Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S
|
|
Source: San Mateo County Elections Office, Chart by Barry Parr
|
|
Precinct-level voting for Measure S and LCP candidates. LCP column shows percentage of votes cast for any of three LCP-endorsed candidates. Green boxes are the highest totals on Coastside and HMB. Red boxes are the lowest.
|
CORRECTION: These numbers are different as of 9am Thursday. The previous version understated the extent to which LCP voters voted in favor of Measure S.
Everyone has an opinion about why Measure S, the school parcel tax, failed to get the necessary two-thirds vote despite widespread support from all sides of the community. Although there was virtually no public opposition to the parcel tax, it received only 62.6% of the votes cast.
Some Coastsiders are blaming those we’ll call—for want of a better word—environmental voters. After all, environmentalists had been engaged in a bitter battle with the school district over Wavecrest for ten years.
This attitude was expressed most stridently in a letter to the editor of the Half Moon Bay Review: “the interests of our children have been the losers here—while the wetlands, the red-legged frogs and those who have their own ‘habitat’ and don’t want anyone else to have theirs, continue to build a moat around this community with the hidden message: ‘Children not welcome here!’”
So, who are these heartless monsters? Looking at the latest results from the county Elections Office, which includes absentee ballots, we found some surprising answers.
It’s conventional wisdom that as you go north on the Coastside, the population gets greener. Yet Measure S won just 61.5% of Half Moon Bay, 63.2% of El Granada, and 63.7% of Montara/Moss Beach. The only two precincts that gave two-thirds of the votes to Measure S were in El Granada and Montara/Moss Beach. It’s the opposite of what you’d expect if you believed that Measure S was killed by some sort of green backlash.
It’s even more instructive to look at precincts in Half Moon Bay, because we can compare the vote for Measure S to the percentage of the vote in each precinct for candidates endorsed by the environmentalist League for Coastside Protection (LCP)—Grady, Ferreira, and Skinner. If the environmentalists were out in force against the school district and in support of their candidates for city council, you’d expect to see Measure S do poorly where the LCP did well.
Measure S did worse in two Half Moon Bay precincts than anywhere else on the Coastside. It received a miserable 55.6% in Precinct 3322 (Grandview, Terrace/Silver/Highland, Hilltop, Pilarcitos Park, Chesterfield/Grand/Belleville) and 55.9% in 3321 (Casa Del Mar/Seahaven). In the city council election, only 44% of the votes in 3322 were cast for the LCP candidates, the second-smallest percentage of any precinct in the city. The LCP received only 45% of the votes in 3321.
More significantly, Measure S did well where the LCP did well. The strongest supporters of Measure S in Half Moon Bay—with 65.9% each— were Precinct 3327 (Cañada Cove/Ocean Corners) and Precinct 3320 (Frenchman’s Creek/Naples/Miramar). These were the LCP’s two strongest precincts. They received a whopping 57% of the votes in Precinct 3327 and 53% of the votes in 3320.
It appears that what you’re being told ("Environmentalists hate the school board and therefore hate our children”, or even more simplistically “Environmentalists care more about frogs than they do about children") is false. And that the Coastside is a place like any other, where the environmentalists are ordinary liberals who would love to spend money on the schools and kids if only Proposition 13 would let them. And the people who vote against money for schools on the Coastside are just like the people who vote against money for schools everywhere else.
Comments
Going to need to challenge the “conventional wisdom” which seems to be the basis for this “investigative” piece.
First off, comparing these two separate elections in this manner is not a valid comparison. The major reason is due to the respective turnouts. The November 2005 election saw a roughly 55%. This election saw a 48% turnout with only 45% casting a vote on Measure S. Additionally, the apples to oranges comparison of Measure S to HMB City Council voting is not suitable for drawing links when the overlap is less than 50% of the total votes.
A more suitable comparison, and possible proof of the conventional wisdom, would be to compare the Board of Supervisors race between Ms. Chamberlain and Mr. Gordon. (Hickey left out for these purposes). If the “environmentalists” came out to vote, they would have surely voted for Ms. Chamberlain over Mr. Gordon.
Start with precinct 3301/2 in Montara (67.4% Yes on S). Ms. Chamberlain received 26.7% of the votes and Mr. Gordon 59.7%. Hmmm…not a lot of environmentalists in that precinct, so how do we know they were voting Yes? 3310 in El Granada (69.1% Yes on S) – 33.8% for Chamberlain and 55.0% for Gordon. Again, much larger support for Gordon, large support for S. Ms. Chamberlain received 47.5%, her highest, in 3312 / El Granada. Yes votes? 63.0% Not real strong support. Were they voting No? We cannot tell.
“Precinct 3327… and Precinct .3320. These were the LCP’s two strongest precincts. They received a whopping 57% of the votes in Precinct 3327 and 53% of the votes in 3320.”
3327 - 32.6% for Chamberlain and 52.7% for Gordon; 3320 – 35.3% for Chamberlain and 49.4% for Gordon. Yes on S? 65.9 in both. LCP candidates did well (relatively), S did well, but Chamberlain did not. Environmentalists having an effect? Who knows?
% by area - Chamberlain / Gordon
Half Moon Bay – 32.0% / 50.5%, El Granada 34.2% / 53.1% and Montara / Moss Beach – 34.3% /53.0% Higher support for both as you move north from HMB, but still not very “green.” I believe that the conventional wisdom is more wishful thinking. Very mixed bag of results which offer no proof that "environmentalists" had a large effect.
I think the most likely reason mentioned here for Measure S failure was that the “No” votes showed up while the “Yes” votes may not have. The clipped section of Ms. Ascher’s editorial is void of the context of her entire article. She is referring to “obstructionists” intent on controlling city affairs, not solely development. The obstructionists used very powerful tools of environmental regulations and friendly authorities to effect such control. Extrapolation to making her against “environmentalists” or "community concerns" is a big reach and furthers the divide.
Kevin - if her letter is politically-motivated diatribe, how should we label your comment?
Barry Parr and Ken Johnson say that "The label doesn't matter" (Barry) and "Labels don't tell all!" (Ken).
I agree! Labels tend to classify us into a narrow niche.
So I wonder what all this flap is about Measure S and Environmental Voters. Is that a label? Mary Ascher's "strident" (Barry) letter to the local print paper did not mention environmentalists. She mentioned a "small, but vocal, group of self-appointed arbiters of community values".
Heck, from any perspective that could be "the other side".
However, in my opinion, it was not a waste of time to present the analysis of the vote, or whatever it is--I am not a student of statistics. This is a good chance for folks to decide if there is in fact that small vocal group and who they might be. And what they might be--environmentalist, anarchist, developer, no-growther (can I say that here anymore?), tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, feminist, Native American chief, fire chief, fireman, firewoman, fire eater, mail carrier, female mail carrier, dot commer, franchise owner, hod carrier, drayman, dairy maid, student, butcher, baker, candlestick maker, Priory of Sionist, bull rider, pumpkin grower, circus clown or gardening grandma.
Any way you look at it, Coastsider is a great place to get to know your neighbors! :)
[Part 1 of 2 parts]
Thank you Mary Bordi and Brian Ginna.....you beat me to the punch. As I read Barry's blog where he responded to a letter to the Editor in the Half Moon Bay Review, our local newspaper, and not this venue, I was struck by the fact that of the 12 comments to his blog/article Barry submitted 4 or 5 of them. I also noticed that his tone appears to violate his own "civility" policy.
But the most blatent violation of any semblance of journalistic integrity is that his whole blog, as well as ensuing commentary, on this subject is a perfect example of what first year philosophy students, studying logic, learn as the "straw man" fallacy.
[From Wikipedia.com]A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the use of straw men in combat training where a scare crow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.]
His "quote" [read corruption] of the message of my letter was ("Environmentalists hate the school board and therefore hate our children”, or even more simplistically “Environmentalists care more about frogs than they do about children")
I didn’t say either of those things------“straw man” example.
Here's what I, an environmentalist, do believe:
There is a small group of politically motivated individuals on the Coastside who have been responsible for repeatedly destroying any chance we as a community have of improving our infrastructure [read: schools, after-school opportunities for our children, programs for developmentally challenged young people, repairing and replacing antiquated water delivery systems, making our arterial roadways more user friendly, preventing the establishment of much needed housing for the workers in our community......these are just a few examples]. They have done this in the "name of" environmentalism; they have used the state and local governmental agencies in the name of environmentalism, and they hide behind the cloak of environmentalism......but they are not true environmentalists. I believe this because I and most of the people I have met who have moved to this idyllic spot have done so because we cherish nature.
