Davenport City HallIn preparation for the November 6 Davenport municipal election, the River Cities' Reader sent a survey to all 22 candidates for office. Twelve candidates answered the survey.

The survey was mailed on Friday, October 19, and was due at noon on Thursday, October 25. Candidates who provided a phone number to the Scott County auditor also received a reminder phone call on Wednesday, October 24.

The following candidates did not answer the survey: Gene Meeker (alderman-at-large), Nathan Brown (Ward 1), Patrick Joseph Gibbs (Ward 1), Thomas W. Carnahan (Ward 2), Shawn Hamerlinck (Ward 2), Bill Boom (Ward 3), Douglas S. Cunningham (Ward 5), Jeffrey W. Justin (Ward 6), Mike Matson (Ward 8), and Becky Schabilion (Ward 8).

Responses marked with an asterisk indicate that an excerpt of the candidate's response to that particular question was published in our printed edition. The full response is here.

Information about campaign contributions can be found after the survey.

Survey Questions

For each question, choose a single response that most closely matches your position.

In addition to choosing one response for each question, you're welcome to provide a supplementary written response to each question. Those will be published on our Web site, and we might excerpt them in our October 31 issue."

1) Would you support allowing the Rhythm City casino to use a portion of the RiverCenter for a land-based gambling operation?

  • Yes, with rent of at least $138,000 a year

  • Yes, with rent of at least $2 million a year

  • No

 

1a) If you do not favor the casino being located at its current site or the RiverCenter, suggest specific locations that you would like the Isle of Capri to consider for its Rhythm City operation.

 

2) Would you vote to put on the ballot a referendum to reallocate Davenport's local-option sales tax, with 90 percent going toward the Davenport Promise program and 10 percent going to public safety? (Presently, 60 percent of the tax goes to property-tax relief, and 40 percent goes toward capital projects.)

  • Yes

  • No

 

3) If a Davenport Promise/public-safety local-option-sales-tax referendum passes, which of the following do you support to deal with the lost revenue?

  • An increase in the property-tax levy

  • Budget cuts

  • A combination of the two

 

4) Do you support including rent-to-own/ contract-sale properties in the city's rental-inspection program?

  • Yes

  • No

 

5) Do you support giving financial incentives (including but not limited to tax increment financing) to private companies?

  • Yes, including for retaining jobs in Davenport

  • Yes, but only if the jobs are new to Davenport

  • Yes, but only for high-paying jobs that are new to Davenport

  • Yes, but only if the jobs are new to the Quad Cities area

  • Yes, but only for high-paying jobs that are new to the Quad Cities area

  • No

 

6) Do you support building a 46th Street bridge between Brady and Eastern?

  • Yes

  • No

 

7) Do you support continuing to allocate city funds to DavenportOne for efforts such as the D1 Initiative?

  • Yes

  • Only to the extent that funds have already been pledged (through Fiscal Year 2011)

  • No

 

8) Based on his performance-to-date, do you favor retaining Craig Malin as Davenport city administrator?

  • Yes

  • No, but I'm unwilling to vote to terminate him at a cost to the city of more than $230,000

  • No, but I'm unwilling to vote for a severance package that costs the city more than $150,000

  • No

 

 

Mayor

Bill Gluba

Re/Max River Cities, Inc.,

Real Estate Sales Associate

*1) No. I am not promoting any particular location in Davenport for our casino or excluding any site. I expect to negotiate the best agreement possible for the voters and taxpayers of Davenport, as well as keeping in mind the jobs of our many citizens who work there. I believe it is inappropriate to make public pronouncements on the details of real estate negotiations while they are in progress.

City officials must keep in mind the fact that the city currently receives approximately $2 million per year from the casino, and since its inception, over $42 million has been allocated by the Riverboat Development Authority to numerous charitable and civic organizations. That said, I would prefer to see the casino moved off the riverfront, out of the downtown area and not take over the RiverCenter South. In this regard, many interesting possible sites for relocation have been suggested-North Brady Street (old Ramada Inn area), I-80 & Highway 61, I-80 & Highway 130 (Wacky Waters), I-80 & I-280, I-280 & West Locust Street, and I am sure many more potential locations will be forthcoming. However, everyone must be mindful of the fact that the Isle of Capri is a private business corporation, with which the city has existing legal and contractual obligations that must be honored and respected by both parties. We must be careful of simple, knee-jerk reactions to a complicated and complex issue. . As to the future of the gaming industry in our city, I pledge to work with all parties to do what is in the best interest of the tax-payers of Davenport, the employees of the casino and the Riverboat Development Authority.

*2) A simple yes or no answer at this juncture would be too risky and unfair to the taxpayers and people of Davenport. In my judgment, there is not enough information for one to make an intelligent decision on this multi-million dollar program. I have a number of questions and concerns regarding this first draft proposal, as should the new city council. These questions and concerns will have to be thoroughly addressed before committing any such a proposal to a referendum vote.

*3) This question raises some of the many concerns I have already expressed and validates my above response. I will not be beholden to the three options you are recommending because this is a hypothetical scenario. The overall issue shouldn't be decided until the new mayor, council, and citizens have appropriate time to thoroughly debate and research this initiative further.

4) Yes.

5) Yes, but only for high-paying jobs that are new to Davenport.

6) No, not until an acceptable plan can be worked out with the residents along East 46th Street.

*7) Yes. As part of my platform to encourage economic growth, expansion of our tax base, and the creation of more jobs, I will support the continued investment of $100,000 per year to the D1 Initiative. Similar public/private funding arrangements have been successful in Des Moines, Sioux City, Cedar Rapids, Rock Island and Moline. It works in other communities and it's another tool to help bring jobs to Davenport.

As I understand it, the City's investment in the D1 Initiative goes towards economic development efforts and projects, including marketing, and managing the City's industrial park. It also provides needed private sector service and technical assistance to businesses seeking to locate or expand anywhere in Davenport. If this relationship with D1 didn't exist, the City would have to hire more public employees to accomplish these tasks.

*8) Yes. At this time, it would be unfair for me to judge Mr. Malin's job performance, since I have had no personal experience interacting with him in an official capacity. I have no axes to grind or old scores to settle with any city employee. All city employees, including Mr. Malin, will be judged on objective standards of job performance. They will all get a fair shake from me.

 

  •  

 

Phillip C. Yerington

Retired Davenport Police Lieutenant

1) No.

1a) I-80 or I-280 corridors.

2) No.

3) A combination of the two.

4) Yes.

5) Yes, including for retaining jobs in Davenport.

6) No.

7) Only to the extent that funds have already been pledged (through Fiscal Year 2011).

8) No.

 

  •  

 

Alderman-at-Large

Ian Frink

Crawford Co./Monoxivent,

Vice President

1) No. I opposed this during the most recent discussions. I would like to seek out a Plan B for the casino.

2) Yes. If the citizens successfully and legally petitioned for this issue to go on the ballot, I would vote yes to allow the citizens decide at the polls.

3) The lost revenue would most likely need to be made up with a combination of budget cuts and a tax hike - especially in the short term.

4) Yes. Also, I am anxious to see the results of our citizen committee that will review this ordinance (and others) and look at the overall make-up for our inspection and enforcement program.

5) Yes, including for retaining jobs (on a case by case basis).

6) No - if 46th St. becomes a major thoroughfare to Jersey Ridge and Elmore. Yes - if the neighbors offer support for a compromise that might be reached either by pushing the main traffic flow onto Eastern and/or through the implementation of traffic calming plans.

7) Funds, pledged through 2011, should be honored to D1.

8) I favor retaining Craig Malin, as of now, and am anxious for our performance review of the city administrator to take place. The last I knew, not all of the aldermen had turned in their written review. It is my hope that a serious discussion can take place to make any adjustments needed to foster a more effective and efficient relationship with the council (on both sides) as the city moves forward.

 

  •  

 

Tina M. Gillispie-Clawson

Transportation Security Administration, Quad-City International Airport

1) No.

2) Yes.

3) Budget cuts and cutting waste within the departments.

4) Yes.

5) No.

6) No.

7) No.

8) Yes, because he has a contract that was implemented with a prior council.

 

  •  

 

Jennifer Olsen

Attorney

1) No.

*1a) Current trends emphasize large undeveloped areas close to major traffic interchanges. If the IOC must locate downtown, then perhaps a near West location is most appropriate. Regardless, the IOC must offer something completely different in this new complex, something that does not exist in the Bettendorf and the Rock Island gaming operations in order to make Davenport more competitive.

