The survey is here.
Newtonville Area Council asks about Washington Street
by Greg Reibman | Jun 26, 2018 | Newtonville, Washington Street Corridor | 14 comments
by Greg Reibman | Jun 26, 2018 | Newtonville, Washington Street Corridor | 14 comments
The survey is here.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
Men's Crib April 8, 2024 4:14 am
drivers man be like
Men's Crib November 3, 2023 7:51 am
Error 403: Requests from referer https://village14.com are blocked..
Domain code: global
Reason code: forbidden
Good for the Newtonville Area Council for wanting to be fully engaged in the discussion about Washington Street.
But before the results from this survey are released, can we acknowledge now that any online poll like this is entirely unscientific and that the results should never be cited at a public meeting or forum as conclusive?
I’ve seen emails from various interests groups urging supporters to take the survey many times. So this may really be more of a measure of who has the most free time and/or the best email lists, than an indication of, for example, whether or not the public likes Applebees or tall buildings.
A pre-emptive hedge my Greg… Will the survey show that majority of residents oppose high density development? Well the charter defeat made it very clear that we do NOT want this crazy construction. Maybe even the charter defeat is not scientific enough for Greg.
I think you missed my point. The survey could go either way or many ways. I don’t think we should consider the results credible no matter what. And that includes if respondents overwhelming say they want to substantially build Washington Street out and up.
As for the charter vote, there was no part of the proposed charter that asked if folks liked or disliked “crazy construction” or development at all. Not one part. (I personally favor smart development over the crazy variety.)
On the other hand, over Newton’s past two election cycles EVERY candidate that was supported by the No-growth organization Newton Villages Alliance was defeated. So if you want to read the tea leaves I suggest going with that.
I haven’t seen the emails encouraging residents to take the survey more than once – and I usually receive things like that. I’m not questioning that you have Greg. That would certainly invalidate any results so not a smart strategy. The survey actually asks that you confirm you have only taken it once. It is anonymous which makes it easy to take more than once.
I’ve taken the survey and while it is quite long, it does ask valuable questions and has room for comments.
I’ve taken other surveys put out by senior services, the city and Principle Group. I agree conclusions drawn from anonymous surveys cannot be presented as facts.
Then there is the issue of how the survey is written. One question I saw offered a single way to say “yes” but four different ways of saying “no,” then an “other.” Surveys are meant to apply some kind of statistical analysis and the weight of numbers to an argument. To quote British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
I applaud the effort, but this is clearly a push poll. The Newtonville Area Council has some passionate folks on it, which is sometimes great, but sometimes leads them to waste a great deal of time. It feels like that has gotten worse lately.
I don’t have the time or energy to take the poll more than once. But it clearly can be taken many times. They admit that in the actual poll! And since it is an online poll that is super long, only folks who are super passionate are going to waste the 15 minutes to fill it out.
So you’ve got a push poll (language tends to push you towards a certain viewpoint, choices tend to push you towards a certain viewpoint). That can be taken many times. That is super long. That’s not putting your finger on the lever, that’s leaning in with both hands… And so the city will ignore it.
For the amount of time and energy this poll took to create and process, I wish they would focus more on the design elements of the Walnut redo, the future of the senior center, tracking where the monetary incentives are going from Austin Street, working to improve the roads from the truck damage, soliciting ideas for art, more pop up art and stores in the empty storefronts, etc.
Instead they seem focused on repeating everything the city is doing. The Charrette they put on, this poll. I’m just not sure what the purpose is if the city is focusing on the same problem and giving ample opportunity for residents to speak up. I think initial polls about uses for commercial space had value because they were short and provided possible ideas for the city to follow up on. Perhaps when they issue a report on the results I’ll be surprised and it will be helpful.
It is possible that I’ve got different views these days of what the NAC should do with its time. The development discussions seem very well covered by the city. I’m a big fan of Village Day, village beautification with plants/flowers, etc. Do others from Newtonville disagree?
I’m not trying to be negative on the NAC members, I know how much they care. I just hate to see wasted effort.
