A matter of protection

The Gazette Editorial Board

----

Another pivotal moment in Cedar Rapids' flood recovery arrives Tuesday.

Voters in Cedar Rapids and its contiguous metropolitan neighbors will go to the polls to decide the fate of a 10-year, one-cent local-option sales tax extension. In Cedar Rapids, all of the money raised by the tax, $18 million to $20 million annually, would be used to establish and maintain a flood-protection system on both banks of the Cedar River through the city's core.

Backers contend the local tax is part of a three-front effort to line up funding for a system of levees and flood walls that also would include state and federal help. They argue flood protection is a critical ingredient in post-flood redevelopment efforts.

Opponents see the issue very differently. We've heard and considered their criticism.

Arguments against

They argue that city leaders can't be trusted to use the money for what the ballot language promises. They insist that the original sales tax approved in 2009 was supposed to help flooded homeowners, but instead helped pay for city projects. Now, critics say the flood-protection ballot language is too vague, and leaves loopholes for misuse on “pet projects.”

Opponents argue that the city's flood-protection plans are still vague, will cause problems upstream, and is too expensive. Critics insist there are other ways to fund protection besides a regressive sales tax that hits the poor and elderly hardest.

Some critics say that property owners who remain in the 2008 flood don't deserve publicly funded protection, or don't need it because the risk of flooding is so small. Some contend the push for protection is being driven by business interests and the Chamber. And if the need is so great, why didn't the city pump money into protection instead of a library, convention complex and other projects?

And why should the city approve a tax extension before state and federal assistance have been approved? What happens if help never arrives? Critics say that's too much uncertainty.

Predicting the future

Trust is in short supply these days when it comes to government at all levels. But what was also in short supply here back in 2009, when the original tax passed, was clairvoyance. It's certain that if city leaders had known then that the federal government would come through with ample dollars for property buyouts, but decline to fully fund flood protection, the ballot language would have been very different. At the time, all signs pointed in the opposite direction.

And the notion that city leaders put some recovery projects ahead of others ignores the reality that timing was dictated by the slow pace of lengthy federal reviews and approvals. The city did not control the clock.

Could the language on the ballot Tuesday be tighter? Perhaps. But it's unlikely it could ever be crafted in a way that pleases all the city's critics. Our elected officials are promising to build flood protection, period. If they fail to live up to that promise, Election Day provides a remedy. That's the basic contract between citizens and our leaders. Trust, verify and vote accordingly.

The protection picture

Flood protection is already being designed by the Army Corps of Engineers on the east side in such a way that anticipates the eventual construction of west-side control measures. The west-side plan remains vague because design can't happen until funding is available.

The Corps says both-banks protection can be built to fight off another 2008 flood without causing major impacts downstream. Upstream impacts are less certain, but are unlikely to be large, according to the Corps.

Hundreds of homes and other properties are being bought out and cleared from the flood zone. But the city must not abandon all of the historic, core neighborhoods hit by the flood. Some must and can be redeveloped. The city's overall economic health depends on it. And the long-term success of that redevelopment depends on flood protection.

Sales taxes are regressive, but adding the cost of flood protection to property taxes would be even less acceptable. And visitors who use our services and infrastructure also contribute through the penny tax.

The west-side risk

Many downtown businesses do support flood protection, including small-business owners who worked tirelessly and took on massive debt to recover and return. And although the majority of those firms in the traditional east-side downtown area likely will be shielded by the federally approved east-bank system, it's the west side that will be left most exposed if the tax fails. Voting down the tax to spite large east-side companies makes little sense.

There are uncertainties. Legislation creating a state program that could provide help for Cedar Rapids cleared the Iowa Senate 50-0 and appears to be on a fast track. But Cedar Rapids would still have to apply for that help, and the state program requires a federal investment. So far, Congress and the White House have failed to provide that full investment. Nothing is guaranteed.

Yet we have no reason to expect other governments to step forward if we're unwilling to step up and provide local resources. And we have two years before the extension takes effect to continue pushing and lobbying for help.

Protecting the progress

This community has made remarkable strides since those awful days in June 2008. There have been debates and divisions to be sure, but there is also a sense that good days are ahead for this city. There is progress all around us. We should be very proud.

Putting all that progress at risk, and allowing our continued disagreements and grudges to cloud our ability to grasp the gravity of that risk, would be a great mistake in the history of this community.

Our city must be protected. We urge you to vote “yes” Tuesday.

n Comments: thegazette.com/

category/opinion/editorial or

editorial@sourcemedia.net