To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Peninsula Township is in the process of creating a survey that will give residents an opportunity to weigh in on the big decisions shaping our community’s future, from land use and agritourism to shoreline management and township governance. Read more about the survey here. You’re invited to submit questions for possible inclusion in the survey. Email your topics of concern and/or drafted survey questions to Township Supervisor Maura Sanders, [email protected], or the survey committee chair, Julie Alexander, [email protected], through Sunday, June 1. You’re also welcome to attend the survey committee meetings; the meeting dates are included on the Township website here. Read on for 20 questions that OMP resident Curt Peterson feels should be included on the survey. And if you’ve got something to say, write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb)
1. With respect to the winery lawsuit do you feel the Township Board made the correct decision to put each homeowner at risk of settlement charges averaging $2K for the next 15 years paid for by every Peninsula Township homeowner?
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
2. Again, a winery lawsuit issue. Do you feel that a third party, Protect the Peninsula, should face no financial settlement liability (like homeowners) while at the same time being allowed to plead in the case?
3. Do you feel the public should have had the opportunity to weigh in on the initial proposed settlement prior to the Township Board voting unanimously “no”?
4. Do you feel that the Township Board should have notified citizens that it did not have insurance coverage of $130 million before turning down a settlement offer?
5. Are you aware that Peninsula Township has spent more than $1.5 million of our taxpayer money in defense of this lawsuit?
6. Do you feel that the Township Board made the correct decision in enacting Amendment 201 over and above the objections of 50 OMP farmers urging a “no vote”? Amendment 201 increased the size acreage requirement for a farm processing unit (vineyard).
7. Do you feel the Township Board made the correct decision to force a farming Special Use Permit applicant to publicly disclose financial information on the profitability of a supplemental farming use (in this case, a farm-grown lavender-infused open-to-the-public sauna), when no such demands exist for any farming operation on OMP that I am aware of? The applicant said no, and is selling or has sold the lavender farm. We lost a young family farming activity.
8. With the demise (loss of suitable profitability) of cherries, grapes and apples as a use by right, should the farming community be allowed to have farm stays/lodging on their properties or other agritourism activities to enhance profitability and help farmers hang onto their farms instead of selling out to subdivision developers?
9. Would you rather see more vineyards, or have that land turned into 5-acre homesteads or Planned Unit Developments?
10. Should farmers be allowed to establish event centers to help gain profitability?
11. Should our government bodies be allowed to have joint meetings — Planning Commission and Township Board — for public hearings to fast-track legislation and allow the Planning Commission to immediately (that same night) forward their vote to the Township Board for their immediate subsequent vote (that same night) without the required written reporting being done by the Planning Commission (according to Michigan law)?
12. Should our Planning Department be allowed to change a “Future Land Use” map just hours before a public hearing on the Master Plan without the mandated 14-day notification requirement, as required by Michigan law?
13. Do you feel the Planner (in this case, former Planner) has the right to add language to a proposed ordinance change after the Planning Commission has approved wording and before it gets forwarded onto the Township Board without the changed wording going back to the Planning Commission to allow for public comment on the revision? (This has occurred many times and is in violation of Michigan Planning law.)
14. Do you believe that the Township Board should be allowed to continue to make decisions behind closed doors in violation of Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), such as determining to pass a resolution to the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPS) without any input from farmers?
15. When passing a fines ordinance recently, both the Planning Commission and the Township Board said one of the reasons was based on a study. When questioned about the study, the Planning Commission members could not produce a study or a study reference, but still passed a fines recommendation that was then sent on to the Township Board. Is this a transparent government practice that you support?
16. Peninsula Township is planning to put forth a proposal to convert our form of governance from General Law Township to Charter Township. This would entail hiring a manager to handle day to day operations and report to the Township Board. He/she would be a full-time employee with salary/benefits and a severance package. The conversion would allow Peninsula Township to increase taxes (the amount of our overall tax bill that deals with local government) to a max of 5 mills without a vote of the residents. Of the approximately 28 mills overall yearly tax that we pay, about 2.5 mills is for local government. This would increase to 5 mills to cover the added costs of a charter township without a vote of the electorate. Part of the rationale is that we are in an unstable financial position, according to a recently completed Maner Costerisan paid consultant study. In that study, there was no emphasis on the $1.5 million we spent on the winery lawsuit defense being a source of the shortfall. Are you in favor of moving to a Charter Township?
17. The zoning ordinance allows for owner-operated bed and breakfast lodging. Do you support homeowners being able to have overnight guests at their house when the owner is present?
18. Do you support the short-term rental (non-owner occupied) restriction in the R1A (Rural and Hillside Residential zone classification?
19. A massive bonded project for a new fire station is just around the corner. The train has left the station. Taxpayers will be on the hook for additional taxes for an extended period of time. Do we really need a new fire station (not many fires occur) or perhaps a less expensive medical emergency response facility?
20. Additionally, for the new fire station, Peninsula Township is attempting to obtain purchase rights for one of the few remaining commercially zoned properties, located across from Peninsula Market. Do you support this proposal, or would you prefer the property be used for a different commercial purpose that better serves the Peninsula’s needs?
