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.
CJ.- Ross Black, Peoria assistant planner, reported these results to our Legislative Affairs Committee for the Peoria Assoc. of Realtors. He explained that it was important that the respondant ranked these amenities for several reasons. 1. It illustrates the fact that Peoria does not have a bottomless well of resources, and 2. given that fact, it was important to understand the priorites of the average Peorian in order to properly allocate its finite resources. I had no problems with the way the survey was set up, understood the need for it to be structured the way it was, and found the results to be very enlightening indeed.
Diane — Yes, that is what I’ve been told by the Planning & Growth Dept. as well. In theory, I don’t disagree with the process. However, now that I’m seeing how these results are being characterized, I have concerns.
It is misleading to say that the items that were “prioritized” lower are “not considered important.” Now that I see how they’re reporting it, I realize that the lists we had to prioritize were too short — they didn’t include things like “free downtown parking” or “tax-supported Civic Center” or “Gateway Building” or “annexation” or other controversial items. It’s not too much of a stretch to speculate that these would have also been ranked lower than streetlights and sidewalks, and may well have been ranked lower than the things now being reported as “not considered important.”
The point is, the things on the survey were all important. Prioritization is important to determine what should get money first. But that doesn’t mean that the other items are not important, or not worthy of any funding.
Simply change the leading sentence to read:
Items considered as the highest priority….
Items considered as lower priority…..
While it may be slightly misleading, the only way for results to have meaning is for respondents to have to make forced choice rankings to determine relative priority. That’s what they are really reporting — the relative priority — of the rankings.
“Top items that should be required as part of all new residential development
Sidewalks
Street lighting
Underground utilities”
DUH!
Of course these things are wanted in any new residential development. They shouldn’t even been on the list. Most of them are included and required in most new developments in town. How about the things that some would like to see that aren’t ranked the top three that where on the list. How did those items rank?
Pardon me but the last time I looked grocery stores and schools were not amenities but necessities. But I may be out of the loop in my old fashioned thinking.
I’ve always said a survey is only as good as the questions asked. Anyone can put a spin on a survey.
It was a poorly constructed survey – I felt boxed in by the choices. There were a few questions that made me think they were going to spin the answers into “Yes! We need a downtown museum!” or “We need to rip out the rails for trails!”
I don’t think you can assume anything anymore, people have such differing views. I think a survey is a good idea, if as C.J. points out, it is drafted properly. For example, I don’t believe everyone one wants street lights and sidewalks in a neighborhood. I lived in a nice established neighborhood and many of the younger families wanted sidewalks installed and limited street lighting since there was none. Even though the City was very helpful and supportive to the idea, other neighbors were bitterly opposed to the idea. The neighborhood is still void of street lights and sidewalks — an issue you would think would not raise such controversy
Diane-
Did you know Ross Black and Pat Landes have had limited academic training in planning? Not to cast a shadow on Ross or Pat, but rather to shine a light on the lack of trained planners in Peoria’s planning department. It would seem the Planning and Growth Department would like to draw attention away from their department and bring attention to other departments and governmental bodies. Perhaps this is because when push comes to shove we can prove Peoria has done a pitiful job of planning over the last 50 years. Just look around- or better yet go to Peoria’s new website. They feature plenty of stunning photos, but not one features cookie-cutter subdivisions, tacky strip malls or decaying urban neighborhoods.
The way the survey was written guarantees that the weaknesses of both the Department of Planning and Growth and the Planning Commission will not rise to the surface. Good grief, the survey was designed in part by a member of the planning commission. They wrote it to force the reader to choose the inevitable-Crime and Education. Yet, how did University Street get so ugly? And how is it that the intersection of Knoxville and Alta is starting to look similar? Yes- poor planning.
The best planners consider “design” to be the most important part of their job and that “design” eventually affects the outcome our social conditions. This may escape the sensibility of some, but when you stop and consider how you make many daily decisions you too will conclude-design matters.
The survey is flawed and we should ask for an honest assessment of what matters most to Peorians. If it turns out they all are #1 then let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work. And by the way, budgets should not be a factor at this stage- because Peoria’s Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a guidepost- a vision for the future. If we know already we can not afford greatness then why bother?
I apologize if I seem irate, but it is frustrating to witness smart people like you be bamboozled.
George
I agree with George. Look at the bright side, at least we plan somewhat better than East Peoria (“what da mean you can’t make that left turn into Steak n Shake anymore! How the hell am I supposed to get there now? Oh well- I will head down to the Taco Bell on Camp Street and hope I don’t get stuck behind someone trying to make a left into UPS on this busy two lane road they just repaved and didn’t widen????”)
Thank you Peoriafan and I agree with you East Peoria is worse- eee gads what does that say about Central Illinois?
George(not Jacob)
George — Your analysis is another bullseye! No left to the Steak n Shake nor the Embassy Suites — clueless planning.
Another?