But we think there is a way to balance both the preservation of nature and the nurture of our community; i. e. the people who live here. Nor do we believe that no one else should move here. Nor do we think that a community without economic diversity is necessarily a healthy community.
[End of Part 1] Mary Ascher...See Part 2
Barry........Here is what I said on your blog on June 5:
The following comment was posted by Mary Ascher on Jun 05, 06 | 10:12 am
I echo Ray Olson and the others who have stated their unwavering support for our future decision makers, aka our community’s children, by supporting Measure S.
Our school board members and the parents of our community as well as hundreds of other volunteers are truly making a difference by coming forth with suggestions and plans to improve one of the most important aspects of our Coastside infrastructure......our schools.
Contrary to what most people think.......this community has never done anything but support our local schools and the parcel taxes have always garnered 60+% majority.
But, there is always going to be a little band of negative thinkers who put forth the disingenous argument that in order to save our educational system, we must first destroy it by not supporting any attempt to adequately fund it.
We need a supermajority vote of 67% in order to pass this tax.
Listen to your heart, use your common sense and vote yes on S so that we can really support our future.
Mary
Barry.......it doesn't take a lot of people to stifle good works....just a small band of folks dedicated to negativism.
It takes 33% of the vote to vote down a parcel tax; I do agree, that there is always a guaranteed "no" vote in each community, regardless of the merit of the issue.
I have lived in California more than 40 years and have fought for parcel taxes before and after Proposition 13 and so I know that there is always a hard core that is impossible to sway. I really can't tell you what that percentage is..but I have participated in enough successful parcel tax campaigns to know that it is possible to pass one..if everyone else truly gets on board..by actively participating and not just paying lip service to its support.
That did not happen this time..although David Gorn, a good family friend of ours, tried mightily to make it happen.
Now, here’s the thing: many of us who support CCF were told that the reason the "LCP Support" dwindled was because of something we had done. The suggestion was made that somehow the failure of Proposition S was linked to "land use issues" which the Prop S supporters had hoped they had successfully distanced themselves from by abandoning the Wavecrest project. This idea did not emanate from CCF supporters or PCF supporters. We heard it from LCP supporters who blamed the emergence of the plan to re-explore the Foothill project with diverting support from their folks and against Prop S.
Didn't you hear that also?
We certainly didn't start that rumor. Who did?
Barry, if you agree, as I do, that "real environmentalists" support our community as well as the environment, then let's try together to "out" the negative influences in this community and band together to find creative alternatives to improving infrastructure (including, but not limited to, our schools) while at the same time making this community more "user friendly" to those who live here.
OK?
Mary Ascher
PS: There is another fallacy in your original argument; that all environmentalists support LCP candidates. There are many environmentalists who do not support LCP candidates….thus muddling your statistical argument.
Remember the example in Logic 101?
All apples are fruit does not mean that all fruit are apples………now does it?
Mary Ascher,
A few Facts you missed:
June 1996 Measure K won with 74.90%;
November 1999 Measure C lost with 55.99%!
Your letter, http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/06/28/news/lettertothe_editor/story4.txt
“They won't support the Cabrillo Unified School District because they don't like certain school board members.” [You never identify: “they’]
School Board:
Measure K: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Burt Jones.
Measure C: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Dwight Wilson
Given, Dwight is not particularly likable - but a 20% difference?
Measure K: $35,000,000 twenty-five year Bond
Measure C: $125 4 years Parcel Tax
Maybe it was the extra $125 a year; but I don’t see any evidence for that.
OR do you think it might be the ACTIONS of the School Board Members?
-After THREE AND A HALF YEARS, all we had was a drawing of a new school [in fact, after TEN years, all we have is a drawing of a new school!]
- The School Board Members chose North Wavecrest, over much objection, in a bizarre series of land deals [North Wavecrest has had a variety of land development proposals that were ‘just around the corner’ since the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake – and still waiting].
Cunha needed to be rebuilt in 1976 when I first saw it in detail.
By November 1999 [Measure C], I concluded the School Board lacked judgment, accountability and financial wisdom.
November 5, 2002
Jolanda Schreurs, Dwight Wilson and Roy Salume ran on ‘Wavecrest Forever’.
