Menlo Park: City's 'satisfaction survey' raises red flags for some

I'm not entirely sure how Godbe Research creates their survey questions. A best practice is to perform a small test with randomized users to determine if the questions are clear and unearth any potential bias. As professionals, one can only assume this was conducted prior to sending it to the community.

Asking residents for feedback on a 7-story garage/mutiuse facility without first (1) demonstrating the need for a specific number of spaces supported with a reasonable analysis and projection, (2) evaluating alternative approaches to increasing parking capacity downtown, (3) describing the other facility uses, (4) providing estimates for the cost of building such a huge structure, and indicating where it would be located is like asking a child if it would like an ice cream sundae. It would be better to present a design concept, description and tops-down justification, something that residents could appreciate.

This is not the first time. The city is very bad at collecting the information it needs to do its job well. Remember when they surveyed only Santa Cruz Avenue homeowners about whether a sidewalk and bike lane were needed there?

The city should post the survey to let the public decide for themselves if the survey is an objective, impartial survey or a biased one with loaded or leading questions, forced choices and so forth. I've also written the city <Web Link to ask that they post the entire survey. While searching to try to find Menlo Park's survey, I came across an unfavorable Yelp review about Godbe Research <Web Link for a 2015 survey. The Portola Valley reviewer stated that "instead of an accurate survey of community opinion, it was instead filled with biased questions, undocumented statements and presented false choices that forced responders into accepting the agencies position..." I also found a 2016 article from The Daily Independent <Web Link that raised concerns about a Godbe survey that "provided the data" to support a particular bond measure. That article also raised concerns about a biased survey process designed to lead towards a predetermined, city desired outcome. The city should post the survey for full transparency. Give the public the full facts by posting the original, complete survey.

the questions about a downtown parking garage were quite surprising. The downtown plan does not allow garages that tall.

As far as I know, the city council did not direct staff to ask questions about a downtown garage. So who directed Godbe to ask?

Wait till the results of the employee survey. Comes out. Not all is well

Maybe UC's Janet Napolitano helped with the survey.

I do surveys all the time for work and abandoned this one in the middle because it was too leading to suggest the sender wanted real results. I came across like a political marketing initiative.

MR

"I do surveys all the time for work and abandoned this one in the middle because it was too leading to suggest the sender wanted real results. I came across like a political marketing initiative."

Imagine that.

Same as a number of comments above: started dutifully filling out the survey, as the intent seemed worthy, but quit half-way as it became obvious the goal was all but biased toward surreptitiously building a case for some predetermined self interested outcome. Who reviewed/approved the survey?