] you could" run a race without homebuilder backing, "in the city races, the people who contribute politically are developers" because they have a keen interested in whether there is a "pro-development or anti-development council." But that's exactly the problem, suggests Jonna Higgins-Freese, director of the sustainable-growth group 1,000 Friends of Iowa.

"It's troubling when elected officials talk about economic development," she says, "because, quite often, that is a conversation-stopping word. We don't have a critical discussion about, what will be the economic development of this? Who will benefit? It seems clear, through recent cases, that developers participate in these decisions in a timeframe that's different than the general public. We find that problematic because land-use decisions should be made in a fair, open and democratic manner, where everyone has the opportunity to participate in what the community looks like."

So while it may be an exaggeration to allege developers are buying privileged status with $500 contributions, many say the economic apartheid of local elections - the trend for more cash and the deepest pockets among developers - discriminates against those with different conceptions of development. Take the Green Party. Daryl Northrop, co-chair of the Polk County Greens, says, the current moneyed system stacks the deck against third parties and, ultimately, the environment.

"The current pay-to-play system of legalized bribery that developers and corporations pour massive amounts of money into definitely has a profound effect on land development and environmental issues," Northrop notes. "Basically, the desires of citizens for sustainable development, and the need to take into account the preservation of our environmental system are a far lower priority than purely profit."

No need to tell Johnston resident Terri Holmgren twice. First approving the developer's lucrative "walk-out" style lots, the city has turned a blind eye to staggering run-off from an adjacent development, essentially drowning a vegetation-rich corner of her century farm. Because the developer and the city have remained deaf to her concerns, last week she began drawing up papers for a small-claims court case.

But her problems, she says, are just one example of how "there seems to be no reign on developers." She reads community development textbooks and is "frightened" at how Johnson's city planning is the definition of urban sprawl. And she's frustrated that she's shown up to council meetings only to find city officials explaining and promoting private developers' plans. "It was another plane of existence," she says of one recent incident. "A city staffer up there pitching for this developer? The taxpayers pay his salary and he's up there saying, 'This is what the developer wants to do.' That is not right."

So Holmgren, in hopes of righting the wrong-headed direction of the city, ran for a council seat last month, taking a strong stand on growth issues. And though she captured 23 percent of the vote, Holgrem was edged out by more business-like candidates. But Higgins-Freese says the November cycle did hold some hope for environmentalists: at least eight candidates statewide were elected on sustainable-development platforms, she says, and while the financial tide continues to rise and land-use conscious council members are diluted by their wide dispersion, Higgins-Freese is optimistic.

"There seems to be an increasing number," she says. "And people are becoming more connected to realize there are other ways to do development in the community, instead of doing it for the benefit of just a few people." CV

Visit www.voterownediowa.org for morre information on Sanders' study.

Comment on this story | Return to top