Feb 9, 2007

Thoughts/questions about the survey

(arrived by E-mail)

Hi Andrew, looking at your survey results, I'm concerned that it has been
co-opted by developers/builders. I suggest you might have a vote on the
matter of 24th and check id's of all voters on issue- we've done this in
our neighborhood. You may be surprised.
Andrew's response:

I was concerned that one side or another might try to "stuff the ballot box". Survey answers come with the date/time and the IP address of the sender. Looking at those showed no signs of any worrying trends. The only multiple replies from a given IP address (3 each) were from the City of Seattle, Microsoft and Comcast and each cluster had differing responses to the questions. (Yes I might be fooled by dynamically assigned IP addresses). Looking at the timing of responses gave no concerns either.

So I believe that everyone was honest and aboveboard (many thanks, folks!) and hence that the results truly reflect the views of those Miller neighbors who care about these issues.

Thanks again, people.

Andrew

PS: I'm clearly new at surveying people, so guidance is always welcome.

------------------------

(comment to blog post)
Thanks for the info. Just wanted to mention that not all non-Miller Park people should be totally discounted! I used to live in Miller Park, but recently moved down the hill into Madison Valley. So I'm not an MP resident, but it's not like I'm some disinterested party voting from Ballard or something. :)
Andrew's response:

Good point. I didn't ask for names or addresses: didn't want to scare anyone away. Suggestions for next time?

------------------------
(From comment on a previous post)
So my question is, do we tell the Miller Greens developer, city, Frazier Park folks etc what our opinions are? It seems to me we should. I assume we were going to share our results with everyone if they were negative on Miller Greens; we should do the same since they are positive.
Andrew's response:

I shared the info with the developer and the Frazier Park folks before posting it here, and then sent copies to appropriate Councilmembers, DPD and the Mayor's Office.

4 comments:

icefish said...

The Miller Park boundaries don't coincide very well with the area most impacted by this project. 23rd Ave. is a significant dividing line; it seems odd to consider folks who live 2 or three blocks west of 23rd as "in" but folks who live one block east - not separated by any major arterial - as "out".

Andrew Taylor said...

The survey was to see if the Miller Park neighborhood, adjacent to the "Arboretum Heights" neighborhood. wanted to join in the opposition to the project, the way the Greater Madison Valley Community Council did. Arboretum Heights had asked for support from the two neighborhood groups. GMVCC had a meeting and discussed and voted on the motion (http://www.madisonvalley.org ; Feb 2007 "Valley View"). MPNA did not have a meeting scheduled, so I elected to gather MPNA member's views via the online survey. As we had been asked for our support as a neighborhood group, it seemed fairest to use the existing association's boundaries.
I admit that I was surprised by the result. I suspect that many of the respondents are probably younger residents of the multifamily part of the neighborhood.
Note the comment from the CHS blogger on his blog:

"We are young and foolish, perhaps, but we're proponents of change and growth. Will we regret this stance when the next Miller Greens comes along? We don't think so. But there are some important questions to ask and Andrew is asking them."

icefish said...

Thanks for the clarification. GMVCC didn't send any advance notification to people living in the neighborhood - I was surprised to see the resolution in the newsletter.

Anonymous said...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H e l l o . . . N i c e . . . B l o g . . . P U S H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .