At large: Carl Cortez

I believe the City Council has done more for flood replacement of city properties than any flood recovery.

The city has asked residents, landlords, small-business owners and other flood-affected people to reinvest in their properties and businesses while the city sat on damaged city property. Now, when they see the opportunity to replace key properties, they forge ahead. The city has not been a leader in flood recovery.

I know many homeowners, small business owners and landlords who, post flood, stepped up, cleaned up, fixed up and reopened their flooded properties. All the city can do is tear down to rebuild bigger and better.

Much of the recovery assistance should have and still should come from the state. We were given people to attend meetings and report on our progress, when what we needed was to explain to flood victims, city staff and council what needs to be done and how to do it.

The federal government seems unable to make firm, just judgments on procedures and how to assist us.

The City Council should continue to seek support for building permanent flood protection on both sides of the river, including all affected neighborhoods. The downtown, both east and west, have a lot of vacant storefronts that without some form of flood protection won't be filled.

Flood protection, along with repairing infrastructure, should be the priority. Now is the time for the city to follow the lead of

Quaker and continue the flood wall it has started. It is not the time to spend millions on convention centers, libraries and amphitheaters.

Quaker applied for a building permit to build approximately 2,700 linear feet of flood protection, of which about 2,000 feet can be incorporated into the city's flood management strategy. The Gazette reported that the city's preferred flood protection system is 7.74 miles; based on Quaker's costs for its wall, the cost is about $46 million.

I also believe the city's preferred flood plan is wrong in design and location. The level needs a lot of discussion. I side with Quaker, or at least split the difference between the 100-year and the 500-year levels, which is 4 feet.

As to location, why move the wall on the levee on First Street NW? And if the new wall was to follow the river bank, little property would have to be purchased.

I have an easement on my property. Are there easements for river bank property? There is also eminent domain; not a good option, but it could be used.

Carl Cortez, Cedar Rapids native and father of two sons, is a Navy veteran and retired from IBM. He is one of the original MYFA board members, and has served the Riverfront Improvement Commission and River Recreation Commission. Comments: Kellee.Cortez@iowacourts.gov