TIMES ORANGE COUNTY POLL : Backers of Proposition M Tax Hike Outnumber Foes

With only days to go before a countywide vote on a proposed half-cent sales tax increase for transportation projects, The Times Orange County Poll shows supporters outnumbering opponents by 15% but still lacking a solid majority to carry the measure.

In a telephone survey of 600 registered voters, 47% said they would vote yes on Measure M on Nov. 7, while just 32% said they would vote no--down 14 points from the 46% who said they opposed the tax increase in a previous Times Orange County Poll in July.

But while opposition to Measure M has softened, support has remained flat, actually dropping a point since July. The percentage of undecided voters, however, has jumped from 6% to 21%, according to the poll.

The random-sample poll was conducted by Irvine-based Mark Baldassare & Associates from Oct. 23 through Oct. 25. The margin of error is 4% for questions involving all 600 people sampled and somewhat larger for questions of smaller groups.

Baldassare said the large increase in the number of undecided voters was unusual and made the outcome of the election particularly difficult to predict.

“If anything, as the vote is getting closer, one would expect that people would swing in one direction or another,” Baldassare said. “I think it is significant, but it doesn’t really give us a clue as to how it’s going to end up.”

According to Baldassare, the latest poll shows that there are a “couple of critical issues” that are key to the success or failure of Measure M, which would increase the sales tax from 6 to 6 1/2%.

“The issue of turnout and the issue of what those undecideds will decide once they listen to the arguments . . . whether they believe the money would be spent wisely,” he said.

Asked how much confidence they had in county government’s ability to spend the sales tax money wisely, 40% of poll respondents answered that they had “none” or “hardly any”; only one in four voters among this group supports the half-cent increase.

Just 18% of those surveyed said they had “a great deal” of confidence in county government.

Perhaps most troubling for Measure M proponents are the figures for those voters most likely to show up at the polls Nov. 7. Just 33% of voters who are “highly likely” to vote--about 100 of the 600 surveyed--said they would support the measure, while 46% of those opposed it. Voters who are “somewhat likely” to go to the polls, however--a group twice as large as the “highly likelies”--favored the measure by a margin of 52% to 29%.

“The greater the turnout, the more likely this is to pass,” Baldassare said.

Opponents of Measure M say it will fail at the polls if turnout stays below 25%. But both sides agree that if turnout approaches 30%, the measure should capture the majority of additional voters and would have a good chance of passing.

Turnout at off-year elections in Orange County is normally just 10% to 12%, county Registrar of Voters Donald F. Tanney said, but he would make no prediction on this year’s turnout. The presence of a countywide measure on an issue as important to voters as transportation will bring more voters to the polls, but Tanney said he has no recent precedents to help him make an estimate.

The proposed half-cent sales tax increase would raise $3.1 billion for an $11.5-billion, 20-year traffic improvement and growth management plan, with the remaining $8.4 billion coming from the state and federal government, as well as other sources. The creation of a citizen’s committee to oversee disbursement of the money helped win the support of some traditional opponents of development and tax increases.

Without the increase, proponents of the measure say, the county will not be able to pay for sorely needed transportation projects such as freeway widening, a commuter rail system, more car-pool lanes and so-called “super streets” to reduce congestion.

Opponents of the measure contend that the transportation improvements will only foster more growth and that taxes are already high enough.

A proposed one-cent sales tax increase for unspecified transportation projects was decisively rejected by Orange County voters in June, 1984. But Baldassare said this time around, residents seem to be more inclined to at least consider the merits of the measure.

“I think in ’84 at this time (before Election Day), the movement was toward the ‘No’ column. So I think it’s quite a different set of circumstances,” he said. “It’s a different kind of plan . . . a very complex package. . . . I think that it means that there’s been some willingness to listen to what the plan is all about and not reject a tax increase outright.”

Bruce Nestande, a member of the state Transportation Commission and chairman of Citizens for Yes on Measure M, said the softening of opposition was a sign that the committee’s $1.8-million campaign is getting its message out effectively.

“As the campaign moves closer to closure, your noes drift away to undecided and then you bring them over to our side,” Nestande said. “We have to show a cost-benefit assortment of projects that would satisfy the residents. . . . We accept the responsibility to do that.”

