ORANGE COUNTY VOICES TRANSPORTATION : Absence of Consensus Killed Measure M

The battle over Measure M, the half-cent transportation sales tax defeated by Orange County voters 52.6% to 46.4% on Nov. 7, is reminiscent of an argument that occurs when my family talks about going out for dinner.

I suggest a restaurant. My son strenuously objects and pitches his own favorite fast-food joint, which is poison to me. My daughter adds some spice with her own request--usually too expensive. My wife urges me to decide the issue as though it was a mistake to seek anyone’s opinion but my own. Nobody moves. Paralyzed by my refusal to go to the supermarket in the first place, we sometimes eat whatever is left in the refrigerator, whether it is a healthy, balanced meal or not.

And so it is with Measure M. We will be served an unbalanced diet of limited road improvements for the next few years because there was no consensus among Orange County voters to do otherwise.

Some examples: One voter from Anaheim called to say he voted against Measure M because he knew, without a doubt, that South County would benefit at the expense of North County. A reporter-colleague confessed that, against this newspaper’s editorial advice, he had punched “No” on his vote card because “anything supported that much by the developers can’t be all good.” And a voter from Costa Mesa called to say he refused to vote because the federal government is sitting on billions of dollars in federal gasoline tax revenue just to make the federal budget deficit appear smaller.

Yet another voter, from Irvine, called to say that he voted against Measure M because he believes there is only one hope to clean up the traffic mess: A multibillion-dollar monorail system.

With so many people citing different reasons for rejecting Measure M, it’s impossible to lay much blame--or give credit--to the small groups that fought it. Sure, they raised doubts. But all they really did was capitalize on the lack of consensus about how to reduce traffic congestion.

Indeed, it seems nearly impossible to gain a consensus on any number of issues, from the site of a new county jail to the construction of a regional airport. Whenever something is proposed, there are always enough critics afoot to derail it, either by generating political heat or by suing to block projects nobody wants in his back yard.

But this is more than a case of “not in my back yard.” Measure M did not propose massive, 12-lane swaths of asphalt and concrete through sacred ground.

No, the problem is deeper. My wife put it best: “There’s no agreement,” she said, “about what is the common good.”

While Irvine voters approved Measure M by a strong 63.8%, the outcome across the city border in neighboring Costa Mesa was the opposite--63.8% voted “No.” The voters who approved cityhood for Laguna Niguel also approved Measure M, while in neighboring Laguna Beach the measure lost by a 3-to-2 margin. Turnout rates explain some of the results, but not all.

One factor in Measure M’s defeat may be that big ticket items--a new, $4-billion airport, $3.1 billion for a traffic relief program--scare people. And the idea of giving such large sums of money to bureaucrats is even scarier.

In fact, advertising for Measure M compounded the problem by engaging in politician-bashing, all because pre-election opinion polls showed that Orange County residents do not trust government to spend tax proceeds wisely.

A bigger question may be whether we have we lost our taste for big public works endeavors. Is there any consensus possible about how to raise revenue and spend tax money? In a room of 10 people asked to decide how to spend the state’s revenue, would there be a consensus for taking money from one agency to solve another agency’s ills? Each special interest group wants a part of the action. Nobody likes to be called a loser. The notion of giving up something for the common good is virtually extinct. Thus Measure M was drafted to give something to everyone, which only further angered some voters who don’t trust government to know what it’s doing, and who don’t want their preferences watered down by compromise.

The solution to this dilemma may be leadership. It may have taken the charisma of a John F. Kennedy to sell the space program, good or bad, to the American people. Maybe Orange County needs Peter Ueberroth, who lives here, Lee Iacocca, Donald Trump, or . . . ?

We could hire such a magnate at whatever salary it takes, to motivate us to reach a consensus about commonweal. It would be tax money well spent.