Local News
| News | Sports | Business | Weather | Opinions | Archives | E-mail Us |

Sunday, May. 16, 1999

Supporters, critics stepping up Nueces bond election efforts

With June 12 vote nearing, groups push stances on all-or-nothing measure

By JENNIFER STUMP
Staff Writer

   It's in the signs.
   In yards, on bumpers, plastered on a flier near you: A $38.5 million choice.
   With a Nueces County bond election less than a month away, supporters and opponents of the project have kicked up their efforts to woo people to the polls, win their votes and get them to say that one little word: Yes.
   Or no.
   Radio advertising, block walking and phone banks have started. The Corpus Christi Coffee Club is buzzing. Even the mayor and county judge pounded on doors Saturday morning to ask people to get to the polls.
   So far, residents and businesses have laid more than $68,000 on the line in campaign contributions.
   Voters will cast all-or-nothing ballots June 12 to decide whether the county should issue $38.5 million in bonds to raise the JFK Causeway, dredge a channel through Padre Island and build a county fairgrounds in Robstown.
   The projects would cost $90 million to complete with the aid of the state and federal government.
   Although the project will not appear on the ballot, if the bond is approved, the county could also divert highway money to help widen Farm-to-Market Road 624 in Calallen. The once rural road now sees as much daily traffic as Crosstown Expressway.
   Pro- and anti-bond political groups are peddling their views on what would, if it passes, become the area's most massive public works projects.
   "One of the keys for those who are for or against it is to get their voters out," said Bob Bezdek, political science professor at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. "That is especially true for the people who are in favor of the bond. Increasing taxes is always a tough sell."
   

Presenting information

   John Trice, a member of Citizens for Nueces County's Future, a specific-purpose committee that supports the bond measure, said his group is most concerned about misinformation about the projects.
   "We are building from general marketing to a roar eventually that will peak around early voting time," he said. "We're not taking anything for granted."
   The group has a speakers committee that for a month now has shuttled Nueces County Commissioners Joe McComb and Oscar Ortiz to talk to neighborhood organizations and local clubs about the bond package. Spanish-language radio ads are running on several stations.
   Since March, some Robstown residents have worn buttons and waved flags that read "Fairgrounds Fever -- Catch it."
   Members of Citizens for Nueces County's Future say they have a wide base of support.
   Likewise, Hal Suter, an organizer of Citizens Against Blackmail, a specific-purpose group that opposes the proposed bond issue, said a considerable number of people in Nueces County dislike the way county officials have bundled the projects together.
   "We're an eclectic group of people -- people who don't agree on the time of day before the election and won't agree on the time of day after the election," Suter said.
   The one thing they agree on now: Most people want to vote on the bond issues separately, Suter said.
   "No choice, no bonds" is their slogan.
   

All-in-one bond issues

   County Judge Richard Borchard has acknowledged that people would prefer to decide each project individually, but said the bond package is designed so that people in different areas of the county who traditionally want to see different projects happen will find something in common at the polls. Anyone who wants to raise the JFK Causeway for $40 million will have to support a $20 million county fairgrounds, and vice versa.
   Suter said the June 12 election looks a lot like one Corpus Christi residents rejected two years ago and will fail for the same reasons: it was all-or-nothing.
   "A lot of people did not respond well to that," Suter said. "We see this as a similar situation."
   In 1997, voters crushed a sales tax that would have funded $105 million in projects. Supporters of the Community Progress Partnership said the proposal would have helped to chart Corpus Christi's future by benefiting 35 projects, including library improvements and an expansion of the convention center.
   About 70 percent of those who cast a ballot opposed the measure.
   Suter's group has made yard signs, bumper stickers and T-shirts, and plans to do phone banks as early voting draws closer. Some of their promotional buttons say simply, "Vote No."
   

