« OC's Jim Bieber Scores Some Awards | Main | Mike Duvall Appointed To Joint Legislative Budget Committee »

February 28, 2007

Comments

larry gilbert

Not to take anything away from the website award but I need to state that the website was not the main contributing factor in the narrow passage of Measure M.

Last month I attended a meeting with a major pollster who reported that the Internet impact on our statewide elections was under 15 percent.

Second point. The July/Aug 2006 Auto Club magazine story reads: "Funding That Works." How true. The proponents spent well over one million dollars while the opponents spent under one thousand dollars.
That's why we fell short. And yes, the OC Register editorials opposing Measure M renewal surely had some unknown cash value.

Larry Gilbert, Co-author No on M

Boo Hoo Buffy

Larry, Larry, Larry. There you go again. Here is something to fill your day tomorrow so we don't have to read anything on this mostly-erudite Blog from factless you. You tell me the last time a county measure received a 2/3 margin. When you are done with that, tell me the last time a transportation-related measure passed in this county at that same margine. I swear, they are answers to both of these questions and if you answer them correctly, I will address in your other "facts", not the least of which is that you got your funding wrong on the campaign and the error was in your arguments favor!

larry gilbert

Boo Hoo.

The requirement for Measure M passage was 2/3rds, not a simple majority. Sixty nine percent is not a blowout in this example.

As to the proponent campaign funding. I didn't take the time to dig out my old notes of the final campaign contributions which included $100,000 from the Agua Caliente indian tribe who will now see more gamblers at their casino as we provide expanded roads to get us there.

Our side lost. I did appear at the Irvine Hyatt on election night and spoke to Todd Spitzer outside the OCTA party.

As the voters didn't expect to see any transportation funding from SAC, and didn't want to await the outcome of the governor's Bond Measures, than perhaps we should decline to accept any of the transportation money from Prop 1B.
Good night!

Vivian

Hi Larry & all:

My take on why Measure M passed? (if anyone cares) is because for the last few years every project that was being done on any street that was using Measure M funds had a beautiful sign posted saying "Your Measure M Tax Dollars at Work". If you ask me that was their best advertisement. To me, (and I am probably one of few people to think this) it meant they were spending alot of money on signs to promote the next renewal of Measure M. There was no way it could NOT have passed with a two year sign campaign on nearly every street in the county.

Come to think of it, maybe the next Board of Supervisors candidates should start posting their signs now!! Maybe a clear vote margin would avoid all the hassle of this last election! 8-)

Say, can this site build in some emotions or whatever the little happy faces are called (emotcons?) that you can find on most sites?

Have a good day all.

flowerszzz

LOL - Vivian signs don't cost a lot of money to make.

Paul Lucas

Flowerszzz have you bought campaign signs recently? Those big bill borad signs candidates use (5x10) cost about 48 dollars each. Thats not exactky cheap especially if your opponent has a crew of vandals going out and tearing them down or defacing them.

flowerszzz

Paul - Vivian is making it sound like Meas M spent the bulk of their $$ on signs...I doubt $48 dollars per sign is even a dent in the Measure M $$.

Morning Coffee

Most of the Measure M signs that I remember were multi-colored, appeared to be metal and were mounted on metal posts. I don't know what the cost was, but those signs were a constant reminder that Measure M was paying for that project. I think it was effective, but it certainly wasn't *the* reason Measure M passed. And, as I remember, those signs were put up by OCTA, not out of the campaign funds.

If there were other signs, I guess I just don't remember them, but again, I doubt their cost was significant in the overall campaign budget. I also don't think anyone is claiming the website was the sole reason it passed. The website just got an award for being judged the best one of it's kind.

Measure M passed because of the *combination* of things that were done by Flint, and others. It was the right combination, at the right time. Just like any other campaign.

Jeff Flint

Larry:

I really try to like you. After all, on issues like property rights, you're in the right place. But on this Measure M issue, it was so frustrating to even have a rational conversation with you that I gave up during the campaign.

Your standard debate tactic seems to be inventing "facts" for the opposition so you can refute them and claim to have won the debate.

Nowhere in the note I sent to Jubal about the Pollie we won for the Measure M campaign website did we say that was the "main contributing factor" in the Measure M campaign. So your refuting that as the reason we won is a debate point you won against yourself.

