In the first place,
I am sure that a properly conducted, scientific survey of Adams Countians would show very little support for countywide zoning.
But in the second place, I sure wish somebody -- anybody -- whether it was the H-W writer, the JEO people, or somebody on the county board -- would have mentioned that a "survey" in which respondents can self-select their participation is entirely invalid, and that its "findings" have no connection to actual reality. This is particularly worth remembering when one or both sides in a controversy have made a concerted effort to get their supporters to phone in, log in, write in, or otherwise participate.
73.2, 11.4, 42.5, 18.7 -- they are all completely meaningless numbers. Completely. Meaningless. You might as well pick them out of a hat.
92.4, 8.6, 55.3, 30.9. There. Those numbers are just as valid.
But in the second place, I sure wish somebody -- anybody -- whether it was the H-W writer, the JEO people, or somebody on the county board -- would have mentioned that a "survey" in which respondents can self-select their participation is entirely invalid, and that its "findings" have no connection to actual reality. This is particularly worth remembering when one or both sides in a controversy have made a concerted effort to get their supporters to phone in, log in, write in, or otherwise participate.
73.2, 11.4, 42.5, 18.7 -- they are all completely meaningless numbers. Completely. Meaningless. You might as well pick them out of a hat.
92.4, 8.6, 55.3, 30.9. There. Those numbers are just as valid.
posted by Allthenewsthatfits at 10:56 AM
5 Comments:
It wasn't intended as a scientific poll. That was clearly stated from the get-go. It was just another tool, like the *ahem* "self-selected" groups of people who attended the public meetings.
It's usefulness is simply as an indicator of what some people are thinking.
And BTW, the fellow from JEO said they discounted multiple responses from the same IP address, so the 700+ respondents were individual, discrete responses. There were apparently a lot more than that, but they were duplicates from the same place as an earlier response.
But scientific? You're absolutely right--it wasn't.
That doesn't mean the results are invalid. It only means they are *statistically* meaningless, but they still offer a view of what people are thinking even if they don't actually tell you *how many* people are thinking this (anymore than 50 people packing a public meeting to support zoning--which the comp plan is not--would).
No matter how you look at it it is still a waste of $140,000 of our tax money
The sure thing is that all those that are against zoning and land use regulation still don't want a hog farm next door.
I noticed that tidbit of cognitive dissonance too. 80-some-odd percent of the 680 people were against zoning, but 90 percent of them said it was important to preserve agricultural land. How we could accomplish that preservation without some degree of governmental restriction on what a landowner can do with his/her land is unclear to me.
One of the more interesting oddities in this whole thing.
They don't want it, but they actually do, at least to an extent.
Say, perhaps, by having a comprehensive plan, not zoning, that would clearly show the best places for development and the places best left undisturbed.
What's that? You say that's what we're doing? Oh no, YOU GUYS are trying to shove ZONING down our throats, I KNOW how you all work.
That and Bush is going to declare martial law before Nov. 4th and suspend elections. Riiiiiight.
Post a Comment
<< Home