I have been giving thought to spending referendums, the means
used to support them and also how opposition can defeat them.
The following is a commentary with references I found on the subject.
I appreciate your comments and suggestions which I can add.
Thanks,
Anthony
ajbruno14@gmail.com
Municipalities and states often rely on bonds to pay for major projects
rather than increase taxes to generate funding revenue, an approach
which shows governing prudence that has worked successfully on large
and small projects the public benefits from.
But, there is another side of bond referendums the public needs to be
aware of, the side public officials position themselves, in favor of bonds,
working exhaustively to ensure passage.
Such favored referendums are presented in the best light without mention
of any downside with passage. These bonds are often promoted with
assistance of paid consultants hired to weave a positive message, hyping
the benefits, omitting any mention of negative factors such as high cost
vs. minimal benefit or negative impact in cyclical economy.
The public will not learn of a "downside" except for the rare occasion a
strong opposition brings out the reasons referendums should be defeated.
Public officials follow a "playbook" to ensure referendums have the best
chance of being approved. They rely on taxpayer paid advertising to
promote, persuasive marketing, over-the-top claims of benefits, high
priced consultants and even warnings of calamities, all to convince the
public to support the project.
This is the hurdle referendum opposition may not be aware of. They must
be ready to do battle on a playing field they are unfamiliar with and can
be easily outmatched by experienced and well funded proponent groups.
What opposition groups may not realize, public officials have diverse
support, including contractors who benefit, chambers of commerce who
see benefits for business community, media and newspapers that are
inclined to favor spending in general, seeing it as an essential investment!
Collectively this is a formidable adversary; well funded, greater access
due to favorable media including positive newspaper editorials! Its a
force to be reckoned with! So, how can opposition be successful?
I reviewed some referendums that were defeated as I was looking for
some commonality that could be used when referendums are offered.
There was one comment which struck me, from a public official when
a referendum he favored was defeated. He said,
“obviously we did a poor job of conveying our message”.
Pointing to obstacles is an excuse, we need to acknowledge our
argument was not persuasive, poorly communicated, or both!
On referendums that failed, many were due to voters not willing to
see their taxes go up. These cities were not doing well so its logical
voters rejected the referendum. Many did not want to see property
taxes go up $100-200 per year.
Unfortunately, in Wake County, voters respond to such an increase
with a yawn. So, even though higher taxes concern some, historically
its not enough to deter them. Our voters recently approved multi-
billion dollar spending.
There is a another point which needs to be made, the transformation
in governance here in NC. We may point to Seattle and San Francisco
as progressive meccas, but don't discount the direction NC is going,
slowly becoming a 'nanny haven', no matter the folly of the project.
Not to sidestep away from referendums, consider the composition of
the Triangle area. We have three universities with heavy progressive
influence, west coast IT influence, transplants with ideological leanings
different than NC born residents and dominating progressive newspaper.
We need to always keep this in mind, its another major factor we will
find on the "playing field" that must be battled on.
I found even with the "numbers" on the side of the opposition, there
is no guarantee voters will reject a referendum.
In Asheville, NC a 1999 bond was rejected as voters did not want more
debt. But, that was nearly twenty years ago. Today, progressive thinking
has permeated the area with referendums such as affordable housing.
Yet, passage was not a forgone conclusion, there was strong conservative
influence which cited the increase in taxes. Asheville had a formidable
opponent to defeat the spending.
Recently, NC voters approved a $2 billion bond, "Connect NC", initially a
smaller transportation bond but expanded to include $1.3 billion going to
UNC medical school and supported by the governor, general assembly, all
self-described conservatives.
The bond did have formidable opposition but not enough to overcome the
collective resources of govt, powerful UNC and business interests.
It should also be noted two influential conservative groups here in Wake
County that has the ear of the Republican leadership and opposed the
bond could not stop this huge amount of spending. These groups might
also chime in, “obviously we did a poor job of conveying our message”.
Another thing an opposition must learn, whether or not legal requirements
were met to introduce referendums to be placed on the ballot were met
such as "open meeting" laws which must be followed.
In Austin, TX a judge did not take kindly and suspended the official for not
adhering to the public hearing requirement.
The opposition must understand these rules, and make sure they're followed.
Thanks for reading this, please send your thoughts, will share on blog.
used to support them and also how opposition can defeat them.
The following is a commentary with references I found on the subject.
