From time to time, PVRRG will conduct polls of interest to the community, and in the spirit of transparency, the results will be shown on this website on this tab and on the tab to the relevant issue.
The polls will be publicized on NextDoor.com as well as to our mailing list. If you'd like to receive these notifications, please sign up for the mailing list here.
2018 Poll on PVE Election and Measure E
Poll open until May 18
In the April 2018 Election, voters approved Measure E by a small margin (130 votes). To gain insights into residents' perceptions on the issues, PVrrg has launched a poll that should take less than four minutes to complete. It is confidential, and we hope that whether voters voted "yes"or "no", we welcome all perspectives. To take the survey, click here.
2017 Poll on PVE Election and Measure D (“Parcel/Fire Tax”)
poll closed April 2017
In the March 2017 election in PVE, Measure D “Parcel/Fire Tax failed to pass (61.2% voting “yes” were less than the 2/3 vote required). As such, we tried to gauge insights from the public on the reasons it did not pass, and to understand what modifications might garner greater public support.
All responses are confidential and the results are published for the public and the City of Palos Verdes Estates to see on this website. The survey takes less than two minutes (click here to take the poll). The poll was taken between March 13, 2017 and April 10, 2017.
Here are some highlights from the 126 respondents:
If a new Measure D used the growth in property taxes to bring down the parcel tax so that it goes away over some period of time that is less than 12 years, with no across the board cuts in Police and Fire, but holding growth in expenses to inflation, would you support this New Version of the Parcel Tax?
60% -- Yes
8% -- No
33% -- Don’t know – depends on the specifics
That only 8% said "no" to a modified Measure D, suggests that a modified Measure D should gain support of more than 2/3 of the voters.
The poll responses give some insights on what aspects of Measure D caused those voting "no" to oppose Measure D:
It also shows that there is some concern even among those voting "yes" and that a modified version might address some of those concerns as well:
For the full report including 39 specific comments collected from the "no voters" and 25 comments from the "yes" voters, click here. The poll will close on March 27, and the report will be updated and made available to the City Council and to the public.
2017 PVHA Election Feedback Poll
poll closed March 2017
The recent election for Palos Verdes Homes Association Board of Directors (held on January 10, 2017) fell short of generating a necessary quorum – only 1589 out of 5420 homes voted. As such, the PVHA Board decided not to open and count the ballots, and appointed themselves to serve another year. It has now been 8 years since there was a valid election, and three of the five directors have never been elected.
John Harbison wrote a Guest Commentary in the Peninsula News on January 26, 2017, asking the PVHA to extend the election, mail new ballots, and seek judicial intervention to lower the quorum threshold from 50% -- thus bringing back a democratically elected leadership to PVHA (click here). PVHA Board countered with a Guest Commentary in the February 2nd edition, declaring that the vast majority of those not voting had done so out of support for the current Board (click here). PVHA Board voted on January 24th not to take any further action in this election.
This poll was intended to shed some light on public sentiment on the matter, since the PVHA has refused to open the ballots received and refused to disclose to the public how those voting feel about who should be their representatives.
Anyone who is a member of Palos Verdes Homes Association was invited to take the poll-- whether or not you voted, and whether or not you support the incumbents. Our hope is that all eligible voters would participate.
The Poll was confidential and took place between February 16, 2017 and March 17, 2017. There were 88 Respondents, and all but one said they were PVE residents. 89% of the respondents had voted in the recent PVHA Election, and the others provided input on why they did not vote.
The Survey shows that members are deeply concern over most aspects of the PVHA Board's performance:
Respondents rated the helpfulness of differ sources of information on the election:
Respondents want to see concrete actions by the Board to improve the election process:
Malaga Cove Homeowners Poll
poll closed February 2017
In February 2017, the Malaga Cove Homes Association conducted a survey of its members to understand how they feel about local roadway safety issues. The majority of the survey respondents support the Roadway Safety Guiding Principles Platform authored by PVRSR. In a letter to the city, MCHA leadership wrote:
"...Indeed, as stated above, nearly two-thirds of our members who took our survey want MCHA to write a letter of support for the Platform. Hence, we are stating here that MCHA recommends that City leaders integrate the Platform’s principles, as well as the attached MCHA member feedback, into your efforts to improve roadway safety in PVE."
Read the letter and endorsement here.
The MCHA did a great job with the survey. It was detailed and obtained meaningful responses from their membership. Their summary:
"Here are a few of the survey’s key findings:
- 21% want our roadways to be more bike-friendly (58% disagree)
- 55% want our roadways to be more pedestrian-friendly (21% disagree)
- 36% want our roadways to be more motorist-friendly (25% disagree)
- 66% want the police to reconfigure their staffing to put more emphasis on ticketing motorists and cyclists who exceed the speed limit (19% disagree)
- 70% want the police to reconfigure their staffing to put more emphasis on ticketing
- motorists and cyclists who run stop signs (19% disagree)
- 39% want cyclists re-directed to quieter side streets (36% disagree)
- 65% support the Roadway Safety Guiding Principles Platform (9% disagree)"
See details of the survey here, including instructive comments from individual respondents.