Valid – 1,857 – Huge Win
We only needed 1183, but had 1857, verified, as reported by the county, as of Feb 27th, 2020.
Facts and Notes
- 90-100% – the number that most volunteers reported of homes that signed. That is correct. Almost every home that we knocked on, signed the referendum petition. Some volunteers, in a given session reached 100% in the period they knocked that day/night. It seems like the lowest percentage is around 90%. Keep in mind it was hard to find people home sometimes, so this number is purely on the homes that “answered” the door.
- 10-15 minutes – The average perceived time per signature. We estimated 400-500 community services hours put into this over a 6 week span by over 32 people collectively.
- Opposition Flyer: Very few said no because of the opposition flyer. Actually, we believe that flyer helped this referendum, and caused people to self-educate more. (Thank you to those who sponsored the flyer. We wont say names here, but it is pretty easy to research who owns the PO box referred to in the flyer.)
“Finished <XYZ>…. some were disappointed when the land was sold and the people who purchased property had their home values go up, but the others didn’t get an increase in value of their homes. It is interesting to hear the stories of the different areas.”
“<XYZ> was a much more welcoming neighborhood. I learned a lot about their own trail issues.”
“I even knocked on one of the sides that tried to buy a trail a few years ago!! One enthusiastically signed the petition. A lot felt it was unfair that their neighborhood couldn’t sell, but the city councilman’s could. Some felt the same set of rules should apply and maybe a committee could be formed?”
“My experience has been the same as yours. If people would answer their door and talk to me, 90%+ signed.”
“The most common comment was that they support the trails and that the people knew they were buying a home on the trail system. I didn’t have anyone not sign. Two out of the first 35 refused initially but after talking a while they signed. Both supported the referendum but for family or political reasons they were reluctant at first. One’s sister lives on the trail.”
“Many I talked to said that they felt that a decision to remove trails should be a decision that involves all Highland residents rather than just individual neighborhoods.”
“I also had the experience that most people signed.”
“There was also at least one person who wanted to sign but didn’t because she was afraid of her name being made public to Wimbleton neighbors. So I probably had 85% to 90% success there. Most people there said that the neighborhood trails were a selling feature when they purchased their homes, and not just the trails in their immediate neighborhood. They said that they used the trails in Wimbleton to visit the park, etc. Several commented that they wished the city would do a better job with trail maintenance. “
“I walked part of <ABC> on Saturday. I had really good success there, nearly 100%. I only had one person not sign”
“Several who were familiar with the issue commented that they didn’t like that a previous city council member voted on a issue that benefited him. Others said that those who live near trails and open space in Highland purchased their homes knowing that the area was there and they shouldn’t be trying to take that away from other Highland residents. All in all, I had really good success. The biggest problem was just finding people who were home when I knocked doors.”
“I also saw 98% of the people sign the petition who answered their door. I believe about 90% of the people want and feel we need trails in Highland. At least half of the people use the trails on a regular basis. I would guess that 80% or more of people 60+ that I talked to use the trails. The only person I have found who pushed back on the referendum was a family that lives next to a trail and had bad experiences with vandalism to their fence and dogs and their owners. I found that almost every one was upset with the way the city council is handling the terms of the sale of the property by not addressing the serious flaws in the proposal and motion.”