TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

 

Introduction and Demographics I - iii Survey Results

I.      Perceived Problems                                                                  1-5

A. Lakes     1

B. Image    2

C. Transportation        2

D. Economic       3

E. Housing 3

F. Growth  4

II. Method of Growth Preferred 5

Ill. Mobile Home Issues 6

IV. Land Allocation                                                             7-10

A. Residential 8 B. Commercial 8 C. Industrial 9 D. Resource Development 10 E. Recreation                               10

V. Desirable Qualities of the Township                            11

VI. Importanct of Protecting Natural or                                            11 Aesthetic Resources

VII. Land Protection Measures 12 VIII. Economic Activities Supported by Township 14 IX. Government Incentives to Encourage             14

Economic Growth

X. Development of New Policies                                                     14

Graphics                                                                              Appendix A

Survey Letter                                                                                          Appendix B

Survey Form and Responses                                          Appendix C

Comments Section                                                            Appendix D

INTRODUCTION

 

In late 1993, following an earlier project whereby MSU Extension provided a "family" of Geographic Information System (GIS) maps to Forest Home Township, Extension Director, Burt Stanley was invited by the Township Zoning Board and Richard Langs, former Zoning Administrator, to discuss the possibility of conducting a public opinion survey of township residents. The results of the survey would be used in updating a Master Plan for the Township as part of its ongoing efforts to deal with emerging land use issues.

 

The Zoning Board gained approval from the Township Board to conduct a survey and a series of meetings was held over the next several months to develop the survey strategy and design the survey instrument.

 

It was decided by the Zoning Board that the major purposes for which the survey would be useful would be to:

 

• identify perceived problems
• determine the level of concerns
• rate quality of life issues
• receive suggestions for policy development issues
• use the results in medium to long range planning

 

To accomplish the survey it was decided that 100% of property owners would be surveyed. Board members felt that the additional mailing costs incurred to survey all property owners rather than a random sample would be worthwhile and would give all property owners the opportunity to be heard.

 

In the intervening months Terry Smith assumed the role of Zoning Administrator and provided the main point of contact between MSU Extension and the Township. Mr. Smith obtained the list of property owners (numbering approximately 2,000 property descriptions) from the Antrim County Equalization Department.

 

Approximately 600 duplicate property descriptions were eliminated from the mailing list in an attempt to provide one survey form per landowner. This resulted in a mailing to 1,410 property owners by first class postage in April, 1995. A copy of the cover letter from the Township which introduced the survey and explained its purpose is attached at the end of this report, (Appendix B), along with a copy of the survey form, (Appendix C).

 

Response to the survey was extremely positive. A total of 614 survey forms were returned by June 7,1995. With an initial response rate of 43.5%, it was not necessary to send a reminder requesting that completed survey forms be returned. Based on the response rate the results of the survey are reliable with a high degree of confidence.

Following data entry, Dr. Murari Suvedi, Specialist, MSU Department of Agriculture and Extension Education, performed multiple cross-tabulations of specific variables identified by Burt Stanley. The cross-tabulations enabled MSU Extension to analyze results with consideration given to inherent survey biases based on respondent demographics. Therefore, the survey results may be used with greater confidence since some inherent biases have been considered in the analysis.

DEMOGRAPHICS OF PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RESPONDED TO SURVEY

 

The cross-tabulation of data indicated that, while there are differences in opinions as expressed by different groups of respondents, those differences do not significantly change the conclusions. In other words, there is generally a high degree of agreement among groups of property owners such as year-round residents and seasonal residents; riparian and non-riparian property owners; voters and non-voters; high income and lower income; younger and older; employed and retirees; etc. Those differences are noted where appropriate in the text. Noted below are some notable demographic findings.

 

·       Over one-half of respondents are year-round homeowners. Nearly 40% of respondents consider themselves to be seasonal homeowners. Only one renter responded which is not surprising since the survey was sent to property owners. Therefore, renters' opinions are under-represented in the survey.

 

·       Over 60% of the respondents' property abuts a body of water. This fact tends to bias the overall survey toward opinions held by riparian property owners. However, cross-tabulations of the data permit this factor to be taken into account.

 

·      Over one-fourth of respondents have become property owners within the past ten years.

 

·      Nearly one-half of respondents have resided in this area twenty years or less.

 

·      Nearly 30 percent of respondents have resided in the area over thirty years. Only eight percent of respondents do not reside in the area.

 

·      Slightly over half the respondents are registered voters in the township, roughly correlating to the number of seasonal residents.

 

·        The bulk of respondents (73%) were older than fifty years of age. Nearly one-half are older than sixty years which is not surprising since over 40% of respondents are retired.

• Almost everyone lives in a house and over half are two-person households -- not surprising due to the age distribution and high numbers of retirees.

 

·                  The respondents included a high number of upper income households with nearly 40% reporting household incomes of more than $60,000 per year.

 

·                  Nearly half of the respondents reported over $40,000 of household income. Over 75% of respondents reported over $30,000.

 

•    Less than 2% reported household income under $10,000 per year. COMMENTS

 

Twenty-two pages of comments were recorded, some of which have been incorporated into the text of this report. The complete comments section is in a separate document and noted as Appendix D. Attitudes about the survey ranged from several expressions of appreciation to a few property owners questioning its value. This range of opinion is not unusual. Most negative comments related to taxes and excessive governmental regulation. The positive comments generally encouraged township officials to take steps to address growth issues, and to employ appropriate resource protection measures.

Acknowledgements ******

 

•    Antrim County Commission on Aging - Assisted with mailing.

 

•    Rod Cortright, Charlevoix County Extension Director, MSU Extension Preparation of survey form in its multiple revisions.

 

•    Peggy Haiuniinga, Office Manager, Antrim County MSU Extension -­Data entry, graphics, assistance in report preparation and layout.

 

•   Dr. Murari Suvedi, Specialist, MSU Department of Agriculture and Extension Education -­

Cross-tabulation of raw data, and consultation.

************