OC Blog

OC Business Council Approves Measure M Renewal

It's not exactly a shovker, but it's a glimpse of how the various elements are assembling for what will be one of the biggest county races this November:

OCBC Board Approves Renewal of Measure M
At a recent board meeting, the OCBC Board of Directors unanimously approved the renewal of Measure M, Orange County's half-cent transportation sales tax that voters approved in 1990. The decision was made after a review of the proposed plan of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and OCBC's own Measure M Assessment Report, which examined the first fifteen years of Measure M. The report finds that overall Measure M has met or exceeded expectations with some areas for improvement. OCBC understands that renewing Measure M is critical to Orange County's long-term economic prosperity and high quality of life. To view the Assessment Report please click here.

OCTA's Taxpayer-Financed Measure M Advocacy Campaign Is Self-Defeating

FBI Agent Fox Mulder, the lead character of The X-Files, had a poster on the wall of his office showing a photograph of a UFO and the words, "I Want To Believe."

That's kind of how I feel about Measure M. I want to believe in renewing Measure M -- but this increasingly bald, taxpayer-financed campaign to convince voters to renew is giving me an allergic reaction.

I voted against Measure M in 1990, but I freely admit I was wrong and Measure M has accomplished a great deal of good for Orange County.

While I have reservations about Renewed Measure M as it is currently drafted, I am tentatively inclined to support it.

That said, OCTA's current pro-Measure M advocacy campaign -- thinly disguised as a public information outreach campaign -- needs to be radically overhauled, or else cease. Immediately.

Let's take the public input phase, for example. From Jan. 9 through March 31, Orange Countians were invited to provide their input on the proposed Measure M renewal draft. They could either attend one of a half-dozen open houses -- as a miserably small number did -- or use the inadequate response area of the OCTA website to comments on a 34-page PDF of the plan.

OCTA mailed a fold-out brochure on the draft plan county-wide to registered voters, as part of its $1.5 public information campaign. The brochure -- with an attached response device -- dropped in voters' mailboxes one week before the end of public input period. Two additional mailings were scheduled to go out after the public input period closed.

It was only at the insistence of certain sensible OCTA Directors that the OCTA included a response device in the county-wide mailing -- making clear the OCTA intent is to persuade OC voters rather than solicit their input. Even then, OCTA staff ignored requests to include on the response device a box Orange Countians could check that said, "I don't support renewing Measure M."

Furthermore, the OCTA's online survey regarding Measure M doesn't directly pose that common sense question -- even though it is in OCTA's interest to know the extent to which Orange Countians oppose re-authorizing Measure M. True, respondents to the mailer and the survey can write-in that opinion, but OCTA's failure to explicitly seek that information contributes to self-deluding thinking at an agency that barely comprehends OC in a political sense.

Advocacy should be left to a political action committee, or interested organizations like the Orange County Business Council. There is no shortage out there of companies that stand to benefit from 30 more years of trasnportation spending, and would not hesitate to pony up for a Renew Measure M campaign.

In it's own self-interest, OCTA should immediately cease this taxpayer-funded advocacy campaign. The pro-Measure M campaign will be hard-pressed to garner the necessary 2/3 majority. They will succeed or fail to the extent they can persuade Orange County conservatives to support M's renewal -- and using tax dollars to advocate for it only serves to alienate those conservatives.

OCTA Mails Out Appeal For Public Input On Measure M's Renewal -- At The End Of The Official Public Input Period

A large, fold-out, 4-color mailer from the OCTA landed in my mailbox today. In fact, just about every household in Orange County received this mailer (which I'll post as soon as I'm able to scan it in):

A New Plan For Orange County's Transportation

We want to hear from you.

Review the proposed plan for freeway, local street and transit improvements that could be funded through a continuation of Measure M.

I have a question for OCTA: The public input period for the draft Measure M proposal began January 9 and continues through March 31 -- one week from today.

During that nearly three month period, OCTA's attempts to obtain public input on the draft plan has consisted of a half-dozen open houses (in a county of about 3 million people) that by all accounts were miserably attended, and posting a PDF of the plan on the OCTA website. And it wasn't even until OC Blog created the Measure M Blog that OCTA made that section of its website freindly to members of the public inclided to review the plan.

So why does OCTA wait until there is only 1 week left in the 11-week public input period to mount a broad effort to solicit Orange Countians thoughts on the proposed plan?

Setting aside questions of whether this constitutes campaigning-disguised-as-outreach, wouldn't it have made sense to send this mailer out at the beginning of the public input period, rather than the end?

