An Aug. 6 ballot initiative to increase Michigan’s parks and recreation spending is overflowing with supporters and has no organized opposition.
But, oddly enough, those supporters are concerned about the lack of debate.
Proposal 2 would amend the Michigan constitution to increase the size of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, which is used to support state and local parks projects. The proposal also would allow some money in the Natural Resources Trust Fund, the State Parks Endowment Fund and the Michigan Veterans Trust Fund to be invested in the stock market.
Many statewide groups, including the Michigan Oil and Gas Association, the Michigan Recreation & Park Association and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, have given their support for the initiative.
But that’s not necessarily good news.
“We’re kind of worried because all of the research tells us if people are unfamiliar with an issue, they will vote no,” Michigan United Conservation Clubs spokeswoman Amanda Hathaway said.
“It makes me kind of wish someone was opposing it so more people would be aware of it.”
Instead, since no one is pushing a campaign against the proposal, supporters say the media isn’t covering the issue, information isn’t getting to voters and few people have even heard of the measure.
And that lack of knowledge means a lack of votes, said Bill Ballenger, editor and publisher of the Lansing-based newsletter Inside Michigan Politics.
“A lot of voters, when they don’t understand something or something worries them, vote no,” he said. “Most think, ‘I don’t have the slightest idea what this is about, so I’m not going to vote for it.’”
Ballenger said the initiative’s chance of passing is “anybody’s guess.”
“I haven’t seen any polling data on the proposal, but if there was any, there would be such a huge number of undecided voters that it wouldn’t matter,” he said.
But, political expert Mark Grebner, owner of Practical Political Consulting, 220 Albert Ave., said voter knowledge about the proposal isn’t as important as some think it is. Instead, the language on the ballot is what matters.
“The more straightforward the language the better,” Grebner said. “It’s when they think someone’s being sneaky that they vote no.”
Grebner says no one is familiar with the proposal because it’s not important. Instead, voters are more focused on local millages, legislative races and the gubernatorial campaigns - and that’s why the media is ignoring the issue.
“If you write an article on this issue, you’re wasting perfectly good newsprint,” Grebner said. “Readers will be more concerned with the apartment ad on the back of the story offering one month free rent.”
But despite Grebner’s theory, proposal supporters still are working to raise awareness about the ballot issue.
They believe the more knowledge voters have, the more support the initiative will get.
“Once you get people to understand, they are in favor of it,” Michigan Recreation and Park Association spokesman Robert Robinson said.
Robinson said the measure is simply “green legislation,” helping the state care for its parks and recreation areas without raising taxes. The trust fund that provides money is supported by oil and gas royalties the state gets from wells on state-owned lands.
The state Department of Natural Resources also is getting into the mix of providing information to voters about Proposal 2. The department does not plan to officially endorse the measure.
“We just want to let people know what’s going on, what (the proposal) is, and just get the word out,” department spokesman Bradley Wurfel said.
And that extra information might be just enough to get supporters what they want - opposition and the publicity that comes with it.
“All it takes is for somebody to light a match, write a letter to the editor and say everyone’s bamboozled and they’re not telling us everything,” Inside Michigan Politics’ Ballenger said. “The whole thing would all of a sudden catch fire.”
