Secondary Suite Study Consultant Survey Summary: Were you misinformed?
Oak Bay Watch has been concerned that the consultant engaged to conduct the Secondary Suites Survey has avoided drawing certain conclusions from the responses or has drawn conclusions unsupported by the raw data. But we have been fortunate in being able to obtain a professional third-party analysis undertaken by Dr. Michael, Wilmut,retired professor of mathematics and statistics.
“A Critique of Urban Systems’ Secondary Suites Community Survey Summary”
The following is Oak Bay Watch’s summary of Dr. Wilmut’s observations and conclusions. ( Note: Dr. Wilmut is not a member of Oak Bay Watch. Oak Bay Watch expects to publish the full analysis at a later date.)
Dr Wilmut found that:
Observation: All the data was not processed.
Conclusion: Reprocessing is needed using all the data.
Observation: Consistency - 6 questions allow for “unsure/prefer not to answer”. 4
questions do not.
Conclusion: The “Unsure/prefer not to answer” question should be omitted making
Observation: Neighbourhoods were asked “Generally speaking, which of the four
scenarios listed do you prefer for permitting secondary suites?”
The various options are Scenario A, the least restrictive, to Scenario
the most restrictive, with gradation between for B and C.
Oak Bay Watch has been concerned that the consultant engaged to conduct the Secondary Suites Survey has avoided drawing certain conclusions from the responses or has drawn conclusions unsupported by the raw data. But we have been fortunate in being able to obtain a professional third-party analysis undertaken by Dr. Michael, Wilmut,retired professor of mathematics and statistics.
“A Critique of Urban Systems’ Secondary Suites Community Survey Summary”
The following is Oak Bay Watch’s summary of Dr. Wilmut’s observations and conclusions. ( Note: Dr. Wilmut is not a member of Oak Bay Watch. Oak Bay Watch expects to publish the full analysis at a later date.)
Dr Wilmut found that:
- The Survey Summary did not process all the responses,
- Did not report responses in a consistent manner,
- Used a poor display format, and
- Did not fully extract the information in the data.
Observation: All the data was not processed.
Conclusion: Reprocessing is needed using all the data.
Observation: Consistency - 6 questions allow for “unsure/prefer not to answer”. 4
questions do not.
Conclusion: The “Unsure/prefer not to answer” question should be omitted making
Observation: Neighbourhoods were asked “Generally speaking, which of the four
scenarios listed do you prefer for permitting secondary suites?”
The various options are Scenario A, the least restrictive, to Scenario
the most restrictive, with gradation between for B and C.
Conclusion: A study of the table shows neighbourhood does not affect
scenario choice. The individual neighbourhoods’ scenario
preferences closely follow the total community scenario
preferences.
Observation: (Possibly the most important question but it wasn’t asked)
“Does experience (live-in suite, own suite, live on a
street with suites) affect scenario preference?”
scenario choice. The individual neighbourhoods’ scenario
preferences closely follow the total community scenario
preferences.
Observation: (Possibly the most important question but it wasn’t asked)
“Does experience (live-in suite, own suite, live on a
street with suites) affect scenario preference?”
Conclusion: People who live in or own a suite prefer weak legalization rules.
Those who live on a street with suites, but do not own
or rent, prefer strong legalization rules. Not only is Scenario D
much preferred overall, but particularly so for those who live on
a street.
Observation: Urban Systems states “the relatively large number of
respondents who selected Scenario A understands
that if the regulations are too imposing, it will not
encourage compliance and legalization of existing
(and even new) secondary suites, and will not help
with housing affordability in Oak Bay.”
Conclusion: As the question does not ask WHY respondents replied
as they did, where is the evidence for this statement?
Observation: The OCP directive was to explore how secondary suites could be
regulated in Oak Bay without mentioning policies and
regulations rather than if secondary suites should be permitted.
Urban Systems’ Secondary Suite Survey’s stated objective
“is intended to identify the policies and regulations necessary for
considering secondary suites."However, this survey leaps beyond
that intent to say Secondary Suites are being considered.
Conclusion: The Consultant who designed the Secondary Suites Survey
did not read or understand the OCP Survey or even his
own company’s stated objective. This is a serious breech
of, if not complete disregard for, community trust. This
breech would have been corrected if Council had more than
one day to examine the questionnaire (before publication).
Recommendation:
Dr. Wilmut suggests that the breech could be corrected,
once the policies and regulations are ready for approval,
by way of a Community Survey with one two-part question:
A) I support suite legalization. The OCP key issues such as
tree protection, parking traffic, noise and neighbourhood
character have been addressed.
OR
B) I do not support suite legalization. The OCP key issues
have not been addressed.
Dr. Wilmut’s Overall Conclusion:
"My observations illustrate serious flaws and omissions
in Urban Systems’ Survey Summary. As a benchmark,
if a student taking a university statistics course
submitted such material, I assure the reader they would
get a failing grade.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Residents aren’t opposed to changes that make things better; only those that make things worse”. Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions that impact you . Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars helps cover expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well-informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu item
Those who live on a street with suites, but do not own
or rent, prefer strong legalization rules. Not only is Scenario D
much preferred overall, but particularly so for those who live on
a street.
Observation: Urban Systems states “the relatively large number of
respondents who selected Scenario A understands
that if the regulations are too imposing, it will not
encourage compliance and legalization of existing
(and even new) secondary suites, and will not help
with housing affordability in Oak Bay.”
Conclusion: As the question does not ask WHY respondents replied
as they did, where is the evidence for this statement?
Observation: The OCP directive was to explore how secondary suites could be
regulated in Oak Bay without mentioning policies and
regulations rather than if secondary suites should be permitted.
Urban Systems’ Secondary Suite Survey’s stated objective
“is intended to identify the policies and regulations necessary for
considering secondary suites."However, this survey leaps beyond
that intent to say Secondary Suites are being considered.
Conclusion: The Consultant who designed the Secondary Suites Survey
did not read or understand the OCP Survey or even his
own company’s stated objective. This is a serious breech
of, if not complete disregard for, community trust. This
breech would have been corrected if Council had more than
one day to examine the questionnaire (before publication).
Recommendation:
Dr. Wilmut suggests that the breech could be corrected,
once the policies and regulations are ready for approval,
by way of a Community Survey with one two-part question:
A) I support suite legalization. The OCP key issues such as
tree protection, parking traffic, noise and neighbourhood
character have been addressed.
OR
B) I do not support suite legalization. The OCP key issues
have not been addressed.
Dr. Wilmut’s Overall Conclusion:
"My observations illustrate serious flaws and omissions
in Urban Systems’ Survey Summary. As a benchmark,
if a student taking a university statistics course
submitted such material, I assure the reader they would
get a failing grade.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Residents aren’t opposed to changes that make things better; only those that make things worse”. Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions that impact you . Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars helps cover expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well-informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu item