The Surprise of the Prop 454 Election (Part 2)

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.

---

Publisher View-Prop 454: The Skinny

As I see it, the voting decision on Prop454 is straight forward. I'll share my view with you at the end of this posting.

What Is Prop 454?

Prop454 is a property tax to fund infrastructure and ballfields development at Naranja Park. Voters rejected a massive property park bond in 2007 to fund what we, at the time, called the "Naranja Theme Park." Since that time, the town has used the annual town budget to build Naranja Park on a "pay as you go" basis from the town annual budget. This year, for example, the town is constructing two large sports fields there.

Those who support Prop 454 say: "We need the fields now!"

Proponents argue that the little league and others need the Narjanja Park improvements more quickly than a "pay as you go basis" will get it done.  To supporters, "pay as you go" simply isn't getting the job done fast enough.

Watch their lead video at right. This is from the website of the yeson454 PAC

The argument is that there are not enough little league ball fields in Oro Valley; and that what they consider to be a "modest increase" in the property tax will get them the fields more quickly.

Those who oppose Prop 454 say: "We don't want a property tax."

Those against present many arguments. One is depicted in the video at left from the AxeTheTaxov,com web site. It argues that the burden of taxes for Oro Valley families is already at a breaking point; that families have already been burdened with an increased Oro Valley sales tax, a doubled utility tax, and a raft of county and other taxes that simply are robbing them of their ability to support their family. Even what proponents call a "modest increase in the property tax" is far too much for them.

Those against the proposition have posted on LOVE a number of other arguments in opposition.

The Skinny
My advice is to skip past the emotion of whether Prop454 is or is not good for kids; after all, it really is only a matter of timing as to when these fields will be built.  Skip past the politics of what the motivations are behind the initiative; after all, the initiative is on the ballot and is being actively supported by the town.

Instead, focus on the key decision that affects you and your family. There is only one question to answer:

Do you want to pay a property tax to fund the accelerated development of Naranja Park?

If you do, vote "Yes."

If you don't, vote "No."
---
From time to time, Richard likes to "opine". This is one of those times. Other times, our very able editor and guest view writers fill the pages of LOVE with really good stuff!