SBspook
User
Senior Board Member
| Posts: 19 |   |
|
SHARE Questions the Validity of Town Telephone Survey - 2008/10/03 11:57
----- Original Message -----
From: VeryBury1670
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:03 PM
Subject: Fw: SHARE Questions the Validity of Town Telephone Survey
SHARE Questions the Validity of Town Telephone Survey.
"There are two sides to every question"
Protagoras, Greek philosopher (485 BC - 421 BC)
The Town of Simsbury has recently commissioned a public opinion telephone survey which is being conducted by Pulsar Research & Consulting (and which showed up on caller id as B. R. Interview, 609-279-0110 on one recipient’s phone). According to the Town, this survey was commissioned in order to better understand the attitudes, opinions, and preferences of residents concerning town services, development, and other important topics and to give the Town good information regarding residents' opinions regarding a variety of future development, land use and taxation issues for Simsbury’s residents. The cost of this survey to the Town is $15,000 and was highly endorsed by the Chairman of the Board of Finance. A few SHARE members have already been contacted, and we would like to express concerns we have regarding the possible outcome of this survey based on underlying bias and vagueness inherent to the questions. Here are our thoughts on the survey, some of the concerns we have as to the validity of the results and some opinions we have on several of the topics contained in the survey. SHARE also finds it odd that The Town of Simsbury chose to conduct this survey during a busy election season when residents are already being inundated with phone calls regarding the upcoming elections. SHARE additionally finds it to be of questionable judgment to have conducted part of the survey during the 2nd day of the Jewish Holiday of Rosh Hashanah.
1) A question is asked regarding the charette, a holistic, pro-active and open town planning process which provides an opportunity for all stakeholders, including landowners, town officials, developers, business owners and residents, to have an equal voice in the future growth and preservation of Simsbury. SHARE strongly supports this initiative.
We feel that the survey may serve to de-rail the charette effort by using responses to the charette question, as well as responses to other questions, to inaccurately conclude that Simsbury residents do not want to pay for the charette. While the initial outlay of dollars to the Town may be high, grant money should offset the costs and the responsible development and accompanying economic benefit that will come as a direct result of the charette will more than cover the initial costs. Additionally, the Town has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal costs opposing inappropriate development such as River Oaks and without a charette and proactive zoning regulations that will be enacted as a result of the charette, the Town will eventually be spending more wasted dollars on future legal fees fighting another inappropriate development.
2) There is a question regarding the proposed plan for the Town of Simsbury to purchase the Simsbury airport.
A consultant hired by the Town has already presented their findings to several Town of Simsbury boards, and the conclusion is that not only will purchasing the airport cost the town a significant amount of taxpayer money, but the financial projections indicate that the Town would continue to lose money by owning the airport. SHARE wonders why the Town of Simsbury, with all of its existing financial & management challenges, would believe the Town is equipped (or sophisticated enough) to get into the airport & air travel business.
3) There were (2) questions regarding protecting the view of the "ridgeline", one asking how much residents would be willing to pay (between $50-$500 in additional property taxes) in order to maintain the view of the "ridgeline".
First, SHARE finds the inclusion of a dollar amount to be misleading and disingenuous to town residents. Why do we need to "pay more property taxes" to preserve what we already have? Second, SHARE finds these questions vague and open to different interpretations as the question does not specify from where the view of the ridgeline originates and how much of the view of the "ridgeline" will be obstructed. Is the view of the "ridgeline" from the Southern Gateway along Rt. 10 as you enter Simsbury or further along Rte 10 as you pass in front of The Hartford (is The Hartford planning on building a 3 story parking garage on the abutting corn field that would obstruct the view but lower our taxes by $50 per taxpayer?), or the view of the ridgeline as you sit on the lawn of The Meadows, listening to a summer concert?
4) There were questions regarding protecting, purchasing and maintaining open space in Simsbury.
Again, the questions included one asking how much residents would be willing to pay (between $50-$500 in additional taxes) in order to maintain open space. The question again is too vague and non-specific to be considered of scientific research caliber. There has to be some clarification as to which parcel of open space is being referred to. Is it open space that the Town's Open Space Commission has identified as being the top priority because it is part of a wildlife corridor or on a pristine aquifer or is it the back side of an undevelopable gravel pit? Second, the Town of Simsbury is not the only group in Simsbury with the financial resources to purchase and maintain open space. Organizations such as The Simsbury Land Trust and Keep The Woods have also funded the purchase of open space in Simsbury.
5) There was a question regarding how good a job residents felt their Town Planning and Zoning boards were doing.
This question is flawed because Simsbury has separate Planning and Zoning Commissions. Over the years SHARE has pointed out the track records of both The Planning and Zoning Commissions and feels that lumping the two boards together is inappropriate. Did Pulsar Research Company even know that unlike many towns in the area Simsbury is unique because we have separate Planning and Zoning Commissions?
6) There were two questions regarding maintaining Route 10 as a 2-lane road, or widening it to a 4-lane highway.
Again, the question included asking how much residents would be willing to pay (between $50-$500 in additional taxes) in order to maintain Rt. 10 as a 2-lane road. SHARE has always advocated for keeping Rt. 10 as a 2-lane road, and finds the inclusion of a dollar amount to be bordering on extortion to town residents.
7) There were questions regarding what type of economic development you would like to have in town. One such question was would you favor or oppose small retail business excluding restaurants.
When asked for clarification as to what was meant by "small retail" business none was given. Is the question referring to something along the line of The Work Shoppe in town center or is it referring to something like Best Buy? And where would that "small retail" business be located? While Best Buy was approved for Rte 44 would it be appropriate for town center? What do you think of when asked to define "small retail business" and is your answer different than your neighbor's response?
8) Two similar questions were asked regarding a) how much more residents were willing to pay in taxes to improve public education in Town, and b) how much more residents were willing to pay in taxes to maintain or increase town services.
SHARE fully understands the tough economic realities that both town residents and The Town of Simsbury are facing during this significant economic downturn. The harsh reality is that fixed costs such as energy (oil, gas, diesel), food, benefits, insurance (health, etc.) are all increasing, while tax revenue is projected to decrease. SHARE believes that the town needs to focus on fiscal responsibility and responsible spending in order to maintain the highest levels of town and educational services which have made Simsbury such a wonderful & popular place to live.
SHARE believes that the validity of the results of this survey are highly questionable and we wonder how the results will be used. Due to the vague and non-specific way the questions were written the survey results could be used to make policy decisions that do not truly reflect the views of the majority of town residents with unsubstantiated and inaccurate conclusions such as the following:
- Simsbury Town Residents feel the proposed Charette, a holistic land use planning process that would include all stake holders including residents, developers, government, is not needed.
- Simsbury Town Residents don't care if Route 10 is widened to a 4-lane highway.
- Simsbury Town Residents don't care about maintaining open space or the ridgeline.
- Simsbury Town Residents think the Town of Simsbury should purchase the Simsbury Airport and get into a business which the town is ill-equipped to run.
- Simsbury Town Residents want more Town & Educational services, yet (unrealistically) do not want to pay increased taxes.
- Simsbury Town Residents support development (any & all) because it will lower their taxes, yet increase Town & Educational services.
SHARE continues to support the charette, advocate to keep Route 10 a two lane road, care about maintaining open space and protecting the view of the ridgeline as defined in the 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development, believe smart growth principles need to be followed in all future development, and realize that the tax issues are much more complicated than increasing development and lowering taxes.
We strongly urge you to think carefully before answering the questions for this survey, taking into consideration that Town Leadership will likely use the results of this survey to influence Town policy regarding these significant issues.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions, comments, etc. and we would like to hear from you if you participated in the survey.
Sincerely,
Your devoted SHARE Steering Committee
[/i][i]
|
Specter (1116)