Data distributed by Gold Canyon Community Inc. indicates the proposed results of the community survey are hoped to be used to develop a Gold Canyon Plan that will ultimately be placed in the Pinal County Comprehensive Plan.
As the attachment (below) states, the ADOBE Board of the Gold Canyon ADOBE organization has rejected the questions and the survey process per se. The attachment clarifies the reasonings that led to this rejection.
Dear David Coward, Gold Canyon Community Inc. treasurer:
The ADOBE Board met on Sept. 20. On the meeting agenda was the issue of the Gold Canyon community survey questions that were forwarded to ADOBE by GGCI a few days ago.
The ADOBE Board voted with the result being the rejection of the survey process and questions.
Before addressing the matter regarding the reasons for the rejection, the ADOBE Board wishes to express again that ADOBE — the largest Gold Canyon community organization in Gold Canyon, “The Voice and Heart of Gold Canyon since 1989” — was never asked to participate in the development of the survey questions.
Salient factors raised by the ADOBE Board were presented in both comment and question formats. Accordingly:
- The survey asks people who do not reside in Gold Canyon to answer the survey. ADOBE believes the survey questions should only be completed by Gold Canyon residents.
- The ADOBE Board sees no urgency in getting these surveys done quickly — in a rush — in the latter part of 2021, with the theory of meeting some unnecessary university class deadline of January 2022. The ADOBE Board proposes there will be other university classes of like nature. What’s the hurry? Nothing is occurring in Gold Canyon that supports this rapidity to completion. If a survey is to be done, let it be done right without such fieriness. Haste is indeed waste. ADOBE believes if the survey is to be conducted — if it to be done at all — may it be done professionally and correctly for the sake of the residents of Gold Canyon and not for certain individuals or groups with drop-dead imaginary deadlines.
- For the record, some years ago, when there was another District 5 Pinal County supervisor — at a major supervisor-citizen meeting in Gold Canyon, the question was presented whether Gold Canyon should follow the type of community plan that was developed for San Tan. It was decided by the then-supervisor, ADOBE, as well as many other Gold Canyon citizens they did not want to follow the San Tan Plan because of community complications that arose in that plan. But rather, it was decided to keep the process of a Gold Canyon Plan in line with the standards that were structured many years ago — a microcosm of community citizen involvement who would discuss and review the community plans of Gold Canyon with ultimate recommendations to the county board of supervisors. Thus, extensive and fair citizen-wide involvement. Such as the decision to keep a helicopter pad out of Gold Canyon. A GCCI representative at the last BOS meeting stated the citizens of Gold Canyon were asking for the Gold Canyon Plan to be like the San Tan Plan. Says who? The reason for this lengthy comment is because this survey, like the recent request for the San Tan Plan by a few, does not involve the people, the masses, and that, states the ADOBE Board is an error of mega community proportions.
- The survey uses words that could be classified by some in the context it is presented as racist or discriminatory (Question 11.).
- Question 3 does not allow sufficient room to make a comment for the reason someone has moved to Gold Canyon.
- It is ADOBE’s understanding that the questions — with massaging — were taken from surveys created for the metropolitan area of Battle Creek, Michigan, and in part from the city of Apache Junction, Arizona. Neither of these cities compare to the multiple aspects of Gold Canyon, both in population or culture. This may be the reason why so many of these questions were, in the board’s opinion, in and of themselves questionable at a minimum and not relevant at a maximum. ADOBE respectfully suggests that the whole process start over, and that would include developing questions and survey processes that are more relevant to the community of Gold Canyon. This includes — most critical — the reviews and comments of the “people” not individuals or groups with personal concepts and opinions.
- The overwhelming demographic questions may be, and most likely will be, overly offensive to some Gold Canyon residents, causing some, perhaps many not to respond to the survey.
- Question 2, what does it matter from where someone has moved from? The ADOBE Board finds no relevancy to this question whatsoever.
- Question 4 is overly personal that some may interpret as an attempt to use the survey as a tool to discriminate against certain areas of the community.
- Question 10 is a question that could easily identify who the responder of the survey may be based upon public records.
- ADOBE postulates that if a community survey — as the header of the survey states — is indeed a community survey, not a mining limited survey, then in fact everyone in the community should have a survey to complete. Other than that, it is not a community survey. Some may say that would be too costly; ADOBE asks, what price excellence? If a survey cannot be done correctly, then it should not be done at all. As the Holy Writ states, “Before you start a project count the cost.”
- Why is an alleged community survey conducted when the vast majority of the part-time land/home owners of Gold Canyon are not here in Gold Canyon? The large influx of Gold Canyon part-time land/home owners arrive in January, not October. If a community survey is to be initiated let it be at a time when the vast majority of Gold Canyon land/housing owners are here in Gold Canyon.
- From the view of the ADOBE Board, the whole process of the near sale of land for industry between Peralta Trails and Entrada del Oro turned into a major debacle because the “people” were not involved in the process; but rather, only by a few in private gatherings/negotiations/meetings with personal/group agendas. Let’s not have another debacle with this survey — please — if the survey is to be done, then it should be done right by having the people having ownership in the process. Other than that, the ADOBE Board proposes, there will be faulty and invalid results. Let the people have proprietorship in the totality of the project since it is their lives, their culture and their community that is at stake.
- Question 16 should have an open space for personal comment as to the why of the answer. The question as is, is very subjective.
- Question 15 is poorly worded when the paragraph states these items “threaten” — psychologically directive to a certain response — the quality of life, then tells the responder you can answer ‘No Threat.’ ADOBE suggests that many of the questions are written to extrapolate a certain response based on their psychological structure. Another one poorly written is Question 21, when it asks what a person rates concerning the “appearance” of a roadway. Can we say dark, black, gray, bumpy? Poorly worded.
- Question 22, what does visual character mean?
- Question 24 is poorly written. It is axiomatic that no one can get around Gold Canyon without a vehicle. Question should not even exist in the survey; the question is self-evident.
- Question 29 should have space for a written answer. That’s a large question that can have a large answer.
- Question 33 should have the statement “Other” added to the list.
- In the words of one longstanding ADOBE member, paraphrased — We need to start all over back to the very beginning of this survey process and do it right. Get all the people involved as it should be with all things that happen in our wonderful community. Meet with the people, talk to the people, let them know what is going and why, and let them help develop proper questions and the processes involved. This survey as is, is going nowhere. We need to start all over; from scratch.
- With the Gold Canyon Chamber of Commerce now formed, the board recommends that the chamber also be involved in the whole process — from scratch — so the Gold Canyon businesses and community in general are appropriately represented.
Thank you Mr. Coward for allowing the ADOBE Board to respond to the survey with our sincere comments, questions, and suggestions.
Editor’s note: ADOBE President Glenn A. Walp wrote the above on behalf of the Gold Canyon ADOBE Board: Rick Hardina, Maggie Trimble, Bunny Butler, Bob Harris and Glenn A. Walp.