I am a member of the Dolphin Sands Ratepayers Association (DSRA).
The committee has published on the DSRA website a copy of its submission to council on the Cambria Green rezoning application. The submission is said to be based on the views expressed by the 71 respondents who participated in a survey conducted by DSRA.
The committee advised that after the completion of the survey it would not consult members on the submission to be forwarded to Council.
Having read the submission I wish, as a single respondent to the survey, to make it known to all respondents that the submission supports the SAP with amendments. I strongly disagree with this outcome and encourage members of DSRA that are not aligned with this decision to send an immediate email to Council divorcing yourself from the submission.
It does not in my view reflect the views of the community overall and does not accurately reflect the survey results.
The submission appears to be predicated on the assumption that the SAP will be approved and seeks some amendments and assurances. The reality is that a substantial part of the community is not supportive of the SAP proposal and I think it is reasonable to say that sentiment is reflected in the survey results.
Mitty Williams
Cambria Drive
Dolphin Sands
Hi Robyn,
I agree that the results were unambiguous. You are right in the benchmark for acceptance/rejection by the DSRA is the missing link, and I would say that there was not the time to develop and gain community agreement (or at least recognition) on a benchmark in time for the Cambria submission. I think that's' why Brett, Mitty and I can read the same data set and reach differing conclusions. Its not a criticism of the committee or the methodology, I think it was an impossible task in the circumstances. The 6 weeks was just too short a time in this case to negotiate a benchmark with the members, especially in the heat of the debate.
As well as the benchmarks, there needs to be an appreciation of how the undecideds/neutrals are allocated or treated. In some of the examples above there is 30-40% "neutral/undecided" that will affect most benchmark targets. Under a 20% difference benchmark, 40% Agree/20% Disagree with 40% neutral/undecided would see a position reached despite there not being majority support at face value. Similarly, the 66% target can fail where there is clear majority support, as in the 3 examples you provided where there was a 20% neutral/undecided. Neither are good outcomes. Benchmarks need a level of nuancing as they can deliver poor outcomes when used as a blunt instrument.
The discussion around the constitution may help. I share your concerns around the 66% target as being too high and a small, well organised cabal can effectively block anything. How abstentions are handled would also need to be figured into any benchmark. I don't have any answers I'm afraid, but look forward to the discussion as its an important one.
I also agree that the DSRA should be providing the representative voice, but at the moment the members aren't agreed on what level of agreement constitutes the representative bit. Its an important conversation for us to have as I reckon the SAP is a done deal (Tassal Mk II) and there will be plenty of DA's for Discretionary Use that will require DSRA representation.
Thanks again for all of your work on the survey and the submission, it is appreciated.