I mean, if OCTA is going to spend $1.5 million on a Renewed Measure M public outreach campaign, can they at least do it right?

The OCTA Board of Directors should extend the public involvement period by a few weeks to give Orange Countians an better opportunity to respond to this expensive county-wide mailer.

OC Business Council On The Failure Of June Bond Issue Ballot

Orange County Business Council President and CEO Lucy Dunn sent out this e-mail regarding the Legislature's failure to agree on an infrastructure bond deal for the June primary ballot:

Dear OCBC Investors:

After months of debate and two intense weeks of negotiations, the California State Legislature was unable to reach agreement on an infrastructure bond measure for the June 2006 ballot. Late last night, the State Senate adjourned, ending any possibility of a last minute deal.

During the Governor’s State of the State address in January, he laid out his Strategic Growth Plan that included more than $200 billion in infrastructure investments, of which almost $70 billion would need voter approval. In the end, issues such as increased water storage and streamlined environmental review were too great for the two parties to overcome. While a difficult challenge, the Legislature could place an infrastructure measure on the November 2006 ballot which may be a re-election issue for Governor Schwarzenegger.

Before the Senate adjourned they approved $1 billion in spending for levee repair. The Assembly approved bond measures of $4.15 billion for flood control and another $10 billion for schools and universities. Their plan also included a $9 billion school bond for the statewide ballot in 2008. Neither chambers approved each other’s proposals before they adjourned, so it is not likely they will move forward any time soon.

OCBC lobbied heavily for a comprehensive proposal being placed on the June ballot. In November of 1990, Orange County’s voters approved a half-cent local transportation sales tax (Measure M), which will expire in just a few years. A plan to renew Measure M has been drafted and is currently in circulation for comment. Presuming a plan is finalized and acceptable to OCBC’s business community, renewing Measure M may be a priority for our organization. Orange County’s high quality of life and economic vitality are dependent upon a transportation infrastructure that efficiently moves its people and goods.

The proposed renewal of Measure M will permit almost $12 billion in local transportation improvements. It is possible that the renewal of Measure M could be placed on the November ballot, so OCBC strongly encouraged the Legislature to act in June, leaving our November ballot without competing infrastructure measures.

What’s next? Well, anything can happen in the Legislature, and often does. A window of opportunity may have closed for a statewide infrastructure investment in 2006. But should a proposal begin to move again, OCBC will work to ensure that any statewide proposal does not negatively impact our ability to improve this County’s mobility. More to come from your OCBC team!

Lucy Dunn
Orange County Business Council
President and CEO

This blogger has high hopes for the OCBC now that Lucy Dunn has taken the reins. The OCBC was rudderless for much of the past year in the wake of Stan Oftelie's "retirement" and subsequent staff hemorrhage. Unlike Oftelie, Dunn comes a business background  -- and in particular spent many years locking horns with the enviros over the Bosa Chica project. I'm optimistic we've seen an end to the OCBC backstopping liberal Democrats like Sen. Joe Dunn and then-Assemblyman Lou Correa by lauding them as pro-business.

Measure M Blog

As I'm sure every OC Blog reader knows, this November Orange County voters will vote on a county initiative to extend the half-cent Measure M sales tax for 30 years. The Orange County Transportation Authority has been seeking public input on the draft expenditure plan they've put together -- doing mailings and holding half-a-dozen community meetings.

This public input period ends on March 31.

Being the public spirited bloggers that we are, the OC Blogpen is launching the Measure M Blog, in order to provide the folks at OCTA with as much public feedback as possible. Sure, OCTA has the artfully-named Renewed Measure M section of their website with an online feedback form, but I don't think you get optimal feed back by having folks respond to a few questions after (presumably) reading the entire 36-page draft plan.

On Measure M Blog, we've broken out each section of the plan -- SR-91 Improvements, Regional Capacity Program, Freeway Projects, Taxpayer Safeguard, I-405 Improvements, etc. -- into its own blog post. That way, readers can address their thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions directly to each component of the Measure M -- thereby providing OCTA officialdom with more detailed, comprehensive feedback to their draft plan. At the same time, it will allow for robust debate on the draft plan's particulars.

The Measure M Blog differs from OC Blog in an important respect. In order to post comments, readers will have to register through TypeKey -- which is free and very easy to do. This requirement is to prevent individual readers from spamming the comments using various aliases, and thereby skewing the feedback. Comments can still be posted anonymously, but commenters can only have a single identity, so to speak.

