Commentary : Measure A Defeat Came After Questions Arose and Went Unanswered

When Measure A, the slow-growth initiative, went down to defeat last Tuesday, it marked a surprising turnabout in one of the most important political controversies of Orange County’s first century. For months, residents’ and local leaders’ attention had been riveted on the high-profile, albeit not-well-understood, initiative, while the rest of the nation watched Orange County with unprecedented interest.

In February, the Times Orange County Poll showed, the measure appeared destined for success. Nearly three in four voters were saying they would vote for the slow-growth initiative. And the measure could hardly have seemed more popular, with backers easily gathering enough signatures to place it on the June ballot. But by mid-May, we found in another Times Orange County Poll, support had deflated to 54%. And last Tuesday, voters rejected the proposition they once favored so heavily, by 56% to 44%.

What made Orange County turn its back on Measure A? And is there now any future for the slow-growth movement?

The slow-growth movement recently arose in such newly evolving regions as Orange County when residents began to notice that new roads were not keeping pace with population and job increases. In Orange County, the general public has consistently supported the concept of slow growth in their communities since 1982, when the UC Irvine Orange County Annual Survey found residents favoring growth limits by a 2-1 ratio. At that time, 95% said the reason for their support was to prevent an increase in traffic congestion.

Five years later, when the slow-growth initiative arrived on the scene, it could not have come at a more opportune time. Satisfaction with freeway conditions had just reached a new low, and residents were more inclined than ever to cite traffic as the county’s most serious problem. Most residents perceived that the county was becoming a worse place to live and blamed a rising population for this declining quality of life. Their immediate reaction was to try to curb future growth. And Measure A seemed a way to attain this objective.

But the general rule in initiative politics is that yes votes can easily turn to no as Election Day nears. The emergence of unanswered questions will turn away many who supported a measure early on, as voters decide the status quo is better than uncertainty.

In the case of Measure A, a host of serious questions about its scope and possible effects was raised by the opponents. Those who fought the measure attacked it on its ballot wording and created doubts about how the initiative would translate to policy. Opponents also raised fears that taxpayers would end up footing the bill for the measure’s stipulations. And they tried to convince voters that the real contest was between slow growth and a healthy economy.

The initiative was vulnerable in that latter realm, we found in our May survey. Asked how they would vote if they heard the measure would hurt jobs and the economy, 57% said they would oppose it. The message apparently got across, and residents decided that slow growth was not worth the risk of a sluggish economy.

In the supporters’ camp, meanwhile, the fragile coalition between liberals and conservatives seemed to have broken down. Housing advocates withdrew their support, stating that growth controls would adversely impact low-income groups. After the initial push to qualify the measure, sponsors ran what was essentially a non-campaign, offering little information to quell the public’s confusion. And they were never able to fully explain their mission. They over-optimistically believed that voters’ distrust of politicians and developers would carry the day. And, as doubts about Measure A grew, we saw a once-high level of voter support erode dramatically.

But of all the issues contributing to the downfall of Measure A, freeway traffic congestion was the one that dealt the initiative its death blow. We saw this potential in our May survey, which found the measure highly vulnerable to negative messages about its effect on freeway traffic.

In the 1980s, residents had looked to growth restrictions as one way to alleviate traffic congestion--solving the county’s most nagging problem without raising taxes for transportation. But as voters picked up on the message that Measure A had no direct benefit to freeways, and related only to the streets and construction in the unincorporated parts of the south county, they began to waver. This message was never really countered by the supporters of Measure A, leading to its demise at the polls.

But the defeat of Measure A by no means spells the end of the slow-growth movement in Orange County. As long as traffic on the county’s freeways remains painfully snarled and clogged, the 2-1 ratio for slow growth found earlier this decade is unlikely to erode. Rather, the defeat of the initiative means that voters viewed this particular policy instrument as a flawed and inadequate approach to the freeway mess. In the future, Orange County voters will still be searching for elected officials and ballot initiatives that can bring relief.