In the end, the effort to block the issuance of general obligation bonds fell short. In order to force the issue to a referendum, nearly 10,000 signatures would have to have been collected. The “Block the Bonds” supporters managed to gather 1,623. Considering that the group had only 30 days to gather signatures, and given the complex nature of the petition question (i.e., explaining what general obligation bonds are and why revenue bonds would be preferred), that’s a pretty good showing.
There are a couple lessons to be learned here.
First, the “back-door referendum” option only gives the illusion of offering voters some sort of recourse. In reality, the high number of signatures required in such a short time frame makes it practically impossible to force a referendum. I imagine it was designed that way.
Second, it’s impossible to hold elected representatives and staff accountable for their promises/commitments. Leading up to April 2009, taxpayers were promised that construction would not start until all private money was raised, that revenue bonds would be issued to mitigate the risk to taxpayers, and the maximum bond limit was $40 million. Now we’re starting construction before all the money is raised, general obligation bonds are being issued, and the amount is $41 million. Yet despite these substantial broken commitments, there is no practical recourse for voters. By the time the next election rolls around, the bonds will already have been issued, we’ll already be saddled with debt, and there’s not a thing anyone can do about it.
Some would say “that’s politics,” but I think it’s an affront to the voters. And even though the water is under the bridge on this bonding issue, the incumbents who voted for it should be voted out at the earliest opportunity simply because they’ve proven themselves untrustworthy. Who can believe a word they say?