On the City of Lafayette's homepage tonight I see a victory for Issue A at roughly 55% to 45%. Check that same link tomorrow for more details.
I'm pleasantly surprised, actually. This last week I found numerous friends were in the anti-A camp and I believed the "enough is enough" message was resonating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
No comments? Here's one.
Possibly the two most polarizing names in Lafayette, Norback and Trumbo, squared off in a battle that pitted one narrow and unyielding viewpoint against another. And we have a winner. His name is Chuck Waneka. Congratulations Mr. Waneka. You deserved this.
Comment #2
Only 25% of the people in Lafayette voted. This is probably a good turn out for a special election, but if only 1/4 of the city is able to scribble in a box, lick 2 envelopes, and drop it in the mail box, what do the rest think?
We know from the recent Youth Advisory Committee presentation that 25% of the population can't vote because they're too young. Is that a concern in any election?
The turnout was actually something like 2/3rds of registered electors. We might assume that a sample of 66% of the electors is pretty representative of 100%. Is there some reason to doubt that?
I am no statistician. Thank you. I'll sleep better now.
2/3 of registered electors is still less than 2/3 of actual population... If you're too lazy to vote, then it's probably best that you don't, anyway.
I heard that ballots were mailed to registered voters who voted last November, not all registered voters in Lafayette. That number was over 9000 ballots with 6423 votes cast and counted. City hall said the election cost $23,650, or $3.68 per vote.
I believe the numbers show that the No on Issue A message was resonating, which is also what I saw around me as the election date neared.
Was the Yes message stronger, or was the edge that voters looked beyond the messages to the policies underneath? After watching this unfold, I can't say I have any idea how to answer that.
I'm thinking a lot of people don't really know where the parcel is, although that knowledge could have assisted either side. I took a no-on-A friendthere who was surprised at the location of the "wetlands" and desided it wouldn't be so bad if something was built there. I had another person tell me after they looked at it they realized it is all pastoral out there and isn't an appropriate place for development.
Both of those are more informed and personal decisions than the ones based on my articles or comments or any one else's aricles or letters or comments. If we could determine how many people made the decision based on a personal assessment of the property, we could know if the outcome was more profound than the impacts of either side's propaganda.
Post a Comment