YES
It’s been not quite two and a half years since Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek stood opposed to the 21-ordinance in the 2007 Iowa City City Council elections. Things have changed in Iowa City, and Hayek’s switch is justified as an attempt to meet citizens’ demands for a safer community.
The city councilors have taken numerous steps to try to rein in binge drinking and outrageous violence downtown since the 21-ordinance was first voted down in 2007. All of their measures — including the PAULA-ratio approach and bar-proximity restrictions — have proven unsuccessful in controlling the problems in Iowa City.
Although I’m opposed to passage of the 21-ordinance, I feel it’s up to bar owners to take action and it’s up to them to take responsibility for the actions of their patrons — and they have not.
Because of this, it comes as no surprise to me that Hayek would turn in favor of a more drastic measure to control the city’s problems.
Assaults and overconsumption of alcohol have been in the forefront of Iowa City’s media coverage over the last year and a half. An April 2009 Daily Iowan story titled “Violence wave stuns city” depicted the recent violent crimes from last spring. In December 2009, The Daily Iowan also highlighted increasing blood-alcohol rates among UI students and the potentially deathly implications with “The siren song of alcohol.”
It’s clear that violence and overconsumption of alcohol are a huge concern for the citizens of Iowa City. Hayek is right to change his stance on the 21-ordinance if he feels it is the best solution to these increasing problems.
— by Tyler Hakes
NO
Mayor Matt Hayek’s flip-flop on the 21-ordinance is understandable. Anti-drinking measures have proven ineffective, and the problem has arguably metastasized in the short time Hayek has been on the council. Many residents and councilors are rightly fed up with the lack of progress on the issue and are itching for further action.
But his position switch also has negative implications for local democracy.
In the fall of 2007, activists blanketed with the campus with fliers highlighting Hayek’s anti-21 stance. No doubt scores of UI students were persuaded. For them — and others who voted against Hayek because of his position on the 21-ordinance — the mayor’s about-face is undeniably frustrating.
Citizens in a representative democracy such as ours have many ways to hold their elected officials accountable — petitions, protests, directly contacting them — but the strongest mechanism is voting. Flip-flopping once in office undermines voter agency and encourages already-troubling apathy.
There are already impediments to citizen agency, especially nationally. Local elections, largely devoid of big-money interests and campaign contributions, skirt some of the most vile inhibitors and are about the most democratic of political contests.
This is largely irrelevant, however, when citizens don’t have the necessary information to cast their vote. When voters are left to guess whether candidates will actually carry out campaign promises, democratic accountability is undermined. Elections are inconsequential if voters can’t determine policy positions of candidates and vote accordingly.
Position pivoting also reinforces political apathy. Unsure of candidates’ actual stances, citizens can feel politically powerless.
Political inaction among students in local elections has long been a problem. Turnout at on-campus satellite voting sites in last year’s City Council election were abysmal. But it surely can’t help that apathy when elected officials such as Hayek flip-flop on issues as prominent as the 21-ordinance.
— by Shawn Gude