I appreciate your comments and suggestions which I can add.
Thanks,
Anthony
ajbruno14@gmail.com
Municipalities and states often rely on bonds to pay for major projects
rather than increase taxes to generate funding revenue, an approach
which shows governing prudence that has worked successfully on large
and small projects the public benefits from.
But, there is another side of bond referendums the public needs to be
aware of, the side public officials position themselves, in favor of bonds,
working exhaustively to ensure passage.
Such favored referendums are presented in the best light without mention
of any downside with passage. These bonds are often promoted with
assistance of paid consultants hired to weave a positive message, hyping
the benefits, omitting any mention of negative factors such as high cost
vs. minimal benefit or negative impact in cyclical economy.
The public will not learn of a "downside" except for the rare occasion a
strong opposition brings out the reasons referendums should be defeated.
Public officials follow a "playbook" to ensure referendums have the best
chance of being approved. They rely on taxpayer paid advertising to
promote, persuasive marketing, over-the-top claims of benefits, high
priced consultants and even warnings of calamities, all to convince the
public to support the project.
This is the hurdle referendum opposition may not be aware of. They must
be ready to do battle on a playing field they are unfamiliar with and can
be easily outmatched by experienced and well funded proponent groups.
What opposition groups may not realize, public officials have diverse
support, including contractors who benefit, chambers of commerce who
see benefits for business community, media and newspapers that are
inclined to favor spending in general, seeing it as an essential investment!
Collectively this is a formidable adversary; well funded, greater access
due to favorable media including positive newspaper editorials! Its a
force to be reckoned with! So, how can opposition be successful?
I reviewed some referendums that were defeated as I was looking for
some commonality that could be used when referendums are offered.
There was one comment which struck me, from a public official when
a referendum he favored was defeated. He said,
“obviously we did a poor job of conveying our message”.
Pointing to obstacles is an excuse, we need to acknowledge our
argument was not persuasive, poorly communicated, or both!
On referendums that failed, many were due to voters not willing to
see their taxes go up. These cities were not doing well so its logical
voters rejected the referendum. Many did not want to see property
taxes go up $100-200 per year.
Unfortunately, in Wake County, voters respond to such an increase
with a yawn. So, even though higher taxes concern some, historically
its not enough to deter them. Our voters recently approved multi-
billion dollar spending.
There is a another point which needs to be made, the transformation
in governance here in NC. We may point to Seattle and San Francisco
as progressive meccas, but don't discount the direction NC is going,
slowly becoming a 'nanny haven', no matter the folly of the project.
Not to sidestep away from referendums, consider the composition of
the Triangle area. We have three universities with heavy progressive
influence, west coast IT influence, transplants with ideological leanings
different than NC born residents and dominating progressive newspaper.
We need to always keep this in mind, its another major factor we will
find on the "playing field" that must be battled on.
I found even with the "numbers" on the side of the opposition, there
is no guarantee voters will reject a referendum.
In Asheville, NC a 1999 bond was rejected as voters did not want more
debt. But, that was nearly twenty years ago. Today, progressive thinking
has permeated the area with referendums such as affordable housing.
Yet, passage was not a forgone conclusion, there was strong conservative
influence which cited the increase in taxes. Asheville had a formidable
opponent to defeat the spending.
Recently, NC voters approved a $2 billion bond, "Connect NC", initially a
smaller transportation bond but expanded to include $1.3 billion going to
UNC medical school and supported by the governor, general assembly, all
self-described conservatives.
The bond did have formidable opposition but not enough to overcome the
collective resources of govt, powerful UNC and business interests.
It should also be noted two influential conservative groups here in Wake
County that has the ear of the Republican leadership and opposed the
bond could not stop this huge amount of spending. These groups might
also chime in, “obviously we did a poor job of conveying our message”.
Another thing an opposition must learn, whether or not legal requirements
were met to introduce referendums to be placed on the ballot were met
such as "open meeting" laws which must be followed.
In Austin, TX a judge did not take kindly and suspended the official for not
adhering to the public hearing requirement.
The opposition must understand these rules, and make sure they're followed.
Thanks for reading this, please send your thoughts, will share on blog.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteYou've covered the subject as well as possible. As for being more efficient at "getting the message out" , I would only point out the need to get and keep a head start on the entire process. WE NEED a statewide conservative organization ( not another political party) and, elected officials should be denied membership, sine it's their actions we would be monitoring.