Now
Fair
82°
High
82°
Low
68°

Vote for jail bond despite misleading language

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Apr 29, 2008 - 09:47:26 am CDT

The public is not well served by the language of the proposed $65 million jail bond on the May 13 ballot.

The proposal asks simply whether the county should issue the bond.

The wording would lead most people to conclude that if the proposal is voted down, the new jail won’t be built.

Wrong.

The new jail will be built regardless of the outcome of the vote, according to the Lancaster County Board.

The real question, board members say, is how long voters will have to pay off the bond.

A 25-year bond approved by voters would mean lower payments than a 10-year term, which the board can issue without voter approval, or an alternative financing method in which the Public Building Commission would issue a 25-year bond.

County Board members said their bond attorney rejected the idea of offering voters a choice on the grounds that it would open the door to a possible legal challenge and strongly recommended the wording used on the ballot.

The potential for confusing the voter bothered county board members. Commissioner Deb Schorr even voted against the proposal for that very reason, even though she believes passage would be in taxpayers’ best interest.

The 10-year bond would add about $64.50 to the property tax bill for a home valued at $150,000. The 25-year, voter-approved bond would add about $37.50 a year.

(It’s worth noting that, just like a home mortgage, the longer repayment period would end up costing more. The cost of the 10-year bond at an estimated 3.75 percent would be about $13 million in interest. The 25-year bond would cost about $48.4 million.)

Although some local residents have questioned the need for a new jail and suggested greater use of alternative sentencing for offenders, the Journal Star editorial board believes the new jail is needed. The county is now spending more than $1 million a year sending prisoners to other counties because the jail is overcrowded.

Overcrowding has persisted even though officials have sharply increased the use of house arrest. Currently, more than 100 individuals are wearing electronic monitors in the house arrest program.

The increase in the number of prisoners is unlikely to slow. Since the current jail was built 16 years ago, the population of the county has increased almost 25 percent.

The new jail site on West O Street, which already has been purchased, will allow for future expansion of the jail, something that is not possible at the current site.

On balance, after weighing the pros and cons of the proposed bond issue, the Journal Star is swayed most by the desire to keep the local property tax rate low. The editorial board recommends a vote in favor of the jail bond, even if you have to hold your nose while doing it.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Had it with Lincoln prejudice wrote on April 29, 2008 6:29 pm:
" Build more jails. Just ask yourself who the real criminals are--local law enforcement officers or the incarcerated. "

Jan wrote on April 29, 2008 9:15 pm:
" I disagree. Vote NO on the bond. We shouldn't pay for a jail for 25 years. "

well wrote on April 29, 2008 9:37 pm:
" If it costs 1 million per year to house inmates in jails in surrounding counties then that means we could do that for 64 to 94 years depending on how much the new jail will cost. How do we know what new technology will come about in that time period that will change how we deal with prisoners? "

Hank wrote on April 30, 2008 7:31 am:
" This choice only shows how corrupt and arrogant our county officials are. We get to choose some minor details on how to pay off a debt that we have no say in. We should vote every single one of the current county official out of office as they come up for reelection. By the way, we do not need this jail because it only makes it easier for officials to avoid seeking the many obvious alternatives to the horrendously high rate of incarceration in our country. "

stignob wrote on April 30, 2008 7:46 am:
" Already voted NO, on my absentee ballot. "

No Comment wrote on April 30, 2008 10:10 am:
" The last jail is outdated in 16 years - and you want us to pay for the new one over 25 years? "

Not from NE wrote on May 13, 2008 3:57 pm:
" By voting "no" you are saying you would rather have your property taxes increased, and decrease the ability for county officials to invest in other capital infrastructure items in the near future. By law the County can not issue bonds for longer than 10 years unless the citizens vote it into law. Most municipal bonds from other states are issued in 20 year increments. What you don't realize is that a "no" vote means more potholes, less bike racks, less sidewalk repairs, less bridge maintenance. Sure a "no" vote means you'll pay the debt off faster, but it also means you can't pay for as many other projects during that time period. It really is a no brainer. This vote will reflect how inteligent the voters are on the issue. "