So please visit the Measure Blog M often between now and March 31. It doesn't matter whether you favor, oppose or are undecided on renewing Measure M -- peruse the plan carefully and offer your comments because it is important that OCTA officials receive informed feedback before the public input period closes on March 31.

OCTA Inserting Pro-Measure M Literaure In Utility Bills

FR Blogger Matthew Cunningham posts about how the OCTA is having Measure M promotional literature instered into city utility bills:

What next? Policemen handing you pro-Measure M literature along with traffic citations?

Measure M Renewal Workshops

Although the Lake Forest community workshop already took place, I thought I'd post the rest of the schedule for those interested in attending these Measure M renewal workshops:

Community Workshop Schedule

Lake Forest City Hall - Community Room B
Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006, 5 - 7 p.m.
25550 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100, Lake Forest

Garden Grove Community Center - Conference Room B
Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006, 5 - 7 p.m.
11300 Stanford, Garden Grove

Huntington Beach City Hall – Room B-8
Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006, 5 - 7 p.m.
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach

Anaheim Downtown Community Center - Community Room B
Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006, 5 - 7 p.m.
250 E. Center Street, Anaheim

Laguna Niguel City Hall - Council Chambers
Monday, Feb. 27, 2006, 5-7 p.m.
27841 La Paz Road, Laguna Niguel

For a county with this many people, five workshops seems a little thin, doesn't it?

Measure M Fakery -- Update

I e-mailed OCTA's Ted Nguyen and Michael Litschi yesterday afternoon regarding the Measure M Draft Investment Plan booklet that lis designed to look just like a sample ballot from the OC Registrar:

Ted, Michael:

Hi!  Which of your Measure M renewal consultants designed the Draft Transportation Investment Plan? It bears a striking -- and we think deliberate -- resemblance to the sample ballots mailed out by the OC Registrar.

Was it Townsend Raimundo?

A few hours later, Ted Nguyen replied:

Jubal,

The design of the Draft Transportation Investment Plan was not done by Townsend. It was created per Monte Ward's direction to Jim Klein, a designer who we've worked with for many years.

Regards,

Ted

Monte Ward, OCTA's special projects director, is actually one of the few members OCTA's senior management who understands Orange County and has a good political antenna. While I think making the draft plan look like election materials is insiduous, it also shows political savvy.

Measure M Fakery

Kudos to Roscoe for posting the Measure M Draft Transportation Investment Plan that bears an uncanny resemblance to the sample ballots published by the OC Registrar of Voters. It is so completely different from the usual look of OCTA publications that the resemblance can only be intentional.

Still, I have e-mailed OCTA spokesmen Michael Litschi and Ted Nguyen asking them if it was deliberate, and which of their Measure M consultants designed it. They're usually much more prompt than Santa Ana Councilmembers in answering their e-mails.

This episode reminds me of those anti-fair redistricting mailers sent out last fall (by consultant Tom Kaptain, I believe), that were mocked up to look like jury summons.

Is this the sort of trickery we can expect as OCTA seeks Measure M's renewal?

Measure Outreach Contract: We Called It

As noted in the News Roundup and Lurk's post below, the OC Register ran a story today about the OCTA's planned $1.5 million "public education" campaign for Measure M's renewal.

OC Blog first covered this story two months ago -- but we're glad the OC Register is now writing about it as well. Better late than never.

The OCR story confirms my prediction that the contract would go to Sacramento public affairs firm Townsend Raimundo. Townsend was awarded a $6,000 per month, 15-month contract by OCTA last February, to provide "messaging, communications and expenditure plan organization, and packaging services" for Measure M renewal. Their contract was part of a multi-consultant, $390,000 package aimed at securing Measure M's renewal.

Let me say here that I favor Measure M's renewal, in principle, for reasons I have laid out several times on this blog. The bottom line is I think it is foolish for us to surrender an independent transportation funding stream and rely instead on the generosity of Sacramento and Washington.

Let me also say that agencies such as OCTA should keep the public informed about what they are spending tax dollars on.

But in the instance of this "public outreach" campaign, I think it is impossible to wring out every trace of advocacy, because the OCTA is funding county wide mailers telling voters about projects they would like to undertake, but which they cannot undertake unless the voters extend Measure M. In reality, the OCTA is asking the voters to extend Measure M -- and that is advocacy. Labeling it "public education" and denying it is advocacy is to make a distinction without a difference.

These mailers will only present the views of the OCTA -- which are, naturally, pro-Measure M. If taxpayer dollars are to be used for "public education," then the opportunity to educate the public ought to be extended to Measure M's opponents. What objection could OCTA make to that? Say that it's "advocacy"?