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.

Miller Greens survey data: analyzed a bit, available

I have extracted the raw data from the MPNA Miller Greens survey and made them available for your own analysis. It's a bit cumbersome: if you pony up the $19.95 for the Surveymonkey subscription it's a lot easier!

I separated the MPNA members from the non-members and looked at the most interesting questions (people pretty much agreed on the other stuff):



OK, the non-MPNA-members skew the results a bit. Let's look only at (self-identified) Miller Park members.

MPNA member answering the survey are > 57% in favor of the rezone, and 2 out of 3 of those expressing an opinion favor the rezone (and don't think it will degrade the neighborhood).

Again, thanks for the input. To learn more check out the numbers yourself (or send me the $19.95: I remind you that the MPNA treasury is an almost-empty coffee can).

And apologies for the double-negatives in the survey answers: I took the survey questions directly from the resolution adopted by the Greater Madison Valley Community Council.

Miller Greens survey results available

Many, many thanks to all of you who took the time to answer the survey about the Miller Greens project at 24th and Thomas. Here's the answer to the BIG question:

and here are all the answers (as a PDF).


Background: Frazier Park neighbors approached Miller Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) seeking support for their position on the Miller Greens project, and supplied both a proposed draft resolution, and a copy of the resolution adopted by the Greater Madison Valley Community Council (GMVCC).

Methodology: I turned the GMVCC's resolution into a web-based survey and posted details here . I informed the ~ 250 neighborhood association members of the existence of the blog entry and the survey, via our (City sponsored) listserv. The survey was available from 7PM on 2/4/07 till 1 PM on 2/7/07. I issued one reminder E-mail, and the survey was also mentioned on the Capitol Hill Seattle blog.

Results: I was most pleasantly surprised by the large response to the survey: 44 replies. I attach a copy of the survey summary. Individual responses are available: they're identified only by the IP address of the respondent. (A glance at the IP addresses didn't reveal any obvious "ballot box stuffing" ). I used the free trial of the survey software: if I pay their $19.95 monthly fee I can download the results, analyze them further and share them with you.

Note that the blog page prompted several very thoughtful responses from readers.

Conclusions: 79% self-identify as MPNA members (residents, property or business owners). We could tease out their responses if needed (see above).

Almost all support: the Comp Plan, density, Urban Villages, Green buildings and the high density corridor along Madison.

Most agree that 24th is great "family friendly" neighborhood with lots of long term residents. Most of the others have no opinion.

They are however, almost equally divided as to whether "The long-standing boundary between this high-density corridor and the surrounding residential zoning should be respected". They are also undecided as to whether there are sites for the project available within the Urban Village boundary: many don't know.

Most significantly, a large majority disagree with the statement " The proposed development at E. Thomas and 24th Ave. will degrade the long-term family oriented quality of the neighborhood" and a similar majority not believe that the zoning change should be denied.

In Summary: our neighborhood overwhelmingly supports urban density, but does not believe that the proposed development will degrade the character of the neighborhood, and does not support efforts to deny the proposed zoning change.

Comments: I reiterate the CHS viaduct survey report's caveat about selection bias.

Maarten's concern:

I might point out that the resolutions put forth by the Frasier Neighborhood Assoc are biased and designed to lead to their conclusion. Since survey uses their logic and phrasing, the results you get from the survey will be biased in the direction they seek.

seems to have been unwarranted. Alternatively, we could infer that it just strengthens the conclusion of the survey, as it produced the strong answer that it did, despite the "leading questions".

A Frazier Park neighbor speculated:

I might guess that most of the respondents have seen dramatic (and possibly negative) impacts of the rezoning in their neighborhood and could want to "spread the pain", or possibly, your own question - " So the question, in my mind, is whether we can afford to continue to protect single family housing against all intrusions?" - captures the feeling.

Thanks again for the speedy and thoughtful responses. Anything else you'd like to be surveyed about?

Miller Greens project in Frazier Park: your thoughts?

The neighborhood just to the east of Miller Park (the Prentis Frazier neighborhood, around Frazier Park) is very upset by a developer's plans to develop several adjacent overgrown empty lots: see his website for his view, and the Stranger's blog for a quick summary. (and don't forget the CHS: Capitol Hill Seattle blog post)

They are seeking our support for their position: I have prepared an online survey (based on the Madison Valley neighborhood resolution, below) and invite you to use it, so that MPNA can give them a reasoned reply.

Survey location: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=392783251968

Some details:

John Potter from their group writes (edited from several messages):

We are in the process of forming a neighborhood association on the other side of 23rd, Frazier Park Neighborhood Assn. that will include the area from 23rd Ave to the Arboretum, north of E. Madison to E. Helen St.

We also mentioned the proposed condominium development in our neighborhood (proposed rezone from SF5000 to L-1/L-3) and wondered if we could get support from the Miller Park Neighborhood Assn. Below is a resolution that was approved by the Madison Valley Community Council.

The rezone represents a significant precedent setting boundary change from the Comprehensive Plan. We are hoping to get a large turnout at the Early Design Guidance Meeting that will educate all the neighbors about the 11 condominiums going into 3 vacant lots. The DPD meeting we encourage people to attend is:
Wed Feb 7 6:30 pm Seattle Central Community College Room 3211, Project: 3004806 - EDG Address: 305 24th Ave E Planner: Michael Dorcy
We will be taking a petition around after the meeting and would like to get support from both sides of the village boundary. If you identify anyone interested in helping, please refer them to me, John Potter, johnrpotter@qwest.net

(Explanatory links added by Andrew)
At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 17, 2007, the Greater Madison Valley Community Council adopted the following resolution:

Be It Resolved That:

1. We fully support the City's comprehensive Plan, the need for densification, and the Concept of Urban Villages

2. We embrace Green Building concepts and designs

3. Existing zoning intentionally constructs a high-density corridor along E. Madison Street, which we support.

4. The long-standing boundary between this high-density corridor and the surrounding residential zoning should be respected.

5. 24th Ave is a great "family friendly" neighborhood with lots of long term residents.

6. The proposed development at E. Thomas and 24th Ave. will degrade the long-term family oriented quality of the neighborhood.

7. We believe there are sites for this project available within the Urban Village boundary.

In conclusion, we feel the development is inappropriate and the requested zoning change of the proposed Miller Greens Re-Zone at 305 24th Avenue East (DPD Project #3004806) should be denied.

Notes by Andrew:

The neighbors are trying to protect the single-family nature of their neighborhood, while our City is trying to increase the density of housing in Seattle. All the new, higher density, housing is going into the multifamily zoned areas, but most of Seattle's area is tied up in single-family zoned area


Look at this zoning map of Seattle: click on it for a bigger view.
Blue is industrial: little or no housing

Light tan is single family housing.

Other colors are neighborhood commercial ( expect housing above stores), or multifamily housing (apartments, condos, townhouses, interspersed with older housing).

NOTE how little area is available for the desired increased housing density: most of it is set aside for single family housing- the light tan areas.

Seattle has tried several ways to increase the density of single-family zones, which have been vigorously opposed by single-family neighborhoods in some parts of the city (but supported by others). So the question, in my mind, is whether we can afford to continue to protect single family housing against all intrusions?

Thanks for listening, now please VOTE