In this survey 2 questions were asked being:-
Question 1:- Did they know what a Dual Occupancy was?
Question 2:-
Did they agree with Dual Occupancy in Coldstream – providing an opportunity to give their own opinion as follows:-
*Yes *No *Undecided *Don’t Mind/Care either way
The results are shown below:
Yes’s 188 Residents 10 Business’s
No’s 174 Residents 3 Business’s
Undecided’s 84 Residents 6 Business’s
Don’t Mind/Care Either way 91 Residents 2 Business’s
Those who didn’t want to know about it 12 Residents
The results of this survey clearly show that:-
Approx 1/3 of the estate agrees with Dual Occupancies,
(188 residents)
Approx 1/3 of the estate doesn’t agree with Dual Occupancies
(174 residents)
Approximately 1/3 of the estate doesn’t mind either way, or are undecided, or don’t want to know about it
(187 residents).
SORRY THIS WAS LEFT OFF BY MISTAKE
Total participation
b/wn 19th January &
27th April 2010 549 Residents 21 Business’s
Plus Inaccessible sites 3
(High fences and gates)
Not Home 14
(several attempts having been made to obtain their opinion at various times throughout day and evening without success)
(These calculations do not include the objectors) which goes to stating that the Coldstream Community Action Group do not represent the entire Coldstream Estate in their objection to Dual Occupancies within the area.
5 comments:
It would be interesting to know the number of people who were not given the opportunity to participate in the survey because the 'surveyors' already knew they had objected. Did they add my opinion onto their results and was I the only one they chose not to visit??????????????
Yeah, basically, that 'survey' is biased. It was undertaken by a person acting on behalf of the town planner pushing for these dual occupancies, plus it was misleading. I know... the woman called on me. Believe me.... it was misleading. Plus it was a little marketing exercise to illicit support for the dual occupancies. I told the woman to leave.
No cred should be paid to the 'survey'. It's rubbish !!!
And, no doubt, my very brief notice of this blog and comment thereto will bring cheers from my fan club.
Cheers
Rosie Wood
Sorry
My cut n paste was not working well.
I have added the figures you requested.
Mario
So does this now mean that if you add the objectors to the #174 residents who said 'NO' then this number would definitely outweigh the #188 residents who said 'YES'????????
In answer to Anonymous
….the number of objectors were 36 properties. These 36 properties were persons who lodged objections with VCAT hence why they were not visited for the purpose of the Survey…given the Survey was to acquire people’s personal opinions on the subject of Dual Occupancies in Coldstream. If you were in fact one of the 36, then no..you were not singled out, (no one was), as clearly your view had already been voiced and recorded.
In answer to Rosie Wood
….the Survey is clearly not biased, as it was informative of the facts relating to the areas effected and gave people not only the opportunity to actually have their own preferred answer recorded (giving them four options), but also the availability to make further comment s…should they wish to do so. However on the true meaning of bias, it would be said the Petition was biased …. as it was not accompanied by any relevant information for them to make an informed decision, and was presented misleadingly.
In fact, when doing this Survey, we were advised by many that the information provided by the petitioners was either nonexistent or simply misrepresented.
As you can see by the results of this Survey whilst one third said ‘Yes’ there is another one third that has remained impartial when they too were provided with the facts about what is happening throughout Coldstream.
With regards to your comment about the Survey being misleading, I being ‘the women’ to whom you refer fail to understand how you can possibly make this judgement when you actually did not give me the opportunity to present the relevant information about this Survey to you in the same manner as I did to other residents of Coldstream .
But for your attitude and constant interruption and your obvious predetermined opinion on the matter and on me, if you had allowed me to speak you would have seen that I was not there on a
“little marketing exercise to illicit support for Dual Occupancies” but to present the relevant facts to you, nor was I there to change your mind but merely to seek your honest opinion .
Also let me clarify… firstly, I was engaged by the Consultant (not the Town Planner – this insinuates it is the Shire), secondly, I was explicitly advised that this Survey must be carried out in a manner that was to gain the residents of Coldstream’s genuine personal opinion and those who allowed me to do so ,were very appreciative of the opportunity to express their opinion and many thanked me for the clarity I provided.
So in answer to your comment ‘No cred should be paid to the Survey. It’s rubbish !!!’ I would say that this comment indicates, “in your opinion”, that no credence is given to the other residents of Coldstream, nor do you give any credibility to their views.
It was unfortunate that when I called on you, you felt the need to act so aggressively towards me.
Pat
Post a Comment