2) No. I am in favor of the Davenport Promise, but not to be funded by the local option sales tax. Other Promise programs have been funded primarily by private donations and private community support. I do support the public-safety initiative originally proposed by the Davenport police union or a variation of it to be presented to the community through referendum.

3) I do not believe the referendum will pass.

4) Yes. Uniform enforcement of city housing codes is absolutely essential to public safety and healthy neighborhoods.

5) Yes, but only as a part of a comprehensive sustainable development plan for all of Davenport.

6) No. A bridge should improve travel on the route between two locations, and this proposal does not do so and is strongly opposed by the neighborhood. 53rd Street was designed as a major east/west artery, and there is no need to infringe on the relatively peaceful established neighborhood by linking 46th by way of a bridge.

7) The city should support private efforts that correspond with a sustainable growth plan. DavenportOne and other business organizations across the city can be one of the community action groups to help implement the plan. If the council elects to allocate public funds to these groups, then the funds must be tied to performance and adherence to the plan.

8) No.

 

  •  

 

Ward 3

Keith E. Meyer

*1) No. The RiverCenter North should be used for Scott Community College culinary program. RiverCenter South should be leased to the Radison.

1a) Walcott Truck Stop. Develop relationships with the City of Walcott to share revenue. Largest percentage to Davenport.

2) No. People supporting this have no understanding of how to finance government. The proposal killed all possibility of the move to reallocate more money for public safety.

*3) Budget cuts. Eliminate for starters North Branch library, 46th street bridge,Prairie Heights Park,Riverfront Development,Parks Director's position, Design office on second street, gateway signage,Tiff,economic development tax abatement programs,amenities,Steve Ahrens position with levee commission( that is a do nothing job anyway), consultant fees,tax support for Davenport One, membership in Davenport One, second Assistant City Administrator's position, subscriptions, memberships,out of state travel, trinkets from China everywhere in City Hall,City Administrators slush (discretionary fund,) outside legal services, bad decision makers(for example) we are being taken to court and headed for jury trial over not following proper procedures in tearing down the Linden), fancy cars in all departments, stupid people, department heads who don't live in the city, people at City Hall who do not work and the people in Personnel who hire them. Cut in half the staffs of Parking, Community Development, Administration, Human Resource Return to providing basic services.

4) Yes. Need to implement checks and balances.

*5) No. Russell and the Miller guy, whose listing eServ landed on, should be handcuffed and hauled into court for defrauding the government. Insider economic development deals, through Davenport One, (our so called official economic development partner, which gets all confidential development information ahead of time) should also be investigated and stopped.

6) No. I might support a toll bridge to Eastern with local traffic only on 46th to Elmore.

7) No.

*8) No. He does not have a legal contract and should be fired for failure to keep keep council members informed of city activities, for wasting tax money on legal services, for placing the city at financial risk, and for using the police department (and the office of city administrator) for political purposes.

 

  •  

 

Ward 4

Raymond A. Ambrose

1) No.

1a) I-80/280.

2) No.

3) Budget cuts.

4) Yes. I believe the buyer should have a city inspection before they complete their contract.

5) Yes, including for retaining jobs in Davenport.

6) No.

7) No.

*8) No, but I'm unwilling to vote for a severance package that costs the city more than $150,000.The city administrator has had strong support from three mayors and the majority of different city councils. For the record, I have never voted for a contract for Mr. Malin. I believe any contract should be based on certain standards and incentives. When they are achieved, there are financial rewards. If not satisfied, there should be a penalty.

 

  •  

 

Lisa Lewis

Freelance voice-over announcer and writer

1) No.

*1a) Gaming casts a long economic shadow in Davenport, and has for more than 15 years. It is not a topic easily addressed in a few sentences. To be competitive in this market, Davenport's casino should be located close to the interstate(s) in order to attract as much tourist traffic as possible. However, this assumes that the IOC wants the Davenport operation to compete against their Bettendorf property - and it's becoming clearer every day that they do not. I believe we need to work with the RDA to develop a proactive plan for handling this situation, as opposed to sitting back and waiting for the IOC to bring us proposals to approve or reject. The contract with the IOC is not an easy one for the RDA to re-open, and we have to act with care and due diligence - bearing in mind that the company employs a great many of our friends and neighbors, and that the revenues from the casino that flow through the RDA are not easily replaced.

2) Probably not, because although I fully support both initiatives, I don't think public money should serve as the funding base for the Promise program.

3) Budget cuts.

*4) No. First of all, we must properly define our terms. A "contract sale" is a legitimate sale and would offer a prospective resident true ownership of the property. Under the original city code, such a home would not be subject to rental inspection anyway. But a "rent to own" property remains a rental until such time as the tenant actually purchases the property - and gains equitable title, qualifies for the Homestead Exemption and so forth. No matter how you change the city code, when a Lease Agreement exists and the terms of Iowa's Landlord-Tenant Code are in force, it's a rental. Any property that is not occupied by its true owner (the folks whose names are on the deed) should be subject to inspection. As an experienced renter, I can confirm that regular inspections protect both parties in a lease. An inspection can alert a responsive landlord to problems early on so they can be addressed and corrected, and also serves to protect a good tenant from an unresponsive landlord who doesn't maintain the property as he or she should. Although a tenant might pay more upfront to enter into a "rent-to-own" agreement than they would in a more traditional lease, there is no evidence to support the argument that this investment will lead to improved property conditions. If the parties advocating for the change in our city code really wanted to help more of our residents become homeowners, they would offer them a Contract for Deed and give them equity in the property. Instead, these consumers are paying rent and fees each month, remain subject to eviction proceedings and bear full financial responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the home (which actually conflicts with Iowa's Landlord-Tenant Code 562) - all without earning any real equity in the property. Again, the tenant does not gain equitable title until after completing an actual sale. It is far more beneficial to Davenport residents (as consumers) to obtain a Contract for Deed than sign Lease and Option Agreements. If lender-landlords feel this strongly about helping folks become owners, they'll put their names on the deed. And it's better for Davenport as a community to have any home that is not occupied by its true owner inspected regularly.

5) This is a complicated issue and I can't find my exact reply within this list. To be competitive (locally, nationally, and globally), from time to time Davenport is going to have to offer incentives of one kind or another to attract economic growth and development. I believe what we really need is a comprehensive plan for evaluating opportunities as they present, rather than reacting to each new proposal in isolation.

*6) Residents near the area have concerns about this expansion, and those issues must be addressed before the project goes forward. And although I don't necessarily oppose funding additional projects or expansion in the 6th ward (if and when it is deemed necessary), I would much rather see the city refocus a bit and put west side projects on the front burner for a few years. It's time some of Davenport's "momentum" flowed up the hill and took a left instead of a right!

*7) Only to the extent that funds have already been pledged (through Fiscal Year 2011). I believe we must honor our commitments to date, but going forward, I believe the city needs to curb any lump-sum allocations of public funds for private use. This is not to say that D1 (or any other civic organization) would use those funds unwisely, but I believe that the next five to ten years in Davenport should be about improving basic services and building infrastructure - especially on the west side. We must spur residential and economic growth beyond downtown and the northeast corridor if we're going to grow our population and bolster our tax base - and projects such as the West Side Sewer are critical to that growth.

*8) Again, no simple reply will suffice. I have heard several different versions of the "Craig Malin Severance and/or Termination" story, and I feel that I need to do two things before committing to an answer on this issue. First, I need the opportunity to work with the man myself to evaluate whether the problems rest with him alone or whether a new council and mayor might be able to work with him more effectively. Second, I need to be able to confirm whether or not the city could (as I have been told) adequately defend itself from a legal challenge if he were to be terminated. Finally, let me add that I would never support offering Mr. Malin (or anyone) an employment contract such as the one he signed with the city of Davenport - nor would I renew anything like this if that becomes an issue. With all due respect to the late Charlie Brooke - and with the understanding that Davenport absolutely deserves the best staff we can afford - this contract was a mistake. And the worst is probably yet to come, because once you've offered a contract this rich it is almost impossible to negotiate down from this level of compensation with any worthy candidate in the future.

 

  •  

 

Ward 5

Bill Lynn

St. Ambrose University, Professor

1) This question begs the real question, and that is whether the casino has any interest in making an investment in Davenport. I believe the offer on the RiverCenter was a red herring. They will invest in the Bettendorf facility and make little or no investment in Davenport. Our putting a minimum lease at $2 million was a signal we wanted a serious negotiation, and as far as I know there have been no discussions since then.

