Des Moines Register. March 30, 2017
’Nuisance Lawsuit’ bill leaves rural residents with little recourse
At least Iowa’s Republican legislators are being totally upfront about their misplaced priorities.
Lawmakers secured passage of a bill that will greatly restrict the ability of Iowa homeowners and businesses to sue neighboring livestock producers, and they were blunt about their motives: They want to help corporate ag, even if it means other property owners, including Iowa farmers, won’t be fairly compensated for health problems or the loss of property values due to large-scale animal-feeding operations.
“This is an economic development bill,” says Sen. Dan Zumbach, a Republican from Ryan.
He’s right about that. This bill isn’t about tort reform or property rights. It’s all about enriching Big Ag at the expense of Iowa property owners.
Zumbach, who is a farmer and was the bill’s Senate floor manager, argues the legislation will address “nuisance lawsuits” filed by “greedy, out-of-state law firms.” He makes it sound like carpetbagging lawyers are bypassing judges and juries and magically enriching themselves simply by filing unfounded lawsuits against livestock operators.
Obviously, that’s not the case. To begin with, these lawyers, even if they’re from out of state, represent Iowa property owners. What’s more, all a company has to do when hit with a “nuisance lawsuit” that is without merit is make that argument to a judge and request a dismissal.
In any event, Zumbach’s bill, which has already been approved by both the Senate and the House, isn’t aimed at actual “nuisance lawsuits.” Instead, it targets lawsuits that actually have merit.
It does this by providing ag producers with an affirmative defense that can be used in court. That means livestock operations accused of being a public or private nuisance, or otherwise interfering with a neighbor’s enjoyment of life or property, won’t have to disprove the claim. In fact, they can acknowledge the claim has merit and still enjoy the benefits of limited liability.
Under the bill approved by lawmakers, damages that livestock operators would have to pay as compensation for their neighbors’ actual losses would be severely restricted. Republican lawmakers even rejected an amendment aimed at protecting the rights of property owners who, after purchasing their property, see their health and property values deteriorate when a nearby livestock operation opens or expands.
Zumbach argues the bill protects only the “good actors” who farm responsibly. “It has no protections for bad actors at all,” he says. “They can still be sued if there is a nuisance, but it will be in a fair and equitable way.”
He’s referring to a provision in the law that says the new affirmative-defense option won’t be available to operators who don’t comply with laws and regulations. But the laws and regulations governing livestock confinements are seriously lacking, thanks in part to Zumbach and his colleagues at the Iowa Capitol. That’s why property owners are forced to go to court to seek justice.
The bill also discourages property owners from even attempting to sue a livestock operation. It states that anyone who alleges in court, and then fails to prove, that a livestock operation is a public nuisance will be held liable for “all costs and expenses” incurred by the company in responding to the lawsuit. All a livestock operation would have to do to force a homeowner to drop a lawsuit is assign a team of in-house lawyers to the case and have them endlessly litigate every aspect of the proceedings, raising the specter of bankruptcy for anyone who dares to sue them.
Another supporter of the bill, Rep. Chip Baltimore, R-Boone, says Iowans should get with the program and adjust to the fact that in this state, agriculture is the name of the game. “We raise pigs in Iowa,” he said. “That’s what we do.”
Actually, we do a lot more than raise pigs in Iowa. We also invest in homes. We launch businesses. We raise families. We breathe. The legislation passed by the House and Senate will make all of that more difficult for some families in rural Iowa.
It’s time for the Legislature to recognize that Iowans’ quality of life can’t be measured solely by the success of the state’s livestock industry.
____
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. April 3, 2017
911 records should be public
If the Iowa House of Representatives has its way, the public would be denied pertinent information - audio, video and transcripts of 911 calls - involving injured victims of crimes or accidents.
Instead, they would be considered confidential medical records and exempt from the state open records law. In addition, any calls involving juveniles younger than 18 automatically would be confidential.
House File 571 was recently approved in the House and by a Senate committee.
Rep. Dean Fisher, R-Montour, said it’s a response to an Associated Press and USA Today Network story concerning suppressed reports regarding a series of tragic gun accidents in Tama County that killed two teenage girls and critically wounded another and her mother within a year beginning in late 2014.
The AP/USA Today coverage was part of a nationwide investigation of 1,000 accidental shootings involving minors during a 2½ -year period, which included an average of more than one fatality per day. The Tama County incidents were not publicly revealed until the AP made an open records request.
In one of the accidents, a family was preparing for a deer hunt prior to Christmas when their teenage son stumbled and his muzzle loader discharged, fatally hitting his 12-year-old sister.
In the other fatality, a 13-year-old girl died after her father took a rifle from a locked safe, it fell and discharged, shooting her in the head.
In the third instance, days prior to Thanksgiving 2015, a mother was doing dishes when she heard a gunshot, felt a sting in her leg and then saw her 14-year-old daughter bleeding profusely. The accident occurred when a .40-caliber handgun discharged when her older brother tried to remove a bullet from its chamber.
The bullet narrowly missing the girl’s spine but left six holes in her stomach and intestines. Emergency responders saved her life, rushing her to a hospital 20 miles away for immediate surgery. She spent 10 days in intensive care.
Charges were not filed in any of the cases.
Tama County E911 Director and Emergency Management coordinator Mindy Benson, who had to release the calls to AP, told Fisher a statewide restriction was needed against making such information public.
“These grieving families simply wanted their privacy,” Fisher said. Yet two of the families spoke to The Associated Press hoping to improve gun safety awareness.
In another 911 case, Fayette County recently released calls from last summer in the death of 4-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself. The calls revealed the ambulance was delayed in arriving because the closure of a key road added five miles to the trip.
Randy Evans, director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, called the cases “spot-on” for making such information available in the public interest. While legislators are concerned about medical privacy, he maintained they’re ignoring the “unintended consequences” of suppressing the 911 recordings, hampering “the public’s efforts to hold government officials or private citizens accountable for their actions.”
Fisher, though, maintained privacy should outweigh the public’s right to know, that 911 calls warrant the same confidentiality as patients’ medical records.
“If I’m laying on the floor with a heart attack and my wife calls 911,” Fisher said, “does the public need to know that? No.”
However, that example belies the intent of this bill as it relates to injured victims of crimes or accidents.
Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Waterloo, a Cedar Falls firefighter, was one of two senators to vote against the bill in a committee hearing. He believes it will have a chilling effect regarding police accountability to the public. “We should be opening up our decision-making process,” he said.
Evans agreed. “Sealing off those records will make it ever more difficult to hold public officials accountable.”
That includes incidents involving police body cameras, which shed light on the use of force. Yet the Iowa Department of Public Safety and Burlington Police Department have refused to release body camera video and other investigative records in a 2015 officer-involved shooting resulting in the death of a 34-year-old Burlington mother.
The Iowa Public Information Board, which enforces public records and meetings laws, has sought the release. A hearing is expected within a month.
We believe the public has a right to know about the actions of taxpayer-funded agencies, whether laudatory, as with the life-saving actions in one Tama County shooting, or open to review as in the case of the Elgin detour or Burlington shooting.
When doors are closed to such information, public accountability ultimately becomes the victim.
____
Fort Dodge Messenger. March 29, 2017
Eggs and issues is a crucial forum
It affords an excellent opportunity for education, dialogue.
Many of the issues that members of the Iowa Legislature deal with each session are complicated. In some communities, it’s difficult for citizens to stay as informed about the decisions lawmakers make as would be ideal.
Locally, however, Eggs and Issues makes staying well-versed about what is happening in the state capital easier. This forum, which is sponsored by the Greater Fort Dodge Growth Alliance and Iowa Central Community College, is an opportunity for area residents to be updated regularly by state lawmakers. It also affords a superb chance for anyone who participates in the sessions to share their views with the elected officials who represent the area in the Legislature.
Eggs and Issues takes place monthly when the Legislature is in session. Saturday, lawmakers and area residents gathered at the Triton Cafe on Iowa Central’s main campus for dialogue. A recap appeared in Sunday’s issue of The Messenger. Republican state Sens. Jerry Behn, of Boone, and Tim Kraayenbrink, of Fort Dodge, attended along with state Reps. Rob Bacon, R-Slater; Helen Miller, D-Fort Dodge; and Mike Sexton, R-Rockwell City.
The Messenger is a strong supporter of the Eggs and Issues project. The commitment area lawmakers have shown to making these meetings productive is greatly appreciated. For that, we owe them our respect. We urge readers who wish to be better-informed citizens to add Eggs and Issues to their personal calendars and find the time to attend. We feel certain you will find it time well-spent.
____
Sioux City Journal. March 30, 2017
House should join Senate and pass texting-while-driving bill
Use of cellphones by drivers is so common it’s almost a surprise to see someone behind the wheel who isn’t holding one.
This dangerous practice is, indeed, a “national epidemic,” as described by former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. In fact, the National Safety Council reports use of cellphones by drivers causes 26 percent - or roughly one in four - of the nation’s car accidents, resulting in some 1.6 million crashes each year.
We support passage in Iowa of a ban on use of a handheld cellphone while driving - something 15 states have done. Disappointingly, the Legislature doesn’t appear inclined to go that far this year.
However, we give lawmakers credit for at least making some progress on the menace of texting while driving. A bill to make texting while driving a primary offense (Iowa is one of only five states to classify texting while driving a secondary offense) passed the Senate and is under consideration in the House.
Currently, the prohibition against texting while driving is enforceable in Iowa only as a second offense, or only when a law enforcement officer stops a driver for a primary traffic offense. Moving it up to a primary offense would mean law enforcement officers could issue a ticket for it without another traffic violation taking place.
One concern we have about this bill, as we have said before, is size of the fine for the primary offense of texting while driving. To us, a $30 fine isn’t enough of a deterrent. If texting while driving poses a danger on our roads similar to drunken driving - as many, including the members of our editorial board, believe - punishment for texting drivers should be strengthened accordingly.
We urge the House to join the Senate in making texting while driving a primary offense, but we hope the fine is raised somewhere along the way to signature of this legislation by the governor.
In the name of public safety, we encourage legislators to revisit next year the issue of a ban on handheld devices while driving because drivers who use a cellphone behind the wheel in any way make roads in our state less safe for all of us.
___
Please read our comment policy before commenting.