Taxpayers Decline a 20-Year Tango

"Dancing with the Stars" was on the flat-screen TV at the RWDSU-UFCW Local 110 Hall as supporters of a local option tax extension watched the returns roll in on a screen crawl Tuesday night.

But by the time all the sequined twirling was over, it had become evident that local voters were not willing to tango for 20 years with a one-cent tax, mostly for flood protection and road improvements.

It was an agonizingly close dance. The tight margin kicked and dipped. But a couple hundred votes stopped the music. The only folks left smiling in the room were those curious full-size human cutout campaign signs leaned up against the wall, still urging yes votes even after it was over.

The tax measure failed in the metro voting block of Cedar Rapids, Hiawatha, Marion, Fairfax and Robins by just 216 votes out of nearly 32,000 votes cast, according to unofficial results. It failed in Cedar Rapids by 540 704 votes while the neighboring cities each voted yes. So close, but likely to hold up.

By the time "Body of Evidence" came on the tube, a show about a medical examiner, the joint was a morgue.

And the postmortem had begun.

"The citizens voted down our plan," said Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett, who was the driving force and face of the yes campaign. "We felt strongly that protecting both sides of the river was important.

"Maybe the community's just not as concerned about it flooding again as the city council is," Corbett said.

The city's bid for a tax extension, half of which would have gone toward a $375 million system of flood walls and levees on both sides of the Cedar River in the city's core, was a vessel proudly christened by the city's top leaders. But it was also filled with all sorts of baggage tossed in by tax opponents.

There was a lack of trust and support for numerous city decisions, from the siting of the new library to the closing of Second Avenue to the building of a new convention complex. There was skepticism about the cost and effectiveness of the city's ambitious flood protection plan. There was discontent over how the city has spent the current sales tax. Throw in a political climate that makes any effort to raise taxes, especially for such a long period, a dicey prospect. Even the big business-fueled $450,000 vote yes campaign, which looked like a powerful motor, also added some poundage.

There were legitimate concerns and fact-free diatribes, such as the contention that the protection plan was really a hiding place for secret city projects.

It was always a question of whether the plan could still float with all that weight. Private polling commissioned by the vote yes folks showed that it could.

But special elections are notoriously difficult reads. Election night told a different story.

So what now?

Well, the mayor's three-legged stool is as flat as a pancake. Legislation at the Statehouse aimed at providing $200 million for flood protection will likely go into storage. I'd be surprised to see a vote on it this year.

The federal leg remains in play, but without a state or local match, the city's already uphill climb gets a lot steeper.

I asked the mayor if he thought this result would lead to a renewed public discussion of what sort of flood protection citizens want. He contends that it would take years for the Army Corps of Engineers to study a new plan. Corbett doubts that's feasible. So I gather we're not going back to the drawing board.

The corps east-side-only recommendation remains, protecting downtown and east bank industries while leaving the west bank as-is. I expect there will now be pressure on the council from business leaders to move forward with that plan and come up with the local match needed to fund it. Biz leaders will say, "You made a nice try for both sides, now do what has to be done." Approving that plan, knowing that it could lead to higher water on the west if another big flood comes, will be a very tough vote.

Or maybe there's a re-vote in November on the sales tax, with a different plan. Maybe a 10-year tax, flood protection only. I know the road improvement piece was supposed to sweeten the pot, but I can't help but wonder if it wasn't also turn-off for some voters. It opened up the city to criticism of its streets record and complaints that it can't handle even this basic need.

But nobody seemed ready to talk about re-votes Tuesday.

So what we have to swallow along with this wafer-thin mint served up by the voters is a lot more uncertainty. We'll see it city leaders were right when they said defeat would discourage vital investment in the city's core.

And the endless flood saga marches on to new battles. Clearly, we know the steps to that dance.