The unfortunate thing about the frantic final days of a political campaign is that ideas and arguments get condensed into slogans and sound bites. Nuanced reasoning is tossed aside.

Perhaps this is appropriate. Voters, after all, have to check a box. They can't give a nuanced vote. It's either yes or no.

But something has to be set straight. This page remains a strong advocate for thoughtfully setting aside open spaces, preserving clean air and water and for managing growth in an intelligent way.

Our decision toward the end of the campaign to reverse ourselves and urge the defeat of Initiative 1 most certainly left some people with the impression we felt otherwise. We have been accused of flip-flopping, an odd, meaningless term that lately has turned thoughtful reconsideration into a pejorative — as if stubborn and rigid dogmatism was a virtue.

The truth is Initiative 1, which was defeated at the polls, had noble aims. Its intent — to raise money so that the state's Quality Growth Commission could preserve more open spaces and protect valuable land and waterways from mindless development — was not only right, it remains an urgent need.

Unfortunately, the initiative also was fatally flawed. This became more clear to us as the campaign progressed. It specifically allowed for some of the money raised to be used for the construction of local convention centers and recreation centers. If those were constructed, the state would have had to make payments in lieu of taxes to the communities in which those centers were built. But state officials made it clear to us that this was a thinly disguised way to say that state tax money would go to pay local taxes somewhere in the state — a prospect that raised some serious constitutional questions.

When federal laws are laden with this type of language, it is referred to as pork. In this case, backers of the initiative had to make certain promises to people in the state's outlying areas in exchange for their support. But this tactic diluted the cause considerably. A majority of Utah voters grew to understand this, as evidenced by how huge support dwindled on the weekend before the election, when voters began to seriously study the issues.

However, the need to champion land-use causes remains as urgent as ever. The fear we undoubtedly share with the initiative's backers is that state lawmakers will see the defeat of Initiative 1 as an indication that Utahns don't think the state should take an active role in preserving valuable lands. That would be a horrible mistake.

In the past five years, about 10 percent of northern Utah's farmland has been lost to development. Amid all the growth, too little land is being set aside for parks and recreation areas, the kinds of amenities that add to the state's quality of life and that attract economic development. Too little thought is being given to clean air and water.

Local governments are doing some good, but real progress requires a statewide effort. When they convene in January, state lawmakers must commit to setting aside more money to accomplish Initiative 1's nobler purposes.