Publication Date: Friday, January 30, 2004
And the survey says ...
And the survey says ...
(January 30, 2004)While the City of Palo Alto received mostly positive ratings in a recent survey of residents, a few city services -- including zoning and street repair -- received ratings below the national average.
The survey, whose results were published by the city's auditor this week, asked 1,200 randomly-selected Palo Alto households their thoughts on the city and the city's government.
The most dismal grade the city received was, not surprisingly, for "access to affordable housing," which ranked 10 out of a possible 100.
Similar surveys were mailed to residents of 300 other cities throughout the United States, although not every question was asked in every city. Of the 63 cities whose residents were asked about affordable housing, Palo Alto came in last.
Affordable housing was one of the City Council's "top five" priorities last year, although the cost and availability of land in the city makes it a challenging problem for the city.
On Monday night, the council was scheduled to discuss the survey, after debating its priorities for the year. The other four priorities for last year were city finances, infrastructure, land use planning and alternative transportation/traffic calming.
Of all the city services the survey asked about, only two received more "poor" votes than "excellent" votes -- the city's "land use, planning and zoning" and "street repair."
City Auditor Sharon Erickson warned that the poor "land use" grade was likely influenced by a highly critical audit that she released around the time the survey was mailed to residents.
Palo Altans were polled in October/November.
Respondents were highly pleased with the services provided by their public utility company, firefighters and police officers.
Of the various public safety services asked about, only "traffic enforcement" received a grade that wasn't well-above the norm. Traffic enforcement got a rating of 56 out of 100, making Palo Alto's service merely average compared to other cities.
The city's libraries received a mostly-positive rating (71 out of 100), but a middle-of-the-road ranking (75th out of 140 cities), while city parks, recreation classes and recreation facilities received high ratings and very high rankings.
The city's general fund budget is $120.7 million, meaning the city spends $1,972 per resident. Those figures do not include the city's utility company, which is budgeted separately, and spends $2,504 per resident.
Of the city in general, respondents said that Palo Alto is a great place to raise children and a very good place to live, but only a mediocre place to retire. The city was also rated exceptionally high in "ease of walking" (first out of 35 cities) and "ease of bicycle travel" (third out of 47 cities).
Good grades were also given to "overall appearance," "openness and acceptance" and "sense of community." But "job opportunities" were seen as very poor, reflecting the area's ongoing economic slide. "Access to affordable housing" also got a poor grade.
Of the 1,200 surveys mailed, there were 557 respondents, an exceptionally good reply rate (48 percent). The typical response rates for cities was 25 to 50 percent, according to the National Research Center, the Colorado-based company that conducted the survey for the city.
--Bill D'Agostino
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
