It wasn’t $30 million. It wasn’t $40 million. It wasn’t $60 million. It was $15.5 million.

That was the amount the city of Miami and lawyers representing 80,000 or so property owners decided on last Thursday as the refund for an ancient fire fee. And all we here at the SunPost have to say is: Was that so hard?

The fire-fee saga could have been over years ago if Miami officials had negotiated a proper fire-fee refund. A local court ruled in 2004 that Miami’s fire fee was unconstitutional. Instead it turned out that a settlement of $7 million was offered to a handful of individuals and their lawyer. When the media found out, Miami’s leaders reacted as politicians often do — by pointing the finger at other people and expressing shock and indignation. Finger-pointing may help avoid punishment from the people at large, but it completely erodes trust in government. Worse, if the blunder had not been caught, besides seven dubious individuals getting richer (most have been ordered to pay the amount back), the city of Miami could have been liable for an even higher refund demand.

The fire-fee scandal helped push then-City Manager Joe Arriola out of office. It also severely tarnished Miami Mayor Manny Diaz’s reputation. Prior to the fire-fee scandal, Diaz was Miami’s golden boy. Sure, there were those who criticized his methods and his stance that more development would be good for Miami. But there was little doubt then in Diaz’s sincerity, and the mayor was hailed for bringing economic revitalization to the Magic City. The fire-fee scandal changed all that. It has made Miami’s citizens and local press corps cynical of Diaz’s leadership.

It’s a valuable lesson for the mayor. He was, at that point in time, distracted by various schemes to bring more development to Miami: Midtown Miami, a baseball stadium, a hotel project on Watson Island, a trolley car along the Biscayne corridor, Museum Park, the selling and redeveloping of the Miami Arena and possibly even the Gusman Center, an FTAA headquarters somewhere in the Magic City. All these ideas and others distracted Diaz and upper leadership from long-festering problems. The enactment of the fire fee was not Diaz’s fault — that was started by previous mayor Joe Carollo as a desperate measure to eliminate a $65 million deficit — but the fire-fee problem was Diaz’s responsibility to solve. Instead, it was passed on to underlings to dispense with as quickly as possible so as not to jeopardize the economic-building engine.

Miami’s neglectful leadership is also evident in the scandal involving The Firm, in which basically the entire capital improvements section figured, “What the heck, no one is really paying attention to whether we are working on projects the city taxpayers paid for anyway. Why not just hire ourselves out to private developers on city time and make extra bucks?” Again, probably a condition that pre-dated Diaz’s administration (many of those implicated have worked for the city for more than a decade), but the priorities of the leadership allowed it to fester.

That may be one of the positive benefits of the real estate market slow-down: It is giving Diaz and co. a reason to take care of serving the needs of its residents and businesses. Indeed, we have to say, so far, the hiring of City Manager Pete Hernandez is one of the best moves Diaz has made. Soft-spoken, Hernandez has been focused on getting Miami’s house in order. It’s about time.

And so, with the hopes that Miami’s leadership may be entering a new era, here’s a suggestion. Unlike every other municipality in the state of Florida and in Miami-Dade County itself, Miami has dodged a bullet — thanks to its status as being one of the most impoverished cities in the United States, it won’t be hit with Tallahassee’s mandated property tax cuts. An opportunity here would be to give Miami’s property owners, both homesteaded as well as commercial, some tax relief in the form of lowered millage. Why commercial? Apartment buildings are considered commercial property. Higher tax assessments equal higher rents and that equals more working-class individuals and families being forced out of the Magic City.

Prior to a scandal surrounding the city’s ex-public housing czar, Barbara Gomez, and a series of Miami Herald articles revealing the numerous housing projects that are still incomplete, Diaz was touting his city’s commitment to providing housing for Miami’s poorer residents.  But why depend on subsidized projects that may go bad? Why not give some tax relief to private apartment building owners who make a commitment to offering affordable rents — and not convert to condominiums when the real estate market turns around.

And then there are the homesteaded property owners. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Miami’s elected officials provided them some tax relief, no matter how modest, as a token of appreciation and humility to their bosses, the taxpayers of Miami?

Making it happen will take some number-crunching and tough decisions, and it would be nice if Miami’s leaders were to start working on that before leaders in Tallahassee (who have already lamented their mistake in exempting Miami) do it for them. After all, $15.5 million divided among 80,000 is a mere pittance.