[November 2, 2004: Charley Gardner the same]
A group of mothers, tired of waiting for a new school – SEVEN YEARS – brought in
November 4, 2003 ballot Measure D; “BUILD OUR SCHOOL NOW”!
CUSD response: Resolution NO. 22-03 OPPOSING BALLOT MEASURE D
Kenneth E. Jones, President
Ruth A. Palmer, Clerk
Roy Salume,
Jolanda Schreurs,
Dwight Wilson,
Had it not been for the above CUSD Trustees, we would have the middle school built and be MILLIONS Of DOLLARS ahead!
I’ve seen a number of references to “Obstructionists” in your Review – seems the School Board members above are in the membership.
Mary, voters don’t support when they can’t trust; but I still don’t know who “They” are.
Ken Johnson
Ray:
I think you need to brush-up on the history of the Wavecrest middle school fiasco.
See, for example, the following chronology:
http://coastsider.com/comments/579010C/
Over the years, many people tried to convince the school board to go with the Cunha site rather than tie the district to a highly-speculative land development deal at Wavecrest (see link below for more history).
http://builditnow.sanmateo.org/
The loudest cheerleaders for the Wavecrest site over the years included former CUSD board members Ken Jones, Ken Wilson, Marina Stariha, Ruth Palmer, current CUSD board member Jolanda Schreurs, current CCWD director James Larimer, and last but certainly not least, the HMB Review publisher.
We were told repeatedly that the Wavecrest middle school site was a “good deal” for our community. We were told that the 1996 Measure K bond language prevented the school district from going with the Cunha location because it was not a “new site”.
In Fall 2005, we found out that the proposed Wavecrest middle school was about $30 million underfunded (cost = $56-62 million versus about $27 million of remaining Measure K money in bank).
Many of us recall attorney (and then-CUSD board member) Ken Wilson’s legal opinion on the Measure K bond language back in June 2002. His forceful opinion during a CUD board meeting was a crucial factor in persuading 4 out the 5 CUSD board members to reject the Cunha site and stick with Wavecrest (CUSD Board member Dwight Wilson was the sole dissenting vote back then). Here is a link to the 2002 HMB Review article describing the event:
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2002/06/12/export8793.txt
At the time, Jolanda Schreurs (who was not yet a member of the CUSD board) was part of a group that threatened to sue the school district if the school board tried to use the Measure K bond money to build at Cunha. In Fall 2005, two reputable attorneys on the CUSD Professional Advice Committee stated that the Measure K bond language was very general and presented no problems whatsoever for building at Cunha.
Mr. (Ken) Wilson’s faulty legal opinion and Ms. Schreurs’ litigation threats helped to delay the start of the Cunha project by at least 3 years--which translates directly to millions of dollars in escalated construction costs.
Barry: Thanks once again for setting the record straight. Since I no longer subscribe to the HMB Review, I hadn't seen the June 28 letter-to-the-editor by Mary Ascher which is linked in the above story.
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/06/28/news/lettertothe_editor/story4.txt
I am someone who considers themselves to be an environmentalist. I voted for Measure S and I publicly supported it. I am a parent of two children in Hatch elementary, and I have spent many hours volunteering in the classroom.
Thus, I find Ms. Ascher's letter to be quite offensive. I have to say, however, that I not surprised by her politically-motivated diatribe, given the company that she keeps. Ms. Ascher is a member of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR). Her spouse is a director of the Coastside County County Water District (CCWD). Neither organization can be described as "environmentally friendly," to put it mildly.
SAMCAR actively campaigned against the Coastside-voter-approved boundary expansion of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) in 2004. For years, several of the CCWD directors have been engaged in a PR campaign and lobbying effort to strong-arm the decisions of public agencies that regulate the environmental permitting of CCWD's water supply expansion projects. In years past, members of both organizations have been some of the loudest cheerleaders for the Wavecrest project. Many of the very same people are now pushing the Big Wave project.
http://coastsider.com/comments/1535010C/
The precinct results show that the defeat of Measure S was due to a failure of the CUSD school board to gain the trust of an across-the-board spectrum of Coastside voters. This happened for reasons that have absolutely nothing to with the false accusations in Ms. Ascher’s letter. For an understanding of those reasons, see the following:
http://coastsider.com/comments/1540010C/