Penny for your thoughts

A couple of weeks ago, before I wandered off for a summer break, I asked readers to share their thoughts on the 10-year, local-option sales tax extension that's on the November ballot around these parts.

Cedar Rapids city leaders want the extended one-cent tax “to to pay for the costs of the maintenance, repair, construction and reconstruction of public streets.”

I was hoping to hear from folks beyond the usual suspects who always sound off on these things. The response was not overwhelming, but it wasn't disappointing. I received emails from a dozen readers and phone calls from several others. In all, the emailers turned in more than 3,400 words on the issue. Not too shabby.

With the exception of one or two, these are folks I had not heard from in the past. They were, for the most part, thoughtful, civil and honest. Some aren't exactly fans of the city leadership and some of the decisions that leadership has made in recent years, but no one took this opportunity to spew vitriol. And some think local leaders are doing a fine job.

LOUSY STREETS

“I have been very impressed by the current leadership, the mayor, the city manager and the council seems to be diligent in vetting what needs to be done and then executing,” a reader wrote. “I think you should cut them some slack and look at what is being accomplished in this city.”

There seems to be broad agreement that the city's streets are lousy. One reader dubbed them “the worst streets in the G7.” That's the world's seven top industrialized nations, by the way. So that's not good. A caller wondered whether a tax on shock absorbers might be a better way to raise repair funds.

“Two weeks ago, I spent over $900 on ball joints, tie rod ends, and alignment on my car. My mechanic says he sees this every day due to the condition of our roads,” a reader wrote.

With regard to the tax measure, the calls and letters contained some common threads. Most of these folks want the city to provide as much detail as possible on how, exactly, it plans to spend dollars collected through the extended tax. And among those detail-seekers, there is a very strong feeling that money raised by the tax extension should be used to fix the city's existing streets network, not to construct new streets.

If, as city leaders contend, more than a third of existing streets are in fair or poor condition, and that even a sales tax victory won't clear a massive backlog of repair jobs, then readers argue the existing 630 miles of streets should be the priority.

“I don't want to side with the nattering nabobs of negativism. On the other hand, I can't endorse the new LOST proposal until I am sure that the money will be spent for repair of existing residential streets,” one reader wrote in an email that shared sentiments with several others. “I also need to be sure that the additional money will actually be ‘additional,' and that it will not be used to replace money which would have gone to streets and could now be diverted to flood wall projects and other grand designs.”

NOT FOR NEW STREETS

Another reader sounded a similar argument.

“Had the council proposal merely stated that the tax receipts would be spent for street repair, it likely would have breezed through this time, and good on it for doing so. Unfortunately, why are we not surprised that the actual language contained a short phrase which could negate the value to a significant degree?

“So what is the killer phrase? It is this: ‘…new street construction.'”

Is this a scientifically significant sample of public opinion? Of course not. But I have a feeling that these readers' feelings are probably shared by a lot of voters. I think “more details, please” is going to be a common theme.

That leaves the city to walk a tightrope. Its capital improvements budget, which contains street projects, among other infrastructure spending, is complicated, with street work, storm sewers, traffic signals and bridge projects often budgetarily intertwined. Providing details means explaining how all those moving parts and funding sources work together, and that's a challenge within the context of a campaign.

THE TOUGH TASK

People deserve to know how the money will be spent. So the city has to figure out how to provide considerable detail while also leaving enough flexibility to meet the unforeseen challenges sure to arise over a decade. A tough task, to be sure. And if they want new construction to be included, they'll have to explain why they believe it's critical. Also not easy.

But taking tax dollars from the pockets of citizens and others who shop and work in Cedar Rapids shouldn't be a piece of cake. If city leaders think they simply can point at potholes and keep collecting pennies, I think they'll be disappointed. And I'll be disappointed if I don't hear from more of you on this issue.