However, Jerry Yudelson, one of the leaders of the No on M committee, interpreted the poll results as “a danger sign” for Measure M backers.

“Even with $1.2 million, they haven’t been able to go over 50% (supporting the measure),” said Yudelson, a Garden Grove businessman. “I think in the last week or two, you’ll see the pendulum swing back our way.”

The measure’s opponents are counting on Orange County’s traditional aversion to taxes and its history of poor turnouts in off-year elections to bring them victory.

The Times Orange County Poll found that almost half the undecided respondents--44%--said they would not be willing to pay any new taxes for transportation. Another 28% said they would be most willing to support an increase in the gasoline tax for road projects. A proposed statewide gasoline tax increase will be on the June ballot next year for statewide projects.

But, Baldassare pointed out, M supporters could look with optimism at the fact that almost six in 10 of the undecided group said they could support some kind of tax or fee for transportation improvements.

“That group could decide the election,” Baldassare said.

One poll respondent who is undecided on the measure said she could support the half-cent sales tax if she knew more about how the money would be spent.

“A lot of time what they do is use the money for the center dividers, they plant trees, flowers and grass,” said Chelenne Lunde, 18, of Buena Park. “If it goes toward fixing the streets, then I would be for it. . . . But I haven’t heard much about it.”

Anaheim resident Lewis Rose said he was having a hard time making up his mind because he had disliked past proposals for tax increases--particularly Proposition A, the one-cent sales tax increase for transportation in 1984.

“It’s like crying wolf,” said Rose, 33. Still, he agreed that solutions had to be found to the traffic problems in Orange County.

Waldene Curtis of El Toro said she supports the measure “because I’m kind of fed up with the traffic congestion down here. I’m assuming that it will alleviate some of that. . . . What used to take 20 minutes now takes 45 minutes.”

But Curtis said she remains concerned that the transportation projects would foster more development and is skeptical about the measure’s growth management plan. “I’m sure it takes a second seat to the other elements,” she said.

Surprisingly, the level of frustration over traffic does not appear to be closely linked with support for Measure M.

Even among those surveyed who said they were “extremely upset” by driving conditions in Orange County, the measure was favored by just 49%--about the same as among respondents who said they were “very upset” or just “moderately upset.”

The measure’s strongest support appeared to be in South County, where it was favored by 51% of the poll respondents, compared to 45% in North County.

Opponents of the measure have said they hope to exploit the geographical difference with campaign literature aimed at North County voters that portrays Measure M as a boondoggle for South County developers at their expense.

The poll also found that men are more likely to favor Measure M than women and that its support increases among younger, more affluent voters. Respondents earning less than $20,000 oppose the measure by 43% to 33%. Those who earn more than $60,000, however, support it, with 53% in favor and 29% opposed.

Times staff writer George Frank contributed to this article.

THE TIMES ORANGE COUNTY POLL

VOTING PREFERENCES

“Measure M would raise the sales tax one-half cent--from 6 cents to 6 1/2 cents--for 20 years, with the funds to be used solely for transportation construction and growth management programs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Measure M?”

Yes No Don’t Know Trend October 47% 32% 21% July 48 46 6 Percent change 1 -14 +15 By Probability of Voting All likely voters 46 34 20 Highly likely 33 46 21 Somewhat likely 52 29 19 By Sex Men 50 35 15 Women 43 30 27 By Age 18-34 55 26 19 35-54 48 33 19 55 or older 37 39 24 By Yearly Income Under $20,000 33 43 24 $20,000-39,000 43 34 23 $40,000-59,000 49 31 20 Over $60,000 53 29 18 By Region North County 45 34 21 South County 51 30 19

WILLINGNESS TO PAY ANY TAXES

“Which of the following taxes or fees would you most be willing to pay for Orange County transportation projects?” (asked only of voters not supporting Measure M)

No on Don’t Know *All Measure M on Measure M Not willing to pay any new taxes 50% 53% 44% Gasoline tax increase 23 19 28 Highway tolls 12 12 13 Higher developer fees passed on 12 13 10 to new home buyers Property tax increase 1 1 2 Other taxes or fees 2 2 3

* The 53% of those surveyed who either said they oppose Measure M or are undecided.

Source: Los Angeles Times Poll by Mark Baldassare & Associates, October, 1989