Motives for Murder of Measure R Are Not Cut and Dry

It’s human nature to look for clear-cut reasons to explain why we do the things we do. Take a murder: Even with irrefutable evidence against a suspect, the cops and prosecutors always want to find the motive for the crime. And even though human beings (and killers) can be quite complicated, we like our motives to be simple. Greed, jealousy or obsession fit the bill nicely.

Now, let’s take Measure R. Not as juicy as a murder, but ever since the sales tax campaign cranked up, I’ve been interested in the psychology behind the vote. I harped in column after column about the measly half-cent increase and chided people for getting hung up about it. On the other side, many Measure R opponents crowed that a tax increase was an automatic loser in Orange County.

When voters 10 days ago overwhelmingly took Measure R out of the bankruptcy equation, most of the stories I read, especially from national publications, referred to the “anti-tax” sentiments in “conservative” Orange County. There in easy-to-understand language was the motive for the thrashing of Measure R, as neat and clean as you’d want it.

Then, the mail and phone calls started coming in, and wouldn’t you know it, motivations behind the vote grew more interesting. What caught my eye was a recurring theme that their No’ votes weren’t solely an anti-tax vote and that they might well have voted for the tax had the supervisors in power at the time of the bankruptcy resigned.

One of the more impassioned voters was Ken Zanca, a college professor who lives in Orange. Even as we talked Thursday, he conceded he still gets wrought up talking about Measure R. Had the supervisors apologized and acknowledged they abused the public trust and then resigned, Zanca said, “I would have been more than willing to take the hit. It seems silly to trust the same people to sting us twice. If I knew they were honest enough to say, ‘OK, we blew it,’ it would have defused my emotions going into that booth. We would have been stupid putting more money in the hands of those people. What have they done to convince me from the time the county went bankrupt that they’re any more competent than they were before it went under?”

Then, there was this letter from Kate Randall Reeves of Fullerton, who began the explanation of her No vote by writing, “Let me say I am probably one of the most liberal Democrats you’ll find in Orange County. . . . Why should I, or anyone, give more money to those same folks who paid no attention in the first place? I would gladly vote a sales tax addition of greater than 0.5%, if those three remaining supervisors had resigned and there was some hope that someone down there knew what was going on.”

Her husband, George Reeves, said he agreed with his wife. He told me on the phone this week that he had supported the city of Fullerton’s need for a utility tax last year and that he didn’t oppose Measure R because of an anti-tax philosophy. “If you look at Orange County’s record, it’s not anti-tax per se,” he said. “Look at Measure M. People voted for it because it was going for a good cause--to improve our highways.”

Reeves, a retired electrical engineer, said he would have voted for Measure R if the three supervisors in office when bankruptcy was declared had stepped down. He said he wants more exploration of recovery plans but added that he “absolutely” would consider voting for a tax down the road to help pay the county’s debts.

Nancy Schneider is a former county employee and Orange County resident for 33 years. “Get rid of the spenders, then I’d absolutely vote for the tax,” she said this week. “If the board had stepped down . . . [but] none of them took responsibility. . . . But the supervisors were overseeing this. . . . Everybody gets blamed except the people at the top.”

She said she thinks the defeat of Measure R was more complicated than a simple anti-tax sentiment: “People think of Orange County as being highly affluent, and that they [residents] just want to keep their money for themselves, but that’s not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is, there is no leadership.”

What struck me about these angry voters was how similar they sounded to other callers and letter-writers. Sure, many people probably reflexively voted No on the proposed tax. That conforms to outsiders’ views of Orange County as an anti-tax bastion.

Like a lot of theories about motive, however, it turns out the whole truth may be more elusive than what first met the eye.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.