[This posting originally appeared on my personal blog, Land Use Watch.]

Why did Measure 37 pass so overwhelmingly last year, and what can we do to prevent the next hokum from Oregonians in Action?

I believe there is absolutely NO ascendent, fundamental, or core “property rights” belief in the majority of Oregonians. I do not believe that M37 passed as some sort of reaction to the 30 years of land use planning. The majority of Oregonians do not, and will not, benefit in any way from Measure 37. This is not some “sagebrush rebellion” — the majority of voters have never seen sagebrush, let alone a ranch or farm.

I believe that Measure 37 passed solely due to marketing and campaigning. Partly it passed because of effective framing and messaging from Oregonians In Action; and partly due to a completely ineffective opposition campaign.

My thoughts on significant elements of last year’s campaign after the link…

• Signature gatherers were deceptive. I remember being approached by a signature collector and he asked me to sign saying, “This measure will help protect farmers!” Next time, everyone must be aware of what they are signing. What is the legality of paying people to follow signature gatherers and educate those about to sign? It would be far less expensive to head these off early.
• The ballot title and summary makes the Measure sound reasonable and fair. After all, who wouldn’t want to “compensate” (a word which pre-judges) if owners’ property value is reduced? Of course the summary is one-sided, and it requires some careful thinking to fully comprehend the actual result of massive land use waivers. There were some challenges to the title. Next time, we must aggressively and repeatedly challenge every step of measures’ progress.
• The ballot summary highlights monetary compensation over land use waivers. This is important. Many voters don’t fully understand budget issues — sure, the government can pay, they assume. But as almost anyone who studied this issue closely knew, actual payments would NEVER occur. It is a false choice as the only real option to cash-strapped governments are waivers, not payments. If the summary highlighted this and its effects, the response would have been quite different. Time and again, Oregonians vote for more open space and express their enthusiasm for such: sadly the Measure does not highlight the loss of open space on passage.
• Oregonians in Action had compelling “personal stories”. When you trot out old widows undone by a faceless government, it is a difficult marketing challenge for the opposition. It was similar such specious tales that partly undid Kerry with his Swift Boat friends, and, earlier, Clinton’s universal health care plan in the early 90s… remember the opposition commercials of the befuddled old couple trying to make sense of it all? Next time, the issue MUST be reframed. Attention MUST be removed from specious personal stories such as these.
• Oregonians in Action successfully framed the issue as one of “rights”. And the opposition let them! The opposition’s response was, partly, to say that it is “costly”… well, yeah, maybe… but Americans will take those “rights” even if they are costly. The failure to articulate the larger damage to our land use system was shocking and unacceptable.
• The opposition assumed that voters are turned off by “doom and gloom” predictions. By relying on polling and PR “experts”, the opposition did not focus on, say, casinos on farmland, or tract homes in wilderness. Such would “turn off voters”. So they stayed within OIA’s framing of the issue.
• Even then, the opposition presented dull and trivial arguments. “Take a closer look” does not highlight the extreme impact that this Measure would have. And their three forgettable bullet points — “unfair”, “arbitrary”, and “costly” — once again do not suggest something that is urgent, vital, and extreme.
• The opposition took a “positive spin” in their TV commercials. The TV commercials show a happy family of farmers playing around. We are told that these farmers are threatened by this measure. Why the positive focus? Why not highlight the damage that could be done?
• The opposition failed to engage URBAN voters. The vast majority of voters do not care what any County Farm Bureau has to say. And they will not gel to the commercials that focus on farms. The Measure’s direct impact on them was never discussed. Commercials could have shown damage to Mt. Hood, the coast, and other open spaces that urban voters cherish. The commercials that did air (those focusing on the happy farmers) WERE effective… in farmland Marion County where M37 failed, but they were ignored in Multnomah County.

I do not mean to belittle the great effort by the opposition volunteers. But it is important to post mortem this to understand how we can overcome the next effort from OIA. Because there will be another. And another. And another.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 1st, 2005 at 10:39 am and is filed under Environment, Livability. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.