Writings and observations

Where 49 passed

Measure 49

M49 yes – blue; M49 no – red

There’s a more detailed map (showing percentage breakdowns) at Blue Oregon, but this one should give you the general picture of where the land use Measure 49 did well, and didn’t.

The did-well turf is a little broader than you might have thought, even recognizing the landslide vote in its favor.

The only heavily-populated pieces of the state where it didn’t win were Jackson (Medford/Ashland, no 59.7%), Douglas (Roseburg, no 57.1%), Josephine (Grants Pass, no 65.6%) and Coos (Coos Bay, no 57.1%) counties, in the southwest. Is there a reason the southwest, more than other areas, was more resistant to 49, or more supportive of 37?

A large portion of Jackson is strong-growth conservative territory, to be sure. But so is Deschutes County (Bend), and it went for 49 by 54.4%.

Of the half-dozen counties where the “no” vote topped 60%, three – Grant, Harney, Lake, Curry – were among the state’s least populated, and the others (Josephine and Klamath) are on the small side.

Multnomah, of course, was a sure bet to pass it, along with Benton, Lane and a few other usual suspects. But the yes counties include some places you might not ordinarily suspect: They aren’t all liberal Willamette Valley counties. Umatilla (Pendleton) and Union (La Grande) voted in favor. So did conservative Crook and Jefferson. And in the Willamette, counties like Linn and Polk usually tend to the more conservative and Republican side of the fence, but showed up in favor of 49.

Also of note: The counties where 37-related land issues were especially high profile tended to vote decisively for 49. In Yamhill County, historically conservative and Republican, the yes vote was 63.1%. In Washington County, it was 67.7%. In Clackamas County, 65.5%.

But this wasn’t a case of three or four counties in one corner of the state forcing their will on the rest. This was a broadly statewide result.

Share on Facebook

2 Comments

  1. Gordie said:

    Southern Oregon is where the loss of logging and its impact on timber funds is causing the greatest problems. Plus with the O&C lands, the feds are trying to reneg on their agreement to pay for the loss of property taxes. The fire risk on the government lands that surround us continues to grow. Yet, we’re supposed to trust the government with a greater management role over private property? That’s some of the thought process in many folks down this direction.

    I don’t think you can draw too many political parallels between the growth in Bend and in the Rogue Valley. In Bend, more newcomers are bringing some of their liberalism with them; in the Rogue Valley, more folks are leaving at least some of their liberalism behind (in CA). Ashland is always an anomaly. Those are very gross generalizations, but they help explain why despite the influx of Californians here in Josephine County, our local politics hasn’t changed very much.

    November 7, 2007
  2. your map would be a little more reflective of the situation were it shaded, for instance Baker County is lavender (?) along with Jackson but in Baker the loss was very narrow. There were quit a few touting the idea that it would be hugely crushed in Baker, this means something beyond it just mitigating the no vote else where.

    November 14, 2007

Comments are closed.