Clyde Hill News: Public safety, budget are top resident concerns in city survey
Also: Election efforts to distract from actual problems by making stuff up
Clyde Hill residents value public safety and want a balanced budget ahead of more infrastructure investment, according to a memo the city administration published on Friday summarizing its survey of residents.
In addition to a top ten “key takeaways” list, the administration also provided a 58-page recap of residents’ responses. The survey is part of Clyde Hill’s comprehensive plan process. The administration has spent ~$168,000 on the process so far.
More detail and context on making sense of this survey below, along with a survey of inconvenient (but well-documented) truths and the inventions that some people are making up to distract from them this election season.
A warm welcome to new readers! If someone forwarded you this newsletter, subscribing is free and easy!
Disclaimer: while I am a councilmember on the Clyde Hill City Council, I write this newsletter in my capacity as an individual resident. Any opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the position of the city. City information and references here are from public sources. I welcome email responses — and if the topic is about city business I will respond from my city email account.
222 survey responses
Starting back in June, Clyde Hill’s administration sent invitations to the ~1,100 households in Clyde Hill and the ~3,000 residents, asking them to participate in the Comprehensive Plan Community Survey (link).
Clyde Hill’s administration has just published, as part of the packet for next week’s city council meeting, results of the 222 survey responses the city received.
The data
Residents and council members have expressed concern about data integrity and the survey at public meetings. For example, residents noted that anyone (not just residents) could respond to the survey, and that the same person could submit multiple survey responses without limit.
Back in August, the administration responded to these concerns, citing cost and stating:
This survey was never intended to be statistically valid and we all need to look at the results, I think, with a certain amount of… grain of salt to know that, you know, people taking the survey are the people that want to be taking the survey….
We’re not necessarily reaching all portions of the community so the results that we see out of it — it might not be completely representative of how the community feels.
So, I just wanted to put that out there as a caveat. (link to video; excerpt starts at 24m30)
“Loaded questions” in the survey were another concern from residents.
For example, the survey asked about relative priorities for infrastructure investments and improvement, but did not offer a “this one is not important” option. Residents responded to “Which of the following elements should be prioritized by the City when developing a community streetscape aesthetic?” with comments like
The "streetscape" is fine as it is. We have run a budget deficit the past four years. We don't need to spend more money we don't have on streetscape!
and “No. Just no. Stop. Who asked you to do this? Just stop.”
Similarly, the survey asks about schools; city government has very little to do with any of the schools in Clyde Hill, which are either private or the responsibility of Bellevue School District.
In the survey results, you can find support for just about anything. For example: “Dock where we can pick up or drop off boating passengers” (p48, link). Clyde Hill doesn’t border Lake Washington; this suggestion appears to be out of scope for the city.
“Key Takeaways”
Here are the “key takeaways” from the survey, according to the administration’s summary memo:
The majority of respondents mostly or strongly resonate with the Clyde Hill Vision Statement.
Respondents predominantly love Clyde Hill for its safety and views, although many would like to see enhanced public safety and additional view protection.
A majority of respondents feel that Clyde Hill has work to do when it comes to planning for disaster resiliency, providing housing options for seniors, and affordable housing.
Respondents are generally in favor of maintaining current minimum lot sizes.
If new housing must be added in Clyde Hill, respondents strongly prefer construction of single family homes over higher density housing. There is some support for adding ADUs and senior housing units, especially over other alternatives.
When it comes to infrastructure, respondents favored investment in sidewalks, bike paths, open spaces, and trails.
Respondents would rather see new parks in Clyde Hill and community walking trails over other kinds of City park investments. Improved communication about offerings was also highly valued. Many respondents expressed parks and recreational opportunities are lower on their priority list.
Respondents strongly favored adding landscaping and bike/pedestrian amenities over other types of streetscape improvements.
A majority of respondents signaled support for residential design standards in some capacity.
Respondents raised concerns about balancing the City’s budget when considering investment priorities for infrastructure, city parks, recreational opportunities, and streetscape aesthetic improvements.
See for yourself
You can read the administration’s two-page summary memo here (link), the longer “All Responses Summary” of the survey here (link), and the project cost update here (link).
Inventing make-believe problems to distract from real problems
Making sense of public claims and allegations is more important than ever, especially over the next few weeks as candidates and their supporters work hard to win over voters in advance of this November’s election.
Of course there’s a lot of innuendo, dog-whistles (link), and misinformation “out there.” And of course, you and I would never fall for any of it.
Inconvenient truths
Over the last two years, Clyde Hill residents have faced many well-documented truths about their local government, including:
Unsustainable budget deficits.
A lack of trust between police officers and the mayor and city administrator including a public letter from the union representing Clyde Hill’s police officers that alleged “dereliction of duty” by the Mayor and City Administrator (link).
Code enforcement issues that, according to residents and councilmembers, reflect a lack of code clarity and enforcement consistency (link).
Continued surprises and changes, as well as increases in scope and costs, surrounding the city’s comprehensive plan.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
Clyde Hill residents have also been subject to many efforts to mislead them with false claims, distracting attention from genuine problems the administration has struggled to address. For example:
At a public meeting, contradicting Bellevue’s Fire Department, some residents offered conspiracy theories and fear-mongering, claiming that a proposed change would reduce safety. A councilmember called out the “purely politically-motivated, neighbor against neighbor vendetta” (link).
The administration drafted a proposal limiting flag poles, flag sizes, and flags in Clyde Hill (link) as part of an effort they initiated and that an administration official later described as a “debacle” in a city email (link). A resident running an anonymous and unsigned blog attempted to blame the whole thing on Cm Steve Friedman, with a post titled “Councilmember Friedman tried to limit residents’ ability to fly the American Flag.”
An administration official opposed a Clyde Hill ballot initiative (“Prop 1”) and provided the community a bogus cost estimate. The city council, trying make sure the community had accurate information and neither supporting nor opposing the initiative, determined the estimate was “inappropriate, non-factual, and thoroughly political” (link).
These misinformation efforts continue this election season — for example, making bold claims of misrepresentation and not responding to requests for facts (link). It is so easy to jump to conclusions.
I strongly encourage you to reach out directly to the candidates and to elected officials to ask questions and understand their different points of view.
Thank you for reading! Please forward and share with your friends and neighbors, and if you are not already getting this newsletter, subscribing is both easy and free.
Dean Hachamovitch