1a) I would like to see them locate where they can draw the most people from outside the Quad City area. That is the only money that really helps our economy. That would probably be a location near the freeway.

2) I do not believe that we should use tax money to support the Promise program. That commits the taxpayers to more spending, and until the details are seen we cannot consider taking that step. Promise should be facilitated by the city, but funded with private donations. I have no problem allowing the voters to vote on using 10 percent of the local option sales tax for public safety.

3) Should this pass, I would prefer budget cuts, but I imagine the final outcome would include some tax increases.

4) I believe any property that does not have some minimal equity in the property should continue to be inspected, since a zero-down contract is really still a rental.

5) I am philosophically opposed to financial incentives for companies, but we have trapped ourselves into this corner. Our taxes and fees are too high and other cities give incentives. Companies expect them and will receive them from other cities. The real problem with financial incentives is that they do not provide incentives to small business, which is the biggest job-creating entity.

6) I support building a bridge on 46th Street. It is infrastructure and this is the job of government.

7) We are providing this money because we have no economic development program in the city. I would like to know what in fact we receive for this money and we need an annual report from D1. I believe it should only be allocated if other more important costs are covered, but in general I am not happy with this allocation.

8) I believe it is time to change the city administrator. I believe the Huxley case covers his contract and it would not be necessary to provide any severance.

 

  •  

 

Ward 6

Dale Gilmour

Best Distributing Inc., Owner

1) No.

1a) I believe an interstate location would give the maximum exposure, and the greatest opportunity for success. How about the southeast corner of 65th and Brady?

2) No. I believe the Promise program is an excellent program, but it should be privately funded.

3) A combination of the two.

4) Yes. If a property is occupied by anyone other than the deed holder, as recorded at the courthouse, it is a rental property, and should be treated as such, and should be inspected.

5) Yes, but only for high-paying jobs that are new to Davenport.

6) No. As an alderman, it is my responsibility, and obligation, to represent the wishes of the residents of my ward, and they don't want it. Therefore, I would not support it.

7) Only to the extent that funds have already been pledged (through Fiscal Year 2011). At that time, I would like to review whether our "investment" was truly paying the "dividends" desired to continue funding.

8) No. At the expiration of his contract, I would seek a replacement individual who understood that the council makes policy, and the city administrator's position is to implement that policy.

 

  •  

 

Ward 7

Barney Barnhill

Retired

1) No.

1a) Purchase the old W. Ekstein Building. Level it, use south half of block from alley to Second Street. Put a skywalk (bridge) to Harrison ramps. Buy the old Ramada Inn property north of the old cinemas, giving you access to 66th/67th street when completed from Brady to Elmore. Wait until the transportation building moves to Public Works on 46th; use that spot to build a hotel/casino as to their development agreement of 2005.

2) No. Not enough study done yet; demands much investment from the public sector in its initial stage unless there's a huge investment from the private sector, such as in Kalamazoo, Michigan, to jump-start the program.

3) Budget cuts. A $1.2-million loss would seriously affect our infrastructure, especially street repairs and resurfacing and park programs and amenities, which affect quality of life as well as have a negative effect on our bond rating. While budget cuts can have a serious effect on service levels, I wouldn't support a property-tax levy.

4) Yes. If all sales are recorded and meet the criteria established by state law and local ordinance, and under tight scrutiny by our code-enforcement division.

5) Yes, including for retaining jobs in Davenport.

6) Yes. Overdue. The bridge is needed to alleviate pressure from both Kimberly and 53rd streets and facilitate movement of traffic from west to east or east to west from our residential neighborhoods to other parts of the city.

7) Yes.

8) No, but I'm unwilling to vote to terminate him at a cost to the city of more than $230,000.

 

  •  

 

Marcia Patch

Case Properties, Rental Property Manager

1) No.

1a) Close to the interstates.

2) No.

3) Budget cuts.

4) No.

5) Yes, including for retaining jobs in Davenport.

6) Yes. We have to do something to ease the congestion of 53rd and Kimberly roads.

7) Only to the extent that funds have already been pledged (through Fiscal Year 2011).

