Suppose I told you I was taking a survey, and I wanted you to rank the following four things:

• family
• freedom
• health
• justice

Now here are the rules: You have to rank them “1,” “2,” “3,” and “4.” You can’t rank them all as “1.” You have to rank them from “1” (most important) to “4” (least important).

You may object that they’re all important, and that you can’t imagine calling any one of them “least important.” But then suppose I assured you that we just wanted to see what was most important to the survey takers so we could set budget priorities. You begrudgingly agree, figuring that I have a good reason for setting up the survey this way and will use the results responsibly.

Then suppose I published the results this way: “Items considered important to survey-takers: freedom, justice. Items not considered important to survey-takers: health, family.” Do you feel like that would be an accurate characterization of your (and the other survey-takers’) feelings about those items? Or would you feel that your feelings are a bit misrepresented?

Well, that’s how I felt when I saw how the Comprehensive Plan survey results were being reported to the city council. The survey has several lists of items that survey-takers are required to rank from most to least important. The results were printed this way in a recent communication to the council:

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SURVEY UPDATE. As of Wednesday, February 13, 912 online surveys have been completed and the www.planpeoria.com web site has received over 1800 visits.

Some of the results of the survey so far include:

• Three most important services
• Public Safety
• Public Education
• Economic Development
• Three services areas with the highest level of satisfaction
• Public Safety
• Public Health
• Recreation, Culture, and Natural Resources
• Who’s Responding
• 29% from the 61614 zip code
• 24% from the 61604 zip code
• 19% from the 61615 zip code
• Top choices for amenities within walking distance from your home
• Parks
• Grocery Stores
• Schools
• Amenities not considered important to have within walking distance
• Work
• Restaurants
• Top items that should be required as part of all new residential development
• Sidewalks
• Street lighting
• Underground utilities
• Items not considered important as part of new residential development
• Required design standards
• Required landscaping
• Required building materials
• Top items that would make an “ideal neighborhood”
• Safety
• Good public infrastructure
• Good schools
• Resale value of homes
• Well maintained houses and yards
• Items not considered as important to an “idea neighborhood”
• Proximity to retail
• Neighborhood associations
• High density
• Proximity to employment
• 36% of respondents would like to live within walking distance from downtown and the riverfront
• Preferred type of neighborhood
• 62% Single Family only
• 14% Single family & duplex / townhouse
• 2.5% Single family, duplex / townhouse, & apartments
• 22% Mixed use; all of the above plus retail

Interesting results, which is why I printed them in full. But I take exception to the sections that state certain items are “not considered important” or even “not considered as important.” Considering that survey-takers had no choice but to mark some items as “least important” on a sliding scale, and considering that all the items on the list were important, I don’t think this accurately describes the results.

I don’t know how the final results will be presented, but if this is any indication, I shudder to think what kind of conclusions the council will draw when they see that required design standards are “not considered important” just because sidewalks and streetlights were ranked higher on a forced scale.