The slim passage of bonds to support research and development and to upgrade educational facilities, along with the narrow defeat of a proposal to build a racino in Washington County, highlight the fact that Mainers remain skeptical of economic development proposals when they don’t personally see the benefit. The lesson, especially for the state’s public colleges and universities which will continue to seek public funds through the Legislature and bonding, is that they must better explain the importance of R&D and education in building the state’s economy.

Question 2, which provides $55 million for research and development with an emphasis on manufacturing and, hence, jobs, was approved by 51 percent of voters statewide. In Penobscot County, home to the University of Maine, the measure was approved by fewer than 1,000 votes out of nearly 30,000 cast. The margin was even closer on Question 3, a $43.5 million bond for building improvements at the state’s universities, colleges and public schools.

If voters who live near the state’s flagship university campus, where much of the state-supported research is conducted and many of the spin-off companies are located, don’t strongly support this work and the infrastructure to maintain it, a new message and strategy are needed.

The Land for Maine’s Future program can offer guidance. Although many Mainers express frustration about the government and conservation groups buying up land, the public has strongly supported LMF. On Tuesday, a $35.5 million bond with funds going to land conservation, river restoration and preservation of working waterfronts was supported by 63 percent of voters, the strongest support among the three bond questions on the ballot.

LMF has done a good job of persuading people that its funds are used to protect land that is important to them. Their message basically is that the place where you hunt, fish, hike or boat may soon be off limits if it is not protected by LMF. The public responds by approving more money.

Supporters of research and development need to emulate this approach by showing how investments in research at the state’s universities, colleges and independent laboratories have resulted in new jobs and new tax dollars in local economies.

The University of Maine System has already gotten this message, and Chancellor Richard Pattenaude has rightly included advocacy in his five areas of focus. The system is currently developing a campaign that will emphasize its economic development contributions. It should include examples, such as former minimum-wage workers who now have good-paying jobs or new businesses in small communities, that will resonate with the public.

As for the defeat of the tribal racino in Washington County, the public apparently was not convinced that the proposed development would bring enough economic salvation to the remote, economically depressed region. The challenge for the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the county is to work with state officials on other options. Pursuing a resort without gambling may be an option because the region lacks facilities that encourage people who now drive through the county to stay and enjoy its natural beauty. Another path is to turn the discussion to ways the state, private business and the tribe can leverage federal funding together and turn it into development.

While most would agree that creating new economic opportunities remains critical to Maine’s future, Tuesday’s vote suggests that officials still have more work to do connecting this goal to specific funding questions before the public.