By Don Nelson
When the first ballot-counting totals came in from the general election last week, I was somewhat surprised to see that the proposed levy increase by Okanogan County Fire District 6 was trailing, with about 54 percent of the voters saying “no.”
I hadn’t make a prediction either way, but I thought the proposed levy increase wasn’t terribly burdensome, and that perhaps the district had finally made its case for a new fire hall in Winthrop.
But the trend has held up in two subsequent rounds of vote tallies released by the Okanogan County auditor’s office. As of Monday (Nov. 10), the levy proposal was trailing by about the same margin and isn’t likely to make up enough ground with the relatively few ballots that remain to be counted.
What happened? We asked ourselves that question at the news staff meeting last week because it wasn’t immediately clear why the levy proposal appeared headed for defeat.
The proposal seemed to have community support, based on letters to the editor and other comments I heard from people. A political action committee was formed to promote the fire district’s case. Campaign signs were sprinkled around the valley urging a “yes” vote. The district sent out a postcard explaining what the levy would pay for (they can do that as long as it sticks to the facts and doesn’t encourage a “yes” vote). District officials encouraged questions.
Meanwhile, there was no evident organized opposition — no committee, no mailings, no signs, no public meetings to rally feelings against the proposal. Although there were a few letters and opinion pieces that raised questions about the details of the levy proposal, it didn’t feel like a groundswell of resistance.
As often happens in similar elections where the taxpayers are asked to take on an additional burden, a quiet, non-demonstrative but determined portion of the populace will pretty much always vote “no.” Add an element of doubt or suspicion to the thinking of swing voters, and it begins to be a formula for defeat. Mix in a well-coordinated opposition group — like that formed to oppose the recent park district proposal — and a tax increase proposal is likely doomed.
We wanted to see if we could generate some feedback from voters about why the levy proposal was failing. To that end, we developed a simple questionnaire that we posted on our Facebook page and on our website, asking “no” voters why they were opposed to the levy. increase.
We posed four options — and then gave people an “other” option in which they could comment. Poll participation was anonymous and we did not gather any personal information. (We didn’t ask people why they voted “yes” — that would not be particularly illuminating, since we already have a pretty good idea why they voted that way. And they aren’t the people the district needs to convince.)
It’s not a scientific sampling and it doesn’t come close to meeting standard polling protocol, so we are not remotely claiming that the feedback we received is representative of the entire range of opinions out there.
That said, I was surprised by the patterns that emerged. The least likely reason that people voted “no” was the proposed tax increase amount. That didn’t seem to bother people.
The most common reason for opposition was a sense that the proposed station was too extravagant for the district’s needs. In the “other” responses — the spontaneous feedback — that same theme came up repeatedly.
So people seemed OK with paying more taxes, but not with paying more taxes for the proposed facility.
What message can the fire district take from that?
That’s a tough one. This is the second time a new fire hall proposal has been voted down. Figuring out just what voters will support won’t be easy. If there’s anything encouraging to be salvaged, it’s that there did not seem to be much question that a new facility is needed. But that’s clearly not the only question in voters’ minds.
