Your headline "Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Measure D" does not tell the whole story. Like economics, politics must be viewed at the margin and not based on absolute numbers or percentages. 
 
Former City Councilman and Chamber of Commerce President Paul Little wants to make little numbers appear big - see here http://www.pasadenanow.com/_News/publish/article_1927.html
I would rather opt for looking at big numbers as small and as telling us more of the real story.  
 
Measure D won by a margin of 4,934 votes or 7.3% of the electorate rather than by 16% of those who voted.  If 50% (+1) of those 4,934 voters, or 2,468 voters, had voted No on Measure D the outcome would have been the opposite.  And 2,468 voters reflects only 3.65% of the electorate or about 1.7% of the population.  Seen this way Measure D won by a narrow margin.

Certainly 12% of Pasadenans voted to impose a tax on 88% of the remainder of the populace.  Some call this democracy.  This is why a two-thrids vote requirement is more prudent when voting on taxes because it lessens the opportunism of a small but well-organized coalition of special interests to impose a tax on the majority. 

This begs for Pasadena to enact its own two-thirds vote requirement for any tax measure rather than the 50% vote required under State law.  But as we've seen local politicians will never enact a 2/3rd's vote requirement law on themselves and will circumvent any such requirements on the basis of some 'financial emergency' even if such does not in truth exist.  A voter initiative for a two-thrids vote requirement on any tax issue would be one possibility to alleviate this abuse but would never pass due to the same problem of a minority coalition controlling elections.

Historically, this is why cities have declined economically as we are starting to see in Pasadena with middle and working class flight and commercial protectionism.  That the head of the "Chamber of Commerce" is a booster for Measure D as an in-lieu sales tax to even the playing field for local booksellers and other businesses
and was not even aware that the State of California already has an Internet sales tax law is yet another irony that goes beyond the story of the vote count. 

Despite the election outcome Citizens for Responsible Government:

 
1.  Forced the City to promise to exempt the Internet from any future taxation when Congress ultimately lifts the ban on Internet taxes.  In response, the city enacted such an amending ordinance to Measure D promising to exempt the Internet, but it is ambiguously worded.     
2.  Forced the City to double the exemption for low-income elderly from the Utility Users Tax on telephones from about $12,500 per year to $25,000 per year per household.  The City complied with our request but neither the City nor the media made much note of this.
3.  Exposed for the first time that the City of Pasadena had amassed budget reserves and investments of about two-thirds of a billion dollars reflecting $11,669 per household.  The City responded that Measure D represented a 'financial emergency' requiring a costly $432,000 special election.        
4.   Asked the City to make more transparent the voodoo economics of how our water and electricity bills are calcuated with undisclosed discounts and rebates together with overchages we never see on our monthly bills.  The City refused to show the discounts and the overcharges on each bill. 
5.   Demanded the City consider lowering the tax rate on phone bills by 1%, as it is one of the highest phone tax rates in the State (8.28%).  The City refused to do so despite the City of Los Angeles and many other cities doing so. 
6.   Opposed Measure D as an in-lieu sales tax as it would lead to double taxation on those buying goods online by having to pay both a State sales tax and a local  Internet tax totalling an onerous 16.53%.  The Chamber of Commerce nonetheless backed Measure D over our objections and our demand to withdraw their support for Measure D.   
7.   Issued the first Rebuttal to the Mayor's State of the City 2008 speech in known City history.  This rebuttal was prominently published in a hard-copy newspaper and in an online newspaper (PasadenaNOW).    
  
All in all, Citizens for Responsible Government scored some victories in the process which hopefully will not go unnoticed by those who will be burdened with this regressive tax.