Survey Time! II

Previously, I posted about a survey being conducted by Envision Central Texas. I posted the survey's contents, but not my answers. Here are my answers:

1. What's better economically: recycling land in current use or aquiring previously unused land and developing it? I'm ignorant of (and too time-squeezed to search for) any statistical surveys that lean one way or the other. I pick A and weigh it "low" due to the nature of the possible answers (why can't we keep lots of both kinds of land available for development?) My reason is keeping the largest amount of land available for economic work is better than restricting it, and this option allows the greatest amount of land development, even over the more mixed options.
2. Agriculture is a prime example of a sector of the economy that has benefited dramatically from the efficiences of a free(ish) market economy. We need far less land these days to feed ourselves and produce enough to sell elsewhere. Therefore, setting aside large tracts of land for agricultural use (ignoring the economic problems with government doing that in the first place...) is deliberately wasteful. Of course, there are people who can create much with land like this and having no restrictions at all is the best choice. I picked A and "low" once again.
3. Again, I must plead ignorance and laziness, so I can't really make an informed decision. However, a good portion of the land this survey concerns itself with falls under the Contributing and Recharge Zones. Therefore, the primary concern as I see it in regards to development over the Aquifer is how to keep the two Zones loaded with clean water. But I don't want the State to get involved though large land buyups, seizures, or use regulations. So, I choose A and weighed it "low." The fewer restrictions on private property, the better. This way informed individuals can make up their own minds and decide how best to weigh development and native water supply. If their actions cause problems, issue groups can go public with data that demonstrates the short- and long-term danger of those actions. I pick B weighted as "high."
4. I'm even more ignorant about this question. How should Central Texas divide up it's transportation needs between automobiles and all other forms of transit and what best suits those needs? How the hell should I know? I have my own needs that I am well aquainted with. I know some of my friends' needs fairly well. A few co-workers even less. I can't just say I have an idea about how to best addess the area's needs because I'm not the area. I'm not going to collectively think for them. However, I am in favor of a mobile and free-flowing society, one that has the liberty to move, visit, and work where it wants. So I picked A on the basis of it's highest hours per year on average a person might travel on weekdays. "low" rating once again.
5. The previous question and this one are the most direct central-planning questions yet, going far beyond mere economics and deep into personal behavior. What is the best mix of single family homes and a combination of multi-family complexes? Personally, I think having more people living in their own homes on their own property is the best solution. Doing so means the family has a much greater stake in it's property, has a higher level of privacy, and certainly a greater level of freedom. Apartments, condos, and townhomes may be more convienent in an aggregate sense, but their landowner restrictions and close proximity to both others and the reach of city officials turns me off. So it's A and "low" again, as I choose the option closest to the status quo because none of the others offer an increase in single family home percentage.
6. This is a toughie because ECT didn't seperate public and private infrastructure investment from each other. Obviously, I'm against using other people's tax money to fun public works projects. I want private money and individuals making these investment decisions. Since none of the documents on the survey page indicate what the ratio of private to public investment money is at stake, I pick B and weigh it "high." This may be the most uninformed survey answer I'll offer.
7. This question is just a summary of the previous six, asking which of the four answers would provide for the best overall quality of life in the area. Well, examining the answers makes it pretty obvious that A is deeply pro-growth along the lines of what happens now and the closer you get to D, the deeper the anti-growth tendencies become. On a sliding scale, A is more open and free for people to work in while D is more centralized and compact. I pick A.
8. How would the quality of life be affected if the population doubles in 20 to 40 years? Kinda large timeframe there, huh? Can't they narrow it down? I pick 2, because with growth comes problems like higher traffic, pollution, and crime that can start to offset the better economic benefits such growth provides.
9. What should be the focus of transportation investment? This question is firmly rooted in the current system where the government controls this activity, so it's almost pointless to make a choice because I'd be against that further involvement. However, from a practical standpoint, if our roads could be upgraded and some much-needed traffic relief (SH 130 for example) could be done quicker, I'd be less inclined to be against it. So, I pick 1.
10. This is just a creepy question. How best to fit 1.25 million more people in Central Texas? Shit, let them choose where to live! I'll pick what I think is the current level of overall decision-making among people living here, 4.
11. Again, I don't want to force new employers and their companies anywhere they don't want to go. So, I pick 3.
12. How important are social equity issues? I say these issues sort themselves out if people are free to contract with one another and trade with one another. I don't want equality of results or outcomes. I picked 4 because these issues are important, but not worth government intrusion.
13. How concerned am I about affordability? Only as concerned as I am towards how able I can afford things. I choose 2.
14. How concerned am I that water supply paces development? Very concerned, but not enough to demand the state get involved. I pick 2.
15. Retaining the character of rural communities? I don't care, so I picked 4.
16. Retaining the character of existing urban neighborhoods? I don't care, so I picked 4.
17. Safely accessing retail businesses from neighboorhoods by foot or bike? A question engineered for the anti-Walmart crowd. It's sure nice to have businesses close by and safe to get to, but the distances I'm willing to walk or bike to get to them are too short for it to be practical in most situations. I pick 4.
18. The three issues more important to me (at least, as offered from that list) are cost of living, housing choices, and jobs.

I'm sure given the political nature of the people who live here, my answers will get drowned out with more weight towards the D end of the scale. Oh well.

UPDATE(12/9/2003 1:40am)
The results have been released.

Posted by Drizzten at October 14, 2003 01:12 PM