Yesterday we expressed our surprise on the Prop 454 Election vote. We were surprised that 71.4% of the voters rejected the proposal to fund an acceleration of the construction of Naranja Park. This rejection exceeded the 58% no vote in 2008, when voters opined on a much more expansive Naranja Park bond proposal.So, we ask: Why was the 'no' vote more resounding this time around?
Here's our analysis:
Prop 400 had something for everyone. Prop 454 did not.
Council Member Joe Hornat observed during a council meeting in 2015 that the only way to get voter bond approval for Naranja Park was to include something for everyone. Prop 454 was not that. It was a limited purpose bond. It was a bond that focused on one part of the resident population, families with children who play sports and a handful of senior softball players; and on the building of infrastructure. That's it. On the other hand, Prop 400 had goodies for many, including a theatre for performing arts and a community-type center. Even with that, it was rejected by the voters but not by as large a margin.
Prop 400 was an "all or nothing deal" for Naranja Park, whereas Prop 454 impacted only the timing of Naranja Park development
No compelling reason was presented to support accelerating building the fields at Naranja Park. The current council had formulated a plan to build the park on a "pay as you go basis." That presents no visible burden on the voter. Besides, sometimes, as we tell our kids, you will just have to wait for that new smart phone!
The "AXE" PAC made a difference
There were two PAC's participating in this election. There were none in 2008. Perhaps the "Axethetaxov" PAC was more effective than the "Yes On 454" PAC in reaching the voter. This despite the fact that "Yes on 454" outspent the "AxetheTaxov" Pac by 15:1!
Big money special interests bet on a win in 2017. There were no special interest donations in 2008.
Perhaps voters were turned off when they learned that the "Yes On 454" PAC got 76% of its money, some $35,000, from the development community. This is the same development community that has poured hundreds of thousands into the election of current council members. Of even more significance, however, was that the "Yes On 454" PAC received less than 1% of its donations from the public, including from the very people who would benefit from the approval. Of further interest: No sports organizations donated to the PAC. In fact, the Yes PAC returned a $250 donation that they received from Little League Baseball.
'No' on Prop 454 Voters were far more energized
There were 2,184 more votes in total cast in 2008 than in 2017. The decrease in the number of votes cast is directly related to the 3,100 fewer votes cast in favor of the bond. On the other hand, there were more 'no' votes in total in 2017 than in 2008: 11,565 and 10,669 respectively.
Those are some of our initial thoughts.
Please write us (see comment form on right panel) to let us know what you think.
---
