To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident Sean Goheen says the recent Peninsula Township survey felt designed to lead respondents toward a preferred outcome rather than measure what the community actually believes. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
As a longtime Old Mission Peninsula resident, I appreciate the efforts to ask residents what we think. But after completing the recent Township survey, I’m concerned it wasn’t a neutral instrument for gathering input. Too many prompts felt designed to lead respondents toward a preferred outcome rather than measure what the community actually believes.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Take the question about moving from General Law to Charter Township. The language emphasized “flexibility” and “efficiency,” while minimizing a major governance change: granting the Board the ability to levy up to five additional mills without a direct vote.
That’s not a small tweak; it’s a meaningful shift in taxing authority. Presenting one side of the trade-off, without equally clear context, isn’t a fair way to ask voters what they think.
The millage questions followed a similar pattern. Costs were framed as “just a few dollars per month,” with little acknowledgment of cumulative tax impact, competing priorities, or lessons from recent fiscal missteps. That reads more like marketing than transparency.
On the winery litigation, the framing asked whether residents support using Township funds to “defend itself and its constituents,” glossing over how we arrived here and what it has already cost. A balanced question would have noted both the rationale for defending the ordinance and the real financial risks to taxpayers.
Questions on shoreline storage and hoist limits leaned on subjective terms like “unsightly,” which assume a problem before asking whether residents perceive one. And on agriculture and events, the survey suggested diversified farm activity would automatically mean more noise and traffic, with little room to weigh the economic reality for local farmers or potential benefits of responsible agritourism.
Across sections, the survey repeatedly set up false choices — implying that caution about new taxes or support for economic flexibility is somehow at odds with safety, stewardship, or community character. Our community deserves better than that.
If the Township truly wants credible feedback, future surveys should be drafted by neutral professionals, present balanced pros and cons, clearly separate fact from opinion and likely impact, and publish the full methodology and results so residents can see how our voices are represented.
We can disagree on policy, but we should agree on the need for honest, unbiased public engagement. Let’s start there.
– Sean Goheen, Old Mission Peninsula Resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Thank you Sean,
You articulated my concerns perfectly. The survey felt biased and did not allow to separate our exceptional emergency services and their work from the (insert your preferred adjective here) board stewardship.
It’s a shame the needs of our excellent emergency services were overshadowed by how the survey was framed. We can all respect and support the work they do while still expecting clear, unbiased communication and accountability from the Township.
I agree. Sean summed up my misgivings about the survey perfectly. Thank you.
Sean, In general, I agree with the overall feeling that some of the questions were confusing and there was not enough background. I do however like having a way to gather feedback and help the Township Officials get a pulse that is different than the smaller percentage of people that are active at each meeting. Both input mechanisms are important. A survey company with more experience could have helped avoid that gap in understanding and would have provided the township leaders with clearer direction from residents. Hopefully we have a chance to review the results and explain some of our answers!
Thanks for that — I completely agree. Gathering broader resident input is valuable, and surveys can be a great way to reach people who don’t normally attend meetings. The issue isn’t with doing a survey, but with how this one was designed and presented. EPIC·MRA has been around a long time and has done political and municipal polling across Michigan, but their methods and style feel dated for a community feedback effort like this. The questions and framing didn’t reflect the neutrality or clarity we should expect from a professional firm. With a more modern approach — clearer questions, better context, and transparent reporting — the Township could have gained real insights and strengthened trust. Hopefully, we’ll get to see the full results and methodology so residents can better understand how our input is being used.
I think one’s feelings about the wording of the survey (and most surveys) is predicated by the biases one has going into the survey. I did not sense the biases the author mentioned. I thought more explanation of the benefits of being a charter township would have been nice, the benefits resulting from pooling our resources to advance the public good. But I admit that’s my bias.
I do think it would have been proper to more clearly explain that among the numerous benefits of being a charter township one of the most important one’s is that township residents cannot be annexed into the city without the township’s approval. Please consider that Traverse City’s millage rate at this moment is MORE than 5 mills higher than Peninsula Township’s. And though as a charter township Peninsula Township COULD conceivably increase our taxes by up to 5 mills that sort of increase is highly unlikely. The trustees and supervisor are not stupid.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I agree that everyone brings some bias into how they read and interpret questions — that’s human nature. But that’s exactly why neutral survey design matters so much, especially when the Township is trying to gauge public sentiment on major issues like charter status or taxation.
The concern isn’t about residents’ personal biases — it’s about whether the survey itself was written in a way that steered opinion instead of measuring it. When questions frame issues with embedded assumptions or persuasive wording, the results lose credibility no matter where someone stands.
I’m all for educating residents about the pros and cons of charter township status, including annexation protection, but that kind of context belongs in open public discussion — not in the questions themselves. Mixing education and persuasion in the same tool undermines trust in the process and the results.
I’m going to reread the survey and attempt to see it with a perspective the opposite of mine. It should be an interesting exercise. I might see things I missed when I was just a respondent.
Thanks, Sean for your work at stating your concerns factually and civilly. I agree with you that surveys must be neutral and unbiased if survey results are to be used to shape policy or be seen as representing respondents’ preferences. Effective, reliable and valid surveys are statistical instruments and require rigorous design. They are not easy to construct.
To Bob Eckstein, When you re read the survey please note the “ all area townships “ are charter townships statement. ( Misleading at best and untrue at worst). A majority of Grand Traverse townships remain as general law townships. Your comment about the survey saying a conversion prevents TC from annexing Pen twp is interesting. Why would TC want to take on a $40MM and growing liability that will not be decided for years to come?
I also feel the survey should have been mailed. There are still respondents that are not computer literate, who have an opinion.
A recall a survey about 10 years ago, maybe less, and I thought it was trying to lead one a certain way then. I had a place there but sold it. I decided I could not move there because it was clear this downstater would never ever be accepted. Nothing became of that survey as I recall. Why do another? IMO this is a waste of time and money.
you can’t be annexed without both town agreeing.
this is the situation if it is a “forced” (my term) annexation. A city can petition the SBC for annexation. The process involves a legal sufficiency hearing, a public hearing, and an adjudicative hearing, and ultimately, the SBC makes a decision to either approve or deny the petition.
If the SBC approves the petition, a 30-day referendum period is required before the annexation becomes final. If 25% of the registered voters in the area to be affected file a petition to hold an election, the annexation is subject to voter approval in both the annexed area and the city or township.
the whole scare tactic of raising the specter of annexation is a red herring. It can not happen if the people on the peninsula do not want it to happen. so for 100 years we have never faced annexation all of a sudden someone is going to try to annex us. Not going to happen in another 100 years.
Thank you Sean, I share the same thoughts on the survey.