2020 Neighbor Survey Data Available Via Expanded Online Portal

Press release from City of Gainesville

The City of Gainesville has expanded dataGNV, part of its online open data portal, to include data collected during its recently completed Neighbor Survey. Neighbors can locate survey data and analysis reports through the new Neighbor Feedback button on dataGNV.

The survey was designed to gather input from neighbors to improve City programs and services and help determine long-term planning and investment decisions. The City secured ETC Institute of Olathe, Kansas to administer the survey earlier this year. ETC compiled the survey data in a 157-page comprehensive-findings report and issued two documents of cross-tabular data (by key demographics and by district). ETC data can be accessed through the dataGNV page.

“The portal is designed with transparency of survey data for neighbors in mind,” said City Manager Lee Feldman. “In the future, data from annual surveys will be added to dataGNV to help us better understand the priorities and concerns of our neighbors over time,” he said.

Earlier this year, more than 7,000 neighbors from the City’s four commission districts were asked to rate the quality of City programs and services. A total of 1,042 neighbors responded by mail or online. At least 250 responses were obtained from each district. Of those surveyed, most neighbors responded with a high opinion of Gainesville in these areas: healthcare; educational opportunities; public safety; mobility; parks, recreation and cultural affairs; and quality of city services.

Gainesville was rated as an “excellent” or “good” place to live by 83 percent of those who shared an opinion. “Excellent” or “good” also was used by 79 percent to describe Gainesville as a place to raise children, and by 71 percent as a place to work.

Notable was feedback collected about the City’s overall response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of surveyed neighbors who shared an opinion, 64 percent were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the City’s response, compared to 35 percent with the state’s coronavirus response.

Respondents also listed priorities for City leaders to consider during the next two years. For example, neighbors indicated that quality of life, including overall cost of living, should be addressed. The availability of employment opportunities, electricity service, and water service were also specified as priorities by neighbors.

Career-resource website Zippia recently ranked Gainesville as the best city in the state for working families based on employment, housing, daycare, and income, among other factors.

“Next year, we want to gauge sentiment about the City’s emergency preparedness efforts, as well as get feedback from neighbors about City policies,” said Feldman.


  • What’s wrong with Gainesville?

    14% determines how the other 86% live their lives. That 14% are the tree huggin’, flag burnin’, my right to free speech overrides your right, ban plastic straws because they suck and guns kill people knuckleheads who don’t have the knowledge or the common sense to know better.
    864 out of 7000 said Gainesville was a “good” or “excellent” place to live.
    823 said it was a good place to raise children.
    739 said it was a good place to work.

    Notice a trend here? Of special note is how the city omitted the percentages of the poor sample size who were disappointed with the high “overall” costs of living in Gainesville. Also conveniently omitted are the number of people who are disappointed with the high costs of electricity and water.
    Should we conclude that the intentional omission of that data set is because the numbers would skew towards 100% disappointment? What can be determined is that the city of Gainesville has once again shown it’s racial and socioeconomic bias towards the community it claims to serve.
    The other conclusion we can make given their past action, or more appropriately, inaction, is the high utility rates and costs of living…taxes, will never be addressed by the current group of so called “leaders.”

  • >