The final results from the Prop 454 election confirm a huge plurality in favor of retaining the status quo: Continue to develop Naranja Park on a "pay as you go" basis.
Those who supported this effort most certainly must have felt that it would pass. After all, they employed the same strategy and consulting firm that works for the Mayor and six council members in previous elections. Those who opposed it most certainly must be surprised that it was rejected by 71.4% of the voters.
Early votes comprised 88.4% of all votes. 28.9% of early voters favored the proposition. On election day, though, a smaller percentage of voters, 25.95 of favored it.
The results were different based on voting locations. Almost 80% of Sun City voters opposed the proposition. While 67% of those voting at Church of the Apostle (La Cholla) opposed it. Still, even with that difference, there was no area of the town that was even close to wanting this proposition to succeed.
There are two surprises regarding the election results.
First, the plurality against Prop 454 was much larger than the plurality against park development the last time we voted on it in 2008
The plurality is huge, not just in terms of it being 71.4% 'no' votes, but huge in comparison to the last time voters opined on building Naranja Park.
That was in 2008.
In 2008, the Oro Valley Town Council, and the Mayor at that time, Paul Loomis, promoted Prop 400, an $85 million Naranja Park Bond. The voters rejected this proposition. In that election, the park bond was rejected by 58.5% of the voters.
That's right. Fewer voters supported a smaller bond in 2017 than they did a bigger bond in 2008.
2008: 7,584 voted to approve Prop 400
2017: 4,965 voters to approve Prop 454
That is 2,719 fewer 'yes' votes even though 1,234 more votes were cast in total in 2008 than in 2017.
Second, the Oro Valley Town Council was so out of touch with the average citizen that it did not foresee the massive voter rejection of a property tax
The council voted unanimously to put this proposition on the ballot. That vote cost you about $150,00 in costs related to it. Perhaps, the council has bad judgment. Perhaps, this council is so far out of touch that they no longer speak for you, the Oro Valley resident who works hard for the money, has limited sources, and really just wants to live in our community to enjoy some peace and serenity. So, really, one could ask quite reasonably: Who do they speak for?
Tomorrow
We will present other thoughts on why the results were as they were!
---