21. When a resident applied to combine adjoining properties to make one legal description parcel — with one property under a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) contract while the other is not — do you feel that the new larger entire property would then be bound by the PDR contract? Note that PDR land restrictions are paid for by us taxpayers, and we did not pay any taxpayer monies for the non-PDR land .
22. The Township is in the beginning phase of restarting the rewrite process on the Zoning Ordinance. Do you believe that the objective should remain the same: make no substantive changes and produce a more understandable document by adding suitable pictures and illustrations and incorporating all of the numerous amendments (more than 200) back into the main document body?
23. The “shadow government” (Protect the Peninsula) has great influence over our township government. Do you support PTP and their anti-farmer profitability stance and influence of our government? Note: A number of PTP members are on this survey subcommittee that will be drafting questions. How many will make it to the survey?
– Curt Peterson, Old Mission Peninsula Resident
—————-
SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSPAPER: I started Old Mission Gazette in 2015 because I felt a calling to provide the Old Mission Peninsula community with local news. After decades of writing for newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Family Circle and Ladies' Home Journal, I really just wanted to write about my own community where I grew up on a cherry farm and raised my own family. So I started my own newspaper.
Because Old Mission Gazette is a "Reader Supported Newspaper" -- meaning it exists because of your financial support -- I hope you'll consider tossing a few bucks our way if I mention your event, your business, your organization or your news item, or if you simply love reading about what's happening on the OMP. In a time when local news is becoming a thing of the past, supporting an independent community newspaper is more important now than ever. Thank you so much for your support! -Jane Boursaw, Editor/Publisher, Old Mission Gazette
To keep the Gazette going, click here to make a donation.
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Great questions Curt. Will be interesting to see if committee takes them up.
As you know a question can derive the answer it seeks depending on how it is phrased.
I too submitted questions directly to the committee and feel background information needs to be laid out before a question is asked.
There is a significant misunderstanding surrounding surveys (broadly) and “the survey” (specifically for Peninsula Township), which, in turn, is creating misinformation.
I’ll take a swing at addressing both for one reason: so that the science-based, objective perspective is accurately shared. Surveys are a very useful tool, especially to collect a large amount of information from a diverse population (such as the township). After that, feel free to do, think, and post as you please. I feel more than qualified to offer such as I have the experience, education, and expertise associated explicitly with survey methodology and research application. I know more about surveys than one person should ever be subjected to.
General survey guidelines:
– Questions should be neutral in tone. This requires less set-up or preamble than expected, as adding more increases the risk of bias. Tonal bias has a shockingly outsized negative impact on responses, generally introducing more bias than all other factors combined.
– Questions should be closed-ended. This gives you quantitative (think “numbers”) data (versus “thematic or descriptive” qualitative data).
– Questions with a spread of response options provide a much richer and clearer perspective. Avoid yes/no questions, which lead to huge gaps in understanding. Imagine asking someone if they like the weather today. A yes-or-no response is significantly lacking in insight. Using a Likert scale provides a more valuable data set, as researchers can calculate probabilities, perspectives, and prioritize themes shared by the survey population.
– It is advisable to use a single temporal focus. That often works as ‘from ‘then’ to ‘now’ or ‘from ‘now’ to ‘then’. Mixing focus is cognitively confusing to the survey participants. Our brains crave [directional] order.
I can go on, but as I said, I’d rather not share more survey method pain.
Thoughts on the Peninsula Survey:
– The survey is a forward-looking, guidance-oriented tool. As noted on the Township website, “…to weigh in on the big decisions shaping our community’s future, from land use and agritourism to shoreline management and township governance.”
– It is not a customer satisfaction-type survey (which are typically backward-looking, judgment-oriented).
– Questions should be framed to require a minimal (if any at all) contextual background. As noted above, overly drawn-out set-ups introduce significant bias. Likewise, it is much more challenging to ensure factual grounding in that preamble. Lastly, questions should require a minimum additional research requirement (in other words, one shouldn’t have to read ~20 pages of documentation before answering a question).
– Surveys are, by their nature, perceptual. Perception is not fact (though I’d love to share my hypothesis that perception is reality based on visual-cognitive cueing and sensory impact on emotional states over a cup of coffee…but I also acknowledge it is a hypothesis, not a fact).
I hope I have shared some valuable insights and perspectives. There is no doubt a very vocal subset of the population that believes the survey is “cooked,” so to speak. I can offer that retaining a well-known and respected survey company significantly ensures neutrality and scientific rigor. No company would accept the risk of destroying its business by allowing a bad survey to be published.
If anyone would like to discuss more, feel free to reach out. You can find me here https://www.linkedin.com/in/sanderstoddm/. Best!
Forgot one – response rates of 12-15% are typical. Rates near 20% are extremely high.
I disagree that background lead ups should be avoided.
In my many conversations with peninsula residents I have learned many have no idea what the issues of the day are. Ever notice how few people attend any of the board meetings or committee meetings?
The number of people watching the meetings is equally low. How many people read the gazette?
Given that is the case asking people their opinion on issues with no background is a waste of time.
How can you expect to take survey answers and anallyze them when the person has no idea what the background is surrounding the question.
Take any issue let’s say the charter issue.
How would you frame that question. If you ask most people if they even know what a charter township is they would have no idea. So I would think you need to lay it out and then ask the question.