TBH I am with Fig on this one. I did take the time to fill itout but in a number of choices the answer I wanted was not an option so I had to go with the more extreme of the choices . I also found a number of the questions unfortunately very leading (I have done numerous survey’s over the years including one for the City of Cambridge on a Federal grant that needed to stand up to Fed scrutiny of the questions, so I know a leading question when I see one). I appreciate what they were trying to do, but as with the very leading charette (my wife said it to me first and this was the first time she ever went to anything like that), I fear they are muddying the water in a counter productive way (I hope that was not the idea…). Comparing the age and demographic answers to census/ACS information to get an idea of potentially how accurate it is or is not will be critical once it closes. I hope it can be used in some way as there were some good questions…
John, since folks can submit more than once, I’m guessing the age/demo answers are as suspect as anything else. Plus with how long it was, there is definitely question fatigue. Even survey’s with a carrot reward (a gift card, or lottery submission for a prize) aren’t typically that long.
There has been a lot of studies done on this stuff, and it is damn hard. Folks showing up for meetings tend to skew a certain way. Folks voting tend to skew a different way. Folks answering telephone polls vs cell phones vs internet polls. Surveys are a science.
Although I will say this: Any public meeting I’ve been to outside of council meetings has a hilarious resemblance to the tv show Parks and Recreation. There are some good comments, some angry comments, and some…unique comments. At least a survey allows greater input from more people. But if the results are skewed, the value is unfortunately just not there.
For the record before folks get mad at me, I’m happy to use the same analysis if consultant the city hired does a similar survey. I have an equal opportunity B.S. meter!
I gave up when I realized I was only halfway through
Attention span of a gnat
a scattered brain gnat
squirrel!!!!
@Fig “For the record before folks get mad at me, I’m happy to use the same analysis if consultant the city hired does a similar survey. I have an equal opportunity B.S. meter!”
You are hitting on something that has bothered me about the public outreach effort that had people commenting on various village visions. It encouraged people to post comments on various options.
Was there any control against people posting multiple duplicative comments?
Is it more representative to capture and aggregate comments from people who were motivated to physically come by and comment?
Was there any control to assure that only those who are Newton residents could comment?
Was it any less leading (or misleading) to limit people to commenting on a controlled offering of option when many where clearly non-starters?
From my perspective the Newtonville Area Council was at least more representative as it requested some basic qualifying data
Claire, permit me to copy your post and respond outside your quoted language:
“You are hitting on something that has bothered me about the public outreach effort that had people commenting on various village visions. It encouraged people to post comments on various options.” I agree that this method is subject to “gaming the system”. There isn’t a perfect method of gathering input.
“Was there any control against people posting multiple duplicative comments?” Not directly, but I’d argue that the scale is different. It is more transparent with an open process (you have to show up in person) than in just clearing your online presence and filling out the same poll again dozens of times.
“Is it more representative to capture and aggregate comments from people who were motivated to physically come by and comment? ” Actually, it is just a different type of bias. Motivation is a huge sorting mechanism, and it tends to be slanted more towards the negative than the generic positive. That’s one of the reasons why NIMBYs tend to be so powerful as a local force, since they show up. Because it usually has a direct negative effect on a small group, and those folks will devote time and energy to the cause in the way that others won’t. That doesn’t mean the community disagrees with the NIMBYs, it just means they have a tendency to show up to yell at folks. Sometimes loudly. In one case in a recent meeting, in song.
“Was there any control to assure that only those who are Newton residents could comment?” Eh…this one I’m less concerned about. If folks in Watertown want to waste an afternoon to comment on Washington Street, so be it. I suppose your concern could be that employees of a contractor or developer could be stacking the meetings. That’s possible, although that house effect is probably very minimal compared to the overall number of folks who live and work near the site in question. I also think that most developers hire lawyers to deal with zoning/permitting issues more so than stacking meetings. Or they partner with local non-profits. Doesn’t mean employees don’t go to the meetings, but it doesn’t make sense to have them be too vocal, less it create a backlash.
“Was it any less leading (or misleading) to limit people to commenting on a controlled offering of option when many where clearly non-starters?” Well, I disagree that it was misleading, but that may be because I’m familiar with some of this stuff and read the options in a different way. I will say that with the open ending opportunity to comment and discuss, it is a more open and transparent method of gathering community input than a push poll.
“From my perspective the Newtonville Area Council was at least more representative as it requested some basic qualifying data” I disagree. . Anyone could take the poll, inside Newton or outside the US. Anyone could take it twice. Easier to lie to an anonymous computer poll than in person. Easier to lie more than once. Or twice. Just witness the difficulty Village 14 has with the various trolls and sock puppets. At least person to person there is a chance for a conversation.
More tomorrow Claire.