Corbett, Council Commit Unforced Error

So the Cedar Rapids City Council will vote on a resolution Tuesday permitting the city to sell $17 million in urban revitalization bonds to match state and federal bucks for a $67 million events center/U.S. Cellular Center upgrade.

Mayor Ron Corbett and most council members love this project. Love it. They're in line for big grants from the feds, $35 million, and the state, $15 million. Backers think it will give a critical shot in the arm to downtown Cedar Rapids. It's a top priority. They've been talking about it for months.

And still, they managed to damage their dream through a sin of omission.

The Gazette's Rick Smith has the goods:

Lost, though, in the council's eagerness to approve a local bond issue to help secure the federal funds has been the council's accompanying silence about a provision of state law that allows residents opposed to sizable bond sales to collect signatures on a petition to force a citizen vote - called a reverse referendum - before such a bond sale can proceed.

At this late hour, anyone so inclined has until Tuesday to collect 2,353 signatures - 10 percent of the total who voted in the last city election - to force a citizen vote, a fact that City Council has not volunteered to talk about in recent weeks.

In fact, the council had a lengthy discussion about the bond sale at its March 16 meeting and not once mentioned the possibility of a reverse referendum. City Hall, though, did point out the reverse-referendum option in a legal notice in The Gazette on March 27.

Oh, well, sure, it was in the legal notices. Everyone reads those.

I sent a text message to Mayor Ron Corbett.

"Why play it sneaky on bond vote?"

He answered.

"Not playing it sneaky."

Then we went old school and spoke by phone.

Corbett contends he's been anything but sneaky about this project, which he's been openly backing since he took office. He says the council passed a resolution earlier pledging the $17 million match, with hopes the Iowa Legislature would allow the city to ask voters for a higher hotel/motel tax rate to cover the cost.

The Legislature said no dice. And federal officials  preparing to grant $35 million for the project said the council's earlier match resolution wasn't strong enough. The city had to identify a concrete funding source. Revitalization bonds, Corbett said, could provide that reassurance to the feds. Corbett describes it as a "backstop."

The resolution Tuesday, Corbett said, gives the city permission to sell bonds, but that won't need to happen this year or next. In the meantime, Corbett said he still wants to lobby lawmakers for the hotel/motel change and then go to voters. 

"I don't want to sell these bonds," Corbett said. "I want to pay using hotel/motel tax as a revenue stream."

Fine. And good luck. But that still doesn't explain why the council played it coy on the public's power to force a referendum - a vote on whether the city ought to even have permission to issue bonds.

Corbett may not want them now, but if the city needs them later, taxpayers will be on the hook. And if those taxpayers want a say before that happens, more power to them.  

"Should we have publicized it more? Looking back, I suppose," Corbett said.

Yes, mayor, the smart play would have been to lay all the cards on the table for the public and explain the process, even the parts that don't fit neatly into your plans. Play it straight and open.

If a vote's called for, stand up and make a solid case to the electorate on why you think this project is important.

Maybe it's a tough sell. I guarantee it's a tougher sell now.

Now, a vote may happen anyway. Folks are out there gathering signatures as I type. And if it does, you'll have  to answer charges, again and again, that you tried to pull one over.

Look, I'm not saying Corbett, and the council should have held opponents' hands and presented them with pre-printed petitions, fancy pens and shiny new bullhorns. But a basic explanation of our options in public, not in the numbing  fine-print of a legal notice, would have been appreciated.

Like the Yardy fiasco, this sort of stumble bumble doesn't make sense coming from a council that's been pretty effective. Too many unforced errors, and it's game, set match.