A few days after the firefighter union wrapped up their fear-based campaign to ask Edmonds voters to approve annexation to the regional fire authority, a second fear-based campaign began. It has a much friendlier catch phrase – Keep Edmonds Vibrant. But it’s good old-fashioned fear mongering none the less. Their leading website message is “Frances Anderson, our beloved parks, and other assets will be on the chopping block in perpetuity, unless we identify and pursue new and sustained revenue sources to run the kind of thriving city we want to live in.” Should you be concerned about the work of the four individuals running this campaign – probably not. But you should know the context that this campaign is happening in, some basics about public opinion surveys, and the issues with the technology used to compile survey results.
Context: Two City-led efforts predated this effort by Keep Edmonds Vibrant (KEV). We spent a year defining the vision of the future Edmonds as part of the Comprehensive plan 2024 update. Secondly, Mayor Rosen did four key things.
1) Appoint a task force of financial professionals called the Blue Ribbon Commission to analyze why the fiscal emergency developed and define the path to financial stability.
2) Conduct a public opinion survey of a representative sample of the residents of Edmonds. The goal of this survey was to gauge Edmonds residents’ priorities and levels of satisfaction with city services. It was an important element in the new “budgeting by priorities” effort in Edmonds. The report of that survey is on this city web page: 2024 community survey results report . It’s important to note this report is representative of the sentiment of the whole city.
3) Appoint an ad hoc Community Advisory Panel to priority rank the initiatives in the mayor’s proposed budget.
4) Conduct five focus group meetings with involved residents to elicit ideas on both revenue generation and expense reductions. These four efforts influenced the mayor’s proposed 2025/2026 budget. The City Council held public hearings, debated budget amendments and finalized the budget in December 2024. For Edmonds, it was a more participatory process than past administrations used.
Survey Methods: The KEV survey is a self-selected survey (as opposed to a random survey, statistically valid sample survey, or other survey method) It will not produce results that are representative of the general population. Research shows that the results of a self-selected survey usually contain extremes – either people with a very positive opinion or people with a very negative opinion choose to take the survey.
Technology: KEV is using two pieces of Google-developed free software: “Polis” for the survey and AI-based “Jigsaw” to compile free-form text responses into meaningful categories, and associate idea threads together. Jigsaw software is designed for use in surveys with tens of thousands of responses where a manual categorizing effort is time consuming and error prone. It was published in beta in December 2024. (Beta software is a pre-release version of software provided to a select group of users for testing and feedback.) Two bugs relevant to this use in Edmonds have been reported so far: 1) the Other category has too many entries – categorization isn’t working as designed; 2) the category is sometimes a hallucination – meaning the AI software didn’t know the correct category and so just made something up. These significant shortfalls in the beta software will hopefully be overcome by the KEV administrators doing the categorization manually.
It’s appropriate to be curious about the validity of the software-generated report that KEV plans to send the City because it’s well known that AI software has bias from the data set that was used to train it. The creator of Polis reports that AI software that uses large language models may reflect and amplify social biases, and thereby misrepresent public opinion. (ref: article published in the online journal Medium on 12-18-24))
Summary: This new effort feels like four residents’ re-do of the