Infighting could doom Johnson County Justice Center

As Cedar Rapids voters ready to weigh in for the second time in a year on a flood protection tax extension, county supervisors to their south are hesitating over a November referendum on a much-needed justice center - more than a decade after their last attempt.

Two very different public safety projects born of different circumstances that stand in stark contrast in terms of progress and priorities.

Last May, when Cedar Rapidians narrowly rejected a sales tax extension, tax supporters got right back up, dusted themselves off and crafted a revised proposal.

Johnson County voters might have sent a clearer message in that county's jail bond referendum in 2000 (65 percent voted “no”), but surely, 12 years is long enough to bring a case back to the people.

Instead, the issue of whether and when and where and how much to spend on a new justice center has been talked to death then resurrected then talked to death again. Supervisors have gone round and round on the question more times than I can count.

Just last week, in what seems like their thousandth conversation about how to pay for the now-$48 million facility, they stalled once more when Supervisor Terrence Neuzil announced that he wanted to bond for only $39 million instead of the otherwise agreed-upon $43 million, and to find budget efficiencies to make up the rest. His four colleagues cried “foul.”

Now, a few million dollars is nothing to sneeze at, and Neuzil should be commended for his frugality. But other supervisors argued, compellingly, that it's the fiscally responsible thing to plan for the project's true price tag (something with which many an irate Cedar Rapids voter would surely agree).

How did they resolve it? Did they compromise? Decide to go with the majority? No. They all threatened to take their toys and go home.

Since then, Neuzil has said he'll go as far as $40.9 million. (This same Neuzil who said in 2000 that he was “frustrated” and “upset” by the jail situation. The same who, four years later, as board chairman, pledged to come up with “real alternatives to solve our continuous problems with an overcrowded jail.”)

The others say they'll settle for nothing less than unanimous agreement, because dissent will only place doubt in the minds of the voters.

What, do they think we're not watching now?

As supervisors fiddle, the need only grows greater, the cost heavier.

And the danger grows greater that if they talk justice center plans to death one more time, it just might be for keeps.

Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net