Now that Measure R appears headed for a decisive loss in the
recent election, the city has voiced warning that drastic cuts in
services lie ahead.
Now that Measure R appears headed for a decisive loss in the recent election, the city has voiced warning that drastic cuts in services lie ahead.
Hollister faces a $2.7 million deficit. The city said this week that police and animal control will likely absorb the biggest hits, but that all city departments are under scrutiny.
In the wake of the failure of the city sales-tax increase have been comments taking voters to task for allegedly not realizing the importance of the measure. Voters didn’t take the measure seriously enough, say some voices in the city, and will now pay the price.
We believe blame for the failure of Measure R can be shared, amply, by the city. In some ways the city simply failed the people it serves. Here are some of the main aspects regarding that failure:
n A pro-measure R campaign did not organize until roughly 30 days before the election. Planning Commissioner David Huboi did a heroic job trying to pull the effort together, but forming a strategic campaign force 30 days in advance of an election and expecting it to be effective borders on the absurd. Granted, the timing of the measure – following a drastic increase in water bills – made it a tough sell, but trying to sail it under the radar was not a viable strategy.
n The city simply lacked leadership on the issue. Silence as a campaign strategy is rarely effective. If the city held the attitude that Measure R was crucial to the health of the city, then the measure should have been championed at every opportunity. Measure R was not marketed in an aggressive manner. Which councilmember did you associate with a strong voice for Measure R? Doug Emerson comes to mind immediately, and that’s it. Months ago, Emerson talked it up, wrote letters to the editor, and also wrote a guest opinion on this page explaining the necessity of the measure’s passage. The basic city strategy was to let us know how bad things would get if the measure failed.
n Underestimating voters may have been a factor. Last Monday one councilmember alluded that it is possible voters did not trust the city to administer the funds ably. Is it possible that many voters were not rejecting the tax, but rejecting the city’s ability to handle it? Regardless, a tactic of voter education, and not a fear-based, approve-this-or-else strategy would have been more effective.
An interesting sidelight to the situation is that voters also rejected Measure S. How will residents react if Pulte Homes-Del Webb returns and promises the city much in the way of service funding that voters would have gotten with the sales tax increase?
We may never find out. But we do know that laying blame for the failure of Measure R at the feet of the voters isn’t right. There is enough blame to go around.
