My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1998 Residential Survey
Roseville
>
Studies, Task Forces, Special Committees, Reports
>
Surveys
>
1998 Residential Survey
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 12:33:44 PM
Creation date
5/23/2012 3:29:10 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
481
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Roseville residents were asked a number of questions about their community. The quality of life <br />was examined in detail, particularly focusing upon the aspects of the city which residents thought <br />wcre high quality au�d Iow quality. Perspectives on the future were also examined. <br />Connectedness, and its meaning to residents, was raised in several contexts. Next, the focus <br />changed to the neighborhood, where residents were asked to evaluate myriad aspects of their <br />immediate area. <br />Quality of Life <br />Residents were asked for a benchmark judgment: <br />Haw would you rate the quali.ty of lif'e in Roseville <br />— excellent, good, only fair, or povr? <br />Ninety-eight percent rated their quality of life as either "excellent" or "good:" <br />F XCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6U% <br />G�OD ........... .............. ........... ... 38°/a <br />ONLY F?.IR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% <br />POOR...... ........................ .......... 0% <br />D4N'T KNO W/REFti SED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% <br />In fact, a solid sixty percent labeled their quality of life as "excellent." This rating had increased <br />by eleven percent since the 1990 study and ranked as the highest within the Metropolitan Area. <br />There were no statistically signiiicant subgroup differences noted. <br />Residents who gave less than an "excellent" rating werc asked a fallow-up query: <br />What change or improvement would i1 take fnr yozs to <br />raise your rating from _ to (NEXT <br />HIGHESTJ? <br />Eight percent wan�ed the pace of development "slowed:" <br />NO ANSWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% <br />LOWER TAXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% <br />REDUCE CR1ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% <br />IMPROVE CITY GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% <br />SLOVJ DEVEL�YMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% <br />LESS TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3°�0 <br />MORE PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% <br />i�7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.