home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- NATION, Page 44Election '90PROPOSITIONSGreen Ballots vs. Greenbacks
-
-
- By turning down ecological measures, cost-conscious voters made
- Election Day an environmental disaster
-
-
- Voters want clean air, clean water and unspoiled
- landscapes. What they don't want just now is the bill. Ballot
- initiatives designed to protect the environment were mowed down
- last week in almost every state where they appeared. Riled over
- taxes, fearful of recession and resentful of government
- propositions in any form, voters put the Green Revolution on
- hold.
-
- The biggest setback came in California, where Proposition
- 128, Big Green, was defeated almost 2 to 1. A second measure,
- Forests Forever, designed to ban clear-cutting and save
- old-growth forests and redwoods, lost by a narrower margin. In
- part they fell victim to a backlash against the sheer number of
- ballot propositions -- 28 in all -- that Californians had to
- contend with in the voting booth. "They voted no on everything,"
- laments Lynn Sadler, campaign director for Forests Forever. Big
- Green was a ballot buster all by itself, a 16,000-word laundry
- list of aims, including a ban on cancer-causing pesticides, a
- phase-out of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer and creation
- of an oil-spill cleanup fund.
-
- Above all, the defeat was testimony to the power of
- well-financed opposition campaigns of the kind that clobbered
- environmental initiatives throughout the country. In California,
- agribusiness, timber and pesticide interests spent an estimated
- $16 million to defeat Big Green.
-
- Other states that said no to environmental projects:
-
- Oregon. Voters defeated strict new recycling standards for
- product packaging by 57% to 43%. A $2 million opposition
- campaign funded largely by plastics, chemical and oil companies
- warned that business would pass the cost of packaging changes on
- to consumers.
-
- Washington. A proposal to require localities to adopt plans
- for controlling growth was rejected. The measure enjoyed broad
- support in polls taken in September. Then developers, realtors
- and other businesses began a $1.6 million campaign warning that
- the scheme would lead to higher property taxes and housing
- prices and transfer local power to the state capital. On
- Election Day the initiative was buried, 75% to 25%.
-
- Missouri. By 3 to 1, voters turned down a plan to manage
- use of the state's 52 free-flowing streams. In addition to
- banning dams, all-terrain vehicles and noisy motorboats, it
- would have required local communities to submit
- waterway-management plans to a state commission.
-
- New York. A barrage of bad news about the state budget gaps
- delivered the final blow to an environmental bond issue of
- nearly $2 billion. That was an embarrassment for Governor Mario
- Cuomo, who made support of the project a centerpiece of his own
- successful re-election campaign. Now money for recycling, land
- preservation and other programs the bond would have financed
- will have to come from a reluctant state legislature or higher
- local taxes.
-
- Paradoxically, polls show that concern about the
- environment is much higher now than a year ago. But the defeats
- contain some valuable lessons for environmentalists. Among them:
- 1) proposals should be simple and well focused, 2) plans that
- shift power from localities to state capitals are a hard sell,
- and 3) a recession is a bad time to ask for money. The very
- strategy of favoring ballot proposals over the horse trading of
- legislation may also bear re-examining. "I don't predict the
- beginning of some trend that makes environmental initiatives
- more difficult to achieve," insists Jim Maddy, executive
- director of the League of Conservation Voters in Washington.
- Yet last week's results hardly suggested that the task was
- becoming easier.
-
-
- By Richard Lacayo. Reported by Staci Kramer/St. Louis and
- Jeanne McDowell/Los Angeles.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-