This wasn't even close. Granted, "turnout" was light for the vote-by-mail special election, but that's often the case when there's only a single item on the ballot. In any case, three-quarters of returned ballots favored not permitting city resources to be used in any regard relating to light rail without a public vote; basically, it was a slimmed-down version of a similar measure passed in nearby Tigard, which contained additional restrictions regarding bus rapid transit and a requirement that the city send written notification to all transport agencies at the regional, state, and federal levels affirming that stance.
Tualatin's measure referred strictly to diversion of resources toward light rail, so it was considerably less contentious than was the Tigard measure.
Tualatin business owner Aaron Crowley, the chief petitioner of Measure 34-220, said earlier this year that the initiative sprang up among a concerned group of people in the southwest suburbs after they saw the construction of the Milwaukie light rail project despite some local opposition.
It's interesting to see The Oregonian consistently toss out that "some local opposition" phrase when referring to the Clackistani Uprising that followed in the wake of the Portland/Milwaukie Light Rail project; although since two of the county commissioners there who secretly inked the deal with Tri-Met to ram that project through were booted from their seats in the next election (the others were not yet up for re-election), you could call that some local opposition.
Clark County, Washington residents took note of the developments and rebuffed Tri-Met's efforts to pull the same stunt there, and it seems that the residents in Tigard and Tualatin took similar note, despite the efforts of the "No" campaign, backed by cash from light rail companies and contractors. Much to their chagrin, Tri-Met may now be working toward completion of its last billion-dollar-plus light rail line.