Coop Strategies Executive Summary[1]

8/14/2019 Coop Strategies Executive Summary[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/coop-strategies-executive-summary1 1/5

Study of RegionalCooperative Strategies:

Executive Summary

Miami Valley Regional Planning

Commission

2006

For more information regarding this report, contact:

David Jones

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Wright State University

3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy.

Dayton OH 45435-0001

Phone: (937) 775-2941

Fax: (937) 775-2422



1

2006

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Study of Regional Cooperative Strategies

Executive Summary

Wright State University’s Center for Urban and Public Affairs (CUPA) was commissioned

by the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) to conduct a study on regionalcooperation strategies in the Miami Valley. The strategies were prepared by staff at the

MVRPC to accompany a DVD that had been prepared regarding smart growth.

Several data collection techniques were used for this project. A telephone survey was

conducted of the general population to examine their perceptions of the Miami Valley. Thissame survey was also conducted with Miami Valley government, non-profit and business

leaders to assess their opinions on these same topics. The same survey instrument wasused for each survey, allowing for direct comparison between leaders and the general

population. CUPA interviewed 647 individuals from the general population and another 155local businesses, managers, non-profit and government leaders.

A series of focus groups were also held to gather input about strategies for improving theMiami Valley. CUPA staff asked focus groups participants to comment on six growth

strategies and whether they believed each strategy was feasible for the Miami Valley. Thefirst set of focus groups was held with Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission board

members, representing government, business, and education in the region. A second series

of focus groups was held in various locations with residents around the Miami Valley. Focusgroup questions were identical, allowing for direct comparison between regional leaders

and the general population.

The telephone survey asked both the general population and business leaders to comment

on their reasons for moving to the Miami Valley. Generally, both groups responded similarlyto each topic. Respondents were read a list of eight attributes and were asked to rank eachas Very Important, Important, Not Very Important or Not at all Important in terms of why

they chose the Miami Valley as a place to live. Both groups felt Quality of Housing, HousingAffordability, Quality of Schools, Job Opportunities and Educational Opportunities were the

most important reasons for choosing the Miami Valley as a place to live (See page 2 fortable).

The Greater Dayton Region - Gauging Satisfaction Level Respondents were also asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with these attributes as

they relate to the Miami Valley. Both the General Population and Regional Leaders ranked

Distance for Family and Friends, Quality of Housing, Educational Opportunities, HousingAffordability and Traffic on Roads and Highways very highly in terms of satisfaction with

Miami Valley.



2



96.1% 96.1% 95.5%91.6%

94.4%92.9%

88.4%

95.5%

90.7%

98.1%

76.5%

67.7%

86.6%88.4%

76.2%

71.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Quality of

Housing

Housing

Affordability

Quality of

Schools (In the

region)

Educational

Opportunities

Job Opportunities Distance from

Family/Friends

Government

Services

Traffic

Respondents who believe that each topic is Very Important or Important in terms

of why they moved to the Miami Valley

General Population Regional Leaders

More than 90 percent of the respondents in both surveys indicated that job opportunitieswere an important reason for their choosing the Miami Valley as a place to live. However,

when asked to rate their satisfaction with job opportunities in the Miami Valley, both groups

were least satisfied with job opportunities, with 61.1 percent of general populationrespondents and 60.1 percent of regional leaders indicating that they are satisfied with job

opportunities in the Miami Valley. A complete list of responses to this question is providedin the table on page three.



3

2006

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Study of Regional Cooperative Strategies

88.8%

97.4%

80.1%

94.8%

68.8%71.9%

85.8%89.0%

61.1% 60.1%

89.8%

94.5%

67.0%

83.9%

73.4%

84.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Quality of

Housing

Housing

Affordability

Quality of

Schools (In the

region)

Educational

Opportunities

Job

Opportunities

Distance from

Family and

Friends

Government

Services

Traffic on

Roads and

Highways

Percentage of respondents who are satisfied with the Miami Valley in

the following aspects:


Though satisfied with many aspects of the Miami Valley, the level of satisfaction with the

economy in the Miami Valley was markedly lower. Less than half of general population

respondents (43.4 percent) and less than one-third of regional leaders (34.7 percent) were

satisfied with the economy in the Miami Valley.

Local Reaction to Draft Growth Strategies

Telephone survey respondents and focus group participants were also asked to commenton six proposed strategies for regional cooperation in the Miami Valley. Each strategy was

worded carefully by the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC), and

respondents were presented each option in an identical manner. CUPA made nomodifications to the presented material. It should be noted that several regional leaders

indicated that they believed draft strategies were worded in a way that solicited a positiveresponse.

While support for many of the regional strategies discussed on the telephone surveysappears high (with only one initiative receiving less than 50 percent support), regionalleaders expressed hesitancy towards supporting some of these strategies.

Support for a region-wide alternative transportation program was the highest among the

strategies that were discussed, while support for creating a public middle class school

system was the lowest.



4



66.2%72.1%

77.6% 79.2% 77.0% 77.0%

62.7%67.4%

55.3%48.7%

88.6%85.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Regional Tax

Base Sharing

Comprehensive

Regional Land

Use Planning

Fair-Share

Affordable

Housing

Elected

Regional

Government

Creating a

Public Middle

Class School

System

Region-wide

Alternative

Transportation

Program

Approval of Draft Strategies


Many respondents advised MVRPC to take small steps in approaching strategies overall.

One general public focus group respondent indicated that the general public would be likely

to support an initiative if “they saw small successes, and leaders tried to expand upon thesesuccesses.” This approach was supported throughout several of the general populationfocus groups and local leader’s focus groups.

In general, the telephone survey respondents were more positive and displayed positive

feelings about the regional draft strategies. On the other hand, in discussing the issues morein-depth as in the focus group, the results showed decreasing agreement towards each

issue. As one focus group participant put it, “the devil is in the details.”

After analyzing the evidence of the focus groups, it is evident to CUPA staff that focusgroup comments on the feasibility of effectively engaging a regional cooperative approach

are being made within the constraints of existing structures – political, economic and social.Such limitations must be addressed and perhaps more appropriate structures established tomove the conversation to the next level.

Documents

Coop Strategies Executive Summary[1]