Borough Prop. 1 buried by landslide of ‘no’ votes

MAT-SU — It wasn’t even close.

Tuesday’s Mat-Su Borough election resulted in a sound defeat for Prop. 1, a controversial land-use measure that sparked vocal and heated debate in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Prop. 1 called the results a victory for public planning as Borough voters turned down the Private Property Protection Act by a margin of 4,585 votes. Of the 10,846 who cast ballots Tuesday, 7,658 — 70.6 percent — were against Prop. 1. Overall, 3,073 were in favor of the measure.

Titled the Private Property Protection Act, Prop.1 was sponsored by locals Penny Nixon and Dennis Oakland of the Mat-Su Taxpayers Association. Prop. 1 was written as an effort to halt the Mat-Su Borough passing “extreme” land use regulations by making the Borough pay landowners for any reduction in property valuation resulting from its actions, Oakland said.

In addition to Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Prop.1, Cook Inlet Region Inc., the Mat-Su Home Builders Association and Mat-Su Valley Board of Realtors also campaigned against the question. The groups say Prop. 1 was poorly written, vague and opened the Borough and municipalities up to costly lawsuits and monetary claims.

Nixon, a co-sponsor of Prop. 1 and the Mat-Su Borough Tax Cap, said he writes initiatives, but it is up to the voters to pass them.

“It is up the public,” he said. “You can’t drag them out. If they don’t vote, they get what they’re given.”

Nixon commented on the decisive margin against his proposition.

“I’ll be the first to declare [Tuesday’s result] a stunning victory for socialism,” Nixon said.

Nixon said he and other proponents of Prop. 1 raised about $11,000 during their campaign. The proposition was designed to put a decisive choice in front of the voters.

“Defend the Constitution and your human rights or let the Borough dictate how you should live,” Nixon said.

Nixon said he is going to take a wait-and-see approach to any future propositions he may sponsor.

“It is way to early to think about that sort of thing,” Nixon said. “I’m a strategic thinker. I don’t worry about the immediate effects. In the long run, if the Borough harms property owners they will come out and take care of it on their own.”

Kevin Brown, spokesperson Mat-Su Taxpayers Against Prop. 1, didn’t hold back when he announced the outcome of the vote.

“It is most assuredly a victory,” Brown said. “Now, first of all, we celebrate. But tomorrow the real work starts.”

The campaign against Prop. 1 was just the beginning, Brown said.

“It was about stopping a bad law so we can put good laws in its place,” he said. “We have a strong coalition and we plan to move forward in a positive way.”

The anti-Prop. 1 group was comprised of varied groups, Brown said. “It was a cross-section of society. When environmentalist and developers are on the same side you know there is an important issue there.”

Brown said Prop. 1 lost because it had support of a small number of very vocal proponents, but most voters saw Prop. 1 for what it was — bad legislation.

“Our job was simply to inform the voters,” Brown said. “When we had that conversation with the voters they showed they wanted to understand this, they wanted to know everything.”

Part of the anti-Prop. 1 campaign was to hand out copies of the initiative, Brown said, adding he was surprised that after handing out thousands of copies, so many voters would take the time to read through six pages of legal text.

“The voters here are unlike voters anywhere I’ve seen,” he said.