8) I think it would be unfair to answer this. While the public is aware of some problems, we certainly do not know the entire story.

 

Major Campaign Contributors

 

The Information here was drawn from primary-election reports to the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board (http://iecdb.iowa.gov ). General-election contribution reports are due November 1 and can be found on the board's Web site.

 

For citywide offices, contributions of $200 or greater are listed. For ward offices, contributions of $100 or greater are listed.

 

Mayor

Bill Gluba

October 3 filing. Mike Liebbe: $500; Karl Rhomberg & Alison Hart: $250; Tom Engelmann: $250; Michael Smiddy: $200; Bob Petersen: $200; Margaret Hathaway: $200; Robert A. Lank: $200; Scott Caulpetzer & Sally Paustian: $200; Alta Price: $200; Pat Walton & Karen Fitzsimmons: $200.

 

Phil Yerington

October 15 filing: Taxpayers United: $500; Michael & Lisa Meloy: $250; John & Kristin Flynn: $200.

 

At-large

Ian Frink

October 4 filing. Nita Eagle-Frink: $1,000; Douglas M. Kratz: $250; Brian J. Nikulski: $250; William B. Leaver: $250; Caroline Ruhl: $200.

 

Tina Gillispie-Clawson

No primary-election filing.

 

Gene Meeker

October 3 filling: Jim Russel: $250; John Blong: $200; J&L Liljquist: $200; Gene Rettenmaier: $200.

 

Jennifer Olsen

October 3 filing: Mike Liebbe: $500; James Wolf: $500; Stuart Thompson: $250; Mike & Lisa Meloy: $250; William Bribriesco: $200.

 

Ward 1

Nathan Brown

October 3 filing. Nathan Brown: $600; Arthur Brown: $200; Tom Engelmann: $100; Aaron Lake: $100.

 

Patrick Joseph Gibbs

No primary-election filing.

 

Ward 2

Tom Carnahan

October 3 filing. Quad City Federation of Labor: $500; AFSCME AFL-CIO PAC: $500; United Staff Union of Iowa PAC: $100; Matt Paul: $100; Pete DeKock: $100; Jennifer Hall: $100; Elesha Gayman: $100.

 

Shawn Hamerlinck

October 8 filing. James Muhs: $250; Kristen M. Moon: $150; R. Moeller: $100; Sheryl Arp: $100; Jeanette's Dance Studio: $100; Gary D. Ketelsen: $100; Kim Swab: $100; Dotty Bainbridge: $100.

 

Ward 3

Bill Boom

October 3 filing. Mark C. Kilmer: $100; Thomas C. Engelmann: $100; Stephen T. Schalk: $100; Daniel D. Fox: $100; Michael L. Duffy.

 

Keith Meyer

No primary-election filing.

 

Ward 4

Ray Ambrose

No primary-election filing.

 

Lisa Lewis

No primary-election filing.

 

Ward 5

Douglas S. Cunningham

October 4 filing. Winstein, Kavensky & Wallace: $250; Stewart Winstein: $200; David Cunningham: $100; Thomas Engelmann: $100; Rusty Nail: $100.

 

Bill Lynn

October 10 filing. Marjorie Kimmel: $100; Karl & Colleen Leusen: $100; Jack Nelson: $100; Carl Liebscher: $100; Ed Persike: $100.

Ward 6

Dale Gilmour

October 10 filing. Donald Stebens: $100.

 

Jeffrey W. Justin

October 2 filing: Bob Young: $125; Mike Duffy: $100; John Martin: $100; Richard VonMaur: $100; Carol Earnhardt: $100; John Roche: $100; Mike Guidici: $100; Cliff Martin: $100; Stephen Clark: $100.

 

Ward 7

Barney Barnhill

No contributions listed on October 4 filing.

 

Marcia Patch

No primary-election filing.

Ward 8

Mike Matson

October 3 filing. Perry Glassgon: $500; Kathleen Curoe: $350; William Moon: $250; Tom Engelmann: $250; Tony Epping: $100; Deborah Welman: $100; Mark & Elizabeth Thies: $100; Electrical Workers LU145 PAC: $100; Connie & Joe Creen: $100; Mike Duffy: $100.

 

Becky Schabilion

No primary-election filing.

 

 

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.



Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!

 

"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher