News
Now Taking Reservations for the
2008 Fall Tour of Homes Magazine!
Don't be left out! For more information or to reserve your ad space in the official magazine of the
Tampa Bay Builders Association
2008 Fall Tour of Homes,
please contact John Stemmons
at (866) 379-9857 or email him at
john@builderfusion.com.
Menu
Issues & Communication
DCA Planning Commission Investigation Letter
2008 FHBA Priorities
PGM May 2008 Reports & Appendicies July 2008
Fallon Research & Communications, Inc.
WASHINGTON, DC: 202-263-7292
COLUMBUS, OH: 614-341-7005
FAX: 202-318-0346
MAIL: P.O. Box 12181, Columbus, Ohio 43212
November 7, 2007
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Paul Fallon
RE: Hillsborough County Community Planning Survey Results Summary
I have summarized the key findings from the recent survey that was conducted among voters in Hillsborough County, Florida. The purpose was to assess opinions about the preferences for future growth and development polices that are being considered for the community.
First, the data about the overall opinion environment indicates that growth and related issues are being overshadowed by concern about the quality of public education, which was cited by 20% of survey respondents as being the most important priority for public officials to work on during the next two years. Moreover, crime ranked second and was cited by 19% as the top priority. These appear to serve as the framework through which voters are going to form their assessments of the work being done by their leaders. They also indicate that growth may be a secondary or tertiary concern that will not garner as much interest, and is only of modest importance on the public issue agenda.
Second, attitudes toward growth were decidedly mixed. A plurality of voters seem to be disenchanted with the job that is being done by the Hillsborough County Planning Commission to plan new housing growth (43% total negative assessment). They also are bristling at the perceived rate of growth (72% too fast). However, clear majorities believe that the current state of the housing market is dismal (55% characterize it as poor), and feel that a precipitous change has occurred over the last year (69% say it has gotten worse). These indicate that voters are going to be somewhat sympathetic to proposed new housing plans and wary of regulatory efforts to hamper the industry at this point in time.
Third, preferences for long-term community plans and future growth indicate that there is a clear desire for future housing to be developed in neighborhoods of single-family homes (68%), rather than neighborhoods with different types of housing styles, such as a mix of single-family houses, condominiums and apartments (29%). Moreover, the survey respondents exhibited a clear preference for living in single-family detached houses (85%), rather than in multi-family homes or buildings (13%) that are free of attendant maintenance burdens and duties. A majority (62%) also oppose allowing homes to be built close together, with less space between them, in order to reduce the amount of land being used.
Perhaps the strongest indication of the strength of affinity for single-family homes was that they were even favored by sizeable majorities of voters that live in attached town houses (61%) and apartments or condominiums (55%). In fact, disdain for multi-family housing appears so virulent that 71% of respondents say they would oppose allowing vacant or unused land near their neighborhoods to be re-zoned for construction of condominiums and town homes.
Apartments elicited an even more ardent reaction, as 77% of voters say they would oppose rezoning vacant land near them for such a purpose. Most telling of all, nearly two-thirds of the respondents (62%) said, in a hypothetical dilemma, they would defer the benefits of ownership until they had saved enough money to buy a single-family home, rather than purchasing a townhouse or condominium, so they would not have to wait (31%).
Fourth, expectations of how and where future neighborhoods should be designed suggest that respondents like the prospect of being in close proximity to stores and shops, so they can walk to them from their homes (56%). Only 16% want to be situated nearby, or in the very same neighborhood with a public park, while a majority (54%) would actually prefer to be in the general area, but only close enough to drive to one. Only 15% of respondents (16% for respondents with children) would opt to be located nearby, or in the very same neighborhood as a public school, while a plurality (42% overall; 38% for respondents with children) would prefer to only be close enough to drive to one.
Fifth, attitudes about how planning and housing growth intersect with transportation needs are quite murky. Just 40% of respondents favor requiring that new housing developments be built near existing freeways and highways in order to reduce traffic congestion, while 47% oppose the idea. Curiously, even though an astounding 74% favor requiring that new housing developments include public transportation stations for bus and light rail service in order to reduce traffic congestion (76% for those that work outside the home), only 39% said they would be more likely to use public transportation if a station for bus or light rail service was built in or near their neighborhood. Astonishingly, a majority (56%) admit that it would not affect their commuting habits (57% for those that work outside the home).
Finally, voters in the community seem to be somewhat conflicted in their views about home builders. While 44% have favorable opinions of home builders – that is, the people who are in the business of constructing new housing – a nearly equal proportion have unfavorable opinions of them (42%). Despite such ambivalence, 54% agree that home builders should be allowed to participate in local growth planning, because they have expertise about where people want to live, the types of homes they want, and the best ways to build them. Interestingly, this sentiment also is shared by 33% of the respondents that have unfavorable opinions of home builders. This suggests that even the industry’s harshest critics concede that home builders have an important voice that should be heard during the growth planning process. Regardless of who is involved in the process, the respondents rejected the notion of using a county-wide approach in which growth would be planned regionally and more efficiently for the entire county area (33%). The respondents appear to strongly prefer that growth be planned by each local town or neighborhood, so they can make decisions that are best for the needs of their local citizens and allow each area to decide how it will grow (61%).
Please feel free to call me if you have questions, or wish to discuss anything in greater detail. I can be reached at 614-341-7005 and will be glad to answer any questions about the survey results and research methodology.
This information is based on survey research that was conducted through telephone interviews of 400 randomly selected registered voters in Hillsborough County, Florida, that have histories of voting in recent elections and valid residential telephone numbers. The interviews were performed during the period of November 1, 2007 to November 3, 2007. The overall estimated margin of sampling error is +/- 4.9%, based on a confidence level of 95%, although it varies for each individual question. This means that if this survey was repeated, 95 times out of 100 the results would be within plus or minus 4.9% of those provided herein. Further adjustments were made to proportionately weight the results toward the demographic and geographic characteristics of the county.
