Jeb Bladine: Lesson-learning campaign, bad timing: Regroup!

The election math spells likely defeat for McMinnville’s $98.5 million recreation bond proposal — more on those numbers below.

Historically, McMinnville voters rarely rejected any bond measure or temporary serial levy for local public infrastructure improvements. One sports park bond failed in 1977; a transportation bond defeated in 1995 was followed by 1996 voter approval of a higher-cost transportation bond.

The aquatic center, sewer system, community center, airport, library, multiple park and transportation plans, police and fire stations, civic center — all approved by city voters in the past half-century.

Times are different in 2025.

Credit a spirited citizen campaign for even near-passage of the bond issue. Supporters were swimming upstream, fighting currents of opposition in a river of voter unrest.

The strongest opposition current related to cost — this proposal was more than four times the dollar cost of McMinnville’s most expensive previous bond measure. Three times highest for the recreation center alone. Adding $20 million for parks, library and senior center improvements may have enticed some positive votes, but plans lacked specifics, and some voters thought the entire $98.5 million was for a new pool.

Whatchamacolumn

Jeb Bladine is president and publisher of the News-Register.

> See his column

Various cross-currents related to cost hurt the campaign, most glaringly some deceptive information about the actual annual costs of the bond to individual taxpayers. True costs were reported in the fine print, but many voters took offense at misleading public representations. Even the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, in its Voters’ Pamphlet opposition statement, understated the actual annual cost to taxpayers.

That kind of deception, unfortunately, is widespread in Oregon ballot measure campaigns.

But cost concerns went beyond this one bond measure. The city already had added $1.50 per $1,000 in property taxes with the new fire district and related budget actions, plus significant utility surcharges and increases in fees. Recreation bond numbers broke the dam, unleashing an overflow of taxpayer discontent.

Another factor was distrust in city government from over-spending budgets; delays in downtown urban renewal producing dramatic cost increases; the Ultimate RB fiasco; and high turnover of city officials. Not to mention national financial turmoil seeping into the minds of local voters.

Here’s a suggestion: Buy the property adjoining Joe Dancer Park; propose a lower-cost aquatic center with a few extras and provisions for future expansion; and launch a focused, 2026 campaign with accurate taxpayer cost information and a single, clear message for voters. Then, don’t add that last 50 cents per $1,000 to the tax rate. Just a thought.

Meanwhile, at Thursday press deadline, here are available McMinnville numbers: 8,989 ballots are accepted and counted, splitting 4,528 No and 4,461 Yes – a 67-vote margin. More than 200 ballots, mostly from McMinnville, await signature verification. It’s possible there could be hundreds of additional ballots coming from late mail and out-of-county deliveries.

However, here’s a reality check: It likely would take 60 percent Yes votes on those remaining ballots to produce bond measure approval — enough to generate hope among staunch supporters, but unlikely to happen based on experience from past elections.

Lesson-learning campaign, bad timing: Regroup!

Jeb Bladine can be reached at jbladine@newsregister.com or 503-687-1223.