As far as the margin, you stated repeatedly in the campaign that we had essentially no shot of getting the very high 2/3 threshold needed to win. At one point in the campaign, if I recall correctly, you questioned whether we'd get 50%.

When Roger Bannister first ran a mile in 3 minutes in 59 seconds, were you the guy who said, "yeah, but he only barely broke the barrier?"

As far as the Agua Caliente contribution or any other for that matter, it's nice of you to characterize that as a big benefit to them, since more people may travel to Palm Springs, but maybe the people who are going to drive to Palm Springs appreciate that it will take them an hour less after the 91 Freeway improvements? Hmmm?

As far as the campaign, for those who can't be bothered to get the public campaign reports, we spent approximately $2.5 million on the "Yes on M" campaign. For a county buried in the LA media market where TV is really not an option, that is an adequate but not overwhelming number. We had hoped to do more.

We spent zero on signs, but some supporters did independently print some signs...I saw them on election day.

Jeff

Vivian

I'm sure the metal signs posted on the metal poles put in the ground by union-paid laborers did cost alot. I don't care who paid for them. If OCTA did, then they contributed to the success of Measure M's passing. That a goverment agency can have a budget for a campaign to pass a bill to continue to propigate itself seems a bit out of wack to me...I thought there was a law against that??? ;')

redperegrine

Well, Jeff, if the OCTA continues to squander money (see for instance yesterday's story on the idiotic Anaheim to Huntington Beach choo-choo) will Schubert/Flint be on hand to pretty up the train wreck?

Jeff Flint

As I understand it, every city is getting a (relatively) small amount of funds to study a project or proposal. To get the real money, ie, building it, the projects will have to compete with all on the others and on the merits. The criteria were in the Measure M plan. I'm confident the OCTA Board, led by conservatives such as Carolyn Caveche, Curt Pringle, Bill Campbell, Chris Norby, John Moorlach, Paul Glaab, Pat Bates, Jerry Amante, Peter Buffa, and others will do a good job evaluating the projects on the merits.

larry gilbert

Good afternoon Jeff.

Let's close out this dialogue. FYI. I don't recall saying you would not get over 50 percent but I did post a prediction of 60 plus or minus 4 percent approval.

You are correct. The YES side spent $2.5 million. It was that avalanche of funding that enabled you to get your message out.
We surely did not have a level playing field when the voter pamphlet contains your 30 page Investment Plan and we are given 300 words to counter it.

In my assessment the YES on Measure M signs played a minor role in the final count.

Congratulations on the web site award.

We were overwhelmed by your sides multiple mailers. That's what put you over the top.

redperegrine

"As I understand it, every city is getting a (relatively) small amount of funds to study a project or proposal."

Huh? The small amount mentioned for the Anaheim/HB "study" in the OCR yesterday was $250,000. But I guess when you're awash in dough like OCTA that really is chump change.

"I'm confident the OCTA Board, led by conservatives such as Carolyn Caveche, Curt Pringle, Bill Campbell, Chris Norby, John Moorlach, Paul Glaab, Pat Bates, Jerry Amante, Peter Buffa, and others will do a good job evaluating the projects on the merits"

Well I'm not nearly so confident. Just look at the 22 schedule and the OCTAs complete lack of undestanding about what was going on. The "completion" was heavily touted just before the November election. Then it turned out (according to Art Brown) that OCTA with all its engineers, administrators and analysts, was blindsided by news of delays.

BTW, I doubt if one of those conservatives mentioned (or any of their staff for that matter) would know a construction site from a movie set.

Vivian

Larry I respectfully disagree about the signs. I'm sure the mailers played a significant role also, but I think the continuous brainwashing of driving by signs day after day for two to three years (or more?) has more than a minor impact. It's like conditioning Pavlov's dogs...

calwatch

In addition, remember OCTA gets to pick the letter of the initiative to match the previous one. If it were assigned the default letter for the cycle, like Measure C, then it would have shaved off a few percentage points from unaware voters alone wondering if this was a new tax. By reusing the old letter, it reinforces the yes on M campaign's statement that M was an extension of an existing tax rather than an imposition of a new one after the old one would have automatically gone away.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories