Scott Smith survey and trust

I heard someone talking about this bit of interesting information coming from mayoral candidate Scott Smith that was being passed around the internets today. Its apparently part 3 of an email thing that he has been sending out. I didn't know about this before now, but I do have to say that the results are interesting. Sure, they are far less than scientifically accurate, but in a lot of ways they sure seem to reflect some of the prevailing opinions out there.

Going back to the beginning of his discussion I'd like to comment on a few things:

• Smith says that 38.5% said that they do not trust the city to spend as promised. And another 26.2% said they were unsure. He adds them up to say that "64.7% of the survey participants saying that they have questions about the way things are done." Perhaps I wouldn't go as far about those unsure folks, but the people who took his survey sure don't seem to be happy with the status quo. I think that Mesa tends to be a little cynical, but this does seem like a problem... that is, of course, if his numbers can be trusted.

• Wow. The the average rating on the health of the city was a 1.82 out of 5. That is a lot of people voting 1 which Smith defined as a crisis. I wonder what Griswold and Walters think when they see things like that? I am sure they would say that this is "merely a perception problem" but in this case, isn't perception really reality? Unless they can come out and say the city is not in a crisis, I don't know how they don't come off sounding defensive against this point if Smith starts pounding on them with it.

• Finally, at least these people are consistent. How do you get out of a crisis? You “Find Economic Opportunities” which Smith says ranked as the number 1 priority of the survey participants. I am glad to see that people are willing to do more than just lament on the current situation. We certainly need someone who is looking for solutions.

I am not saying that anything that Scott Smith has released represents any sort of scientific reality, but it is interesting in the realm of putting forth a discussion. Will Griswold and Walters be able to mount a credible defense against this?