Almost from the day I moved to Seal Beach four months ago, my eyes have had to endure the visual pollution of campaign signs begging for either a Yes or No vote on Measure Z. The Yes people gave the No folks a serious ass-kicking on Tuesday, as you can see:
Z-Seal Beach, Measure to Establish Uniform Height Limit on Residential Development in Old Town Area
Completed Precincts: 35 of 35
Vote Count Percentage
Yes 8,202 73.0%
No 3,029 27.0%
What this means is that the height limit on new construction projects in the city's “historic old town” area (basically the part of Seal Beach that's south of PCH) will be limited to no more than two stories, or 25 feet. Backers of the measure – the Yes peeps – have claimed that they wanted to assure that Seal Beach retains its quaint, old-fashioned charm, particularly along Main Street, which, unlike the Huntington Beach Main Street, isn't yet overpopulated with skate-logo-clad teens and meth-addled Nazi skins.
Sounds good to me, so I voted Yes. But the Yes on Z people didn't earn my vote as much as the No on Z backers convinced me what a bunch of idiots they are.
Particularly when I eyeballed a No on Z flier that called attention to a Yes on Z flier. the Yes flier had an illustration of a pair of three-story cartoon houses – they had creepy eyebrows, even! – hovering on either side of a small, terrified-looking one-story house. Scary! Yet an effective way of showing the perils of over-development – the whole point of Yes on Z.
But the No on Z flier screamed that the cartoon three-story houses were actually five-story houses, complete with full attics. They're cartoons, for chrissakes.
Strike one: No on Z people see shit that doesn't exist.
Then there was the No crowd's consistent use of deceptive and confusing wording, such as the No signs that read DON'T CHANGE SEAL BEACH and KEEP THE HEIGHT LIMIT, both slogans that you'd think would be favored by the Yes on Z backers. Even the No on Z web site addy was seemingly thought up to confuse voters: saveoursealbeach.com.
Strike two: Stop dicking around with the language, assholes.
Gradually, I also noticed on my daily dog-walking excursions that No on Z signs almost always shared lawn space in front of people's houses with McCain/Palin and Yes on 8 signs, as well as crimson and gold banners trumpeting the superiority of the University of Spoiled Children.
Strike three: USC sucks!
And, judging by all the signage and fliers and door-hangers and full-page ads I saw, it seemed that the No on Z people had endless amounts of cash to propagate their POV (local real estate agents were some of No on Z's biggest backers).
Strike four: Rich people are evil.
Final note to both Yes and No Z people: Can you please take all your signs down ASAP? Talk about lowered property values and blight – that shit's the definition.