LOST Pennies Find Controversy

The shine is off the penny.

Local option is spawning local outrage in Cedar Rapids. Those of us who advocated in March 2009 for the passage of a one-cent, local-option sales tax are hearing a lot of told-you-sos.

One thing critics were oh-so-right about was that an advisory committee picked to oversee penny tax spending would be no match for a City Council intent on skirting the bounds of what was clearly printed in plain English on the ballot.

I watched that play out Tuesday night, as the LOST advisory panel swatted in futility at the council's latest plan for pennies.

The panel voted 6-1 that the council broke from the ballot when it voted unanimously last week to use $10.5 million worth of pennies to provide cash to flood victims for lost possessions. The ballot called for property acquisition, rehabilitation and to provide local match for federal dollars. Grants of up to $10,000 for furniture, fixtures etc., no matter how well-intended, do not fit. Even flooded-out folks on the panel said no dice.

Mayor Ron Corbett and his squad argue the city is “matching” federal dollars handed out earlier. They say it fits, while admitting it's a stretch. And, as advisory panel chair Gary Ficken points out, “They can do whatever they want.”

Cue the threats of legal action and overheated cries of “throw the bums out.”

I think the council went too far. The letter of the ballot language must be respected. Stretching doesn't cut it.

Reconsideration is in order, although I'm not holding my breath.

Still, I'm reluctant to kick around a council that's trying to get money to victims and still play by rules written before the game was fully understood.

Too bad we can't travel back in time, to tell our early 2009 selves that we don't know squat.

We could let 2009-us know that there's no need to rush a tax vote. It will take months to get a real sense of true needs and gaps. And it turns out the feds will pay more for buyouts than we thought, although only after more long, heartbreaking months of waiting. God, and ProSource, willing, checks will come. And thanks to waivers and negotiating, we don't need as much matching money as we anticipated.

We'd explain that infamous web of sorrow that is “duplication of benefits,” or DOB. And you know all that lofty talk about passing the tax to prove to the feds that we're willing to put “skin in the game?” Well, actually, putting local skin in the game often prompts the feds to pull money away. Yeah, weird huh?

We'd inform March 2009 that the recovery maze ahead requires flexibility and ingenuity, so getting specific on the ballot language may be something you'll regret.

Oh, and give the advisory panel some teeth.

It will keep you honest and build public trust, which you'll find is worth its weight in shiny pennies when things get rough.