THOUGHTS ON A SURVEY
At the January 28, 2009 meeting, the Comprehensive Planning Committee considered whether and how to conduct a survey. The following is a summary of the thoughts expressed at the meeting. The committee first discussed whether we should expend the time and money to conduct a new survey, since a survey was conducted and reported, in 2004. The thoughts and conclusions of the committee are listed below:
• SHOULD THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE CONDUCT A NEW SURVEY?
The committee concluded that a new survey should be conducted. The comments of particular members are set forth below.
George Beneke— “this is the most important thing we do”. Mr. Beneke stated that we want to make sure that this is the type of survey that we want. He expressed concern that the 2004 survey had little response from young people. Mr. Beneke also asked that in reviewing all the surveys before us (Coxsackie, Greenville, and Copake) one has to ask whether it was constructed with a certain “motive” in mind.
Harvey Weber— “The year was 2004. It was a good survey but was intended to answer a particular problem.” Mr. Weber called it the “barn door survey” stating that it was done to challenge housing resources. He also stated there was another survey, done by River Street, which we obtain.
Roberta Roll—the survey should not have a motive. We also need to ask whether the results were representative of the town.
Russ Davis— Mr. Davis questioned the methods by which the Copake survey was done.
Jeanne Mettler- “The survey is dated—the results are stale”. Especially in view of the changes in the economic landscape, we should do a new survey.
Harvey Weber— “We should use the old questions but modernize them”.
Charles Dodson— “The results were published in 2004 but the survey was done in 2003”. Mr. Dodson also suggested that the Survey was too general, and the subject matter “far too narrow.” He referred to the statute which lists a far ranging number of items to be addressed in a Comprehensive Plan. He observed that the 2004 survey contains no questions regarding new energy (e.g. questions regarding windmills, solar energy, cell towers ). Nor does the survey address cultural issues or the arts. The survey does not ask about radio stations, theatre arts, or a library. Nor are medical need addressed. Mr. Dodson observed that the Major employers in the town are the school, Catamount, High Voltage, and summer camps. Camps, he said double the population in the summer, but there are medical personnel at the camps of which the town might take advantage. The survey does not explore any of these issues.
Mr. Dodson was critical of some of the questions used in the survey. He asked whether a question which just asked how one felt about “Town government” could really elicit any real information.
• WHOSE RESPONSES DO WE WANT?
Property owners
Renters
Every adult in a household—children too?
The 2004 survey used land records to get a mailing list. The committee asked whether voting rolls could be used to capture a greater representation of the town.
• HOW DO WE GET THOSE RESPONSES?
Dr. Beneke said that he would be willing to go to little league games and offer free hamburgers!
The committee discussed the possibility of completion of surveys “online”. The committee did not see how the integrity of the results could be protected, and thus felt paper surveys were preferable. Mr. Dodson suggested
that double envelopes, with the only the outside envelope being signed, could protect the integrity of the results as well as the anonymity of the participants.
• WHAT DO WE WANT TO FIND OUT?
The consensus of the committee was that we should ask some questions which are not directed to what the participant thinks is best for the town , but rather what he or she wants. There should be some questions regarding the personal desires/preferences of the individuals.
Further, the real purpose of the survey is not just to find out what people think about the town as it exists, but rather, what they want for the future. Russ Davis expressed concern that the 2004 Survey asked questions the answers to which we know, i.e., do your value rural charm. The group agreed with Charles Dodson who said the survey should ask not just about current conditions, but about future aspirations.
Further thoughts regarding the surveys:
We should analyze the information in terms of the participant’s age, and the numbers of years in the community, and whether they are part time of full time. The results should be broken down into these various groups.
We need information re Zoning: we have not asked people who went through the process what they thought. We need to hear both the good and the complaints.
We want to find out what people want in the future, and whether they will retire here, and if so what problems/needs they have.
Bring in the vision for 20 years from now.
We should explore certain areas, such as the arts and culture, which have not been addressed before.