Fund-raising

   The initial campaign finance reports for Citizens Against Blackmail had not arrived at the County Clerk's office by late Friday afternoon. Members say they have not been trying to raise money, however.
   "We are going to do as much as our funds allow," Suter said. "I don't imagine any advertising agency will get rich off of us, though."
   Citizens for Nueces County's Future has raised $68,786.25 and spent $42,667.31, according to campaign finance reports filed with the County Clerk's office last week.
   The pro-bond committee has received several high-dollar donations. The Padre Island Business Association has given $10,000; the Northwest Business Association, $5,000; and Valero Refining, $10,000.
   It has spent the bulk of its donations with Montgomery & Associates Inc., an Austin public opinion research firm that also conducted the Naismith phone poll.
   The committee has paid $31,000 to Montgomery & Associates for a photo shoot, design work, mailouts, a phone bank, radio advertising and polling, according to the campaign finance report.
   The single largest contribution came from Naismith Engineering, the company hired by the county three years ago to conduct a $650,000 feasibility study of building a fairgrounds and dredging Packery Channel.
   

Naismith's contribution

   Naismith gave a $15,000 in-kind contribution of a March phone poll done to gauge public opinion on the bond package.
   Respondents were asked their opinions of the projects, various public officials, several citizens who have spoken out against Packery Channel, and of organizations like the Greater Corpus Christi Business Alliance, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Corpus Christi Taxpayers Association.
   John Michael, Naismith principal and project engineer, has said the poll is not for public consumption. He has also said he has never seen a copy of the poll results, but only knew the bottom line: That about 55 percent of respondents said they would support the bond issue and 37 percent opposed it.
   Borchard also said he has never seen a copy of the poll results, but added that the poll was done as part of Naismith's study for the county.
   "That was part of his scope, to see how to fund this," Borchard said. "It's part of the feasibility study. How are we going to fund this, will it pass and what are the options?"
   

Filing requests

   The Caller-Times and Common Cause of Texas, a political watchdog group, have filed requests under the Texas Public Information Act with the county judge's office asking to see a copy of the poll results.
   In a response letter to the Caller-Times, Borchard said his office has no records relating to the phone poll and that the county did not pay for it.
   Naismith has not billed the county for work done on the feasibility study since February 1998.
   "They spent the entire amount even before we did the poll," Borchard said. "We've got it documented how they spent the money."
   At a March council meeting, Corpus Christi City Councilman Arnold Gonzales also asked to see a copy of the poll and wanted to know how much it cost, but Naismith's Michael again declined to provide further information.
   Max McCombs, a journalism and government professor at the University of Texas and a former president of the World Association of Public Opinion Research, said the 70-question poll was unusual because of its length, detail and inquiries about individuals and organizations.
   "It almost looks like a pretest survey, looking toward an advertising campaign," McCombs said. "It's asking, `Can we get an endorsement from them?' "
   The $15,000 cost was due to the length of time it probably took to complete the poll, McCombs said.
   "If they averaged two interviews per hour, that would be efficient," McCombs said. "It was not a cheap undertaking."
   

No need to see results

   Borchard said county officials don't need to see the poll results. "The committee will probably have a need for the details," he said.
   However, Trice said no member of the committee, to which the poll was donated, has seen the results in their entirety either.
   Trice said the poll simply shows whether there is general support for the bond projects.
   "It's kind of like putting your toe in the water," he said.
   Bezdek said he is not surprised that the committee has raised and spent so much. They need to in order to be successful, he said.
   He said the bond election results will have implications beyond the groups that strongly oppose or support the projects.
   "If it passes, then I think the city will start putting a bond package together to get some of its things done," Bezdek said. "If it fails, I think a lot of public officials are going to be scratching their heads and asking, `How do we get things funded?' "
   Staff writer Jennifer Stump can be reached at 886-3778 or by e-mail at stumpj@caller.com

Post your comments on this story in our forums.

---

  © 1999 Corpus Christi Caller Times, a Scripps Howard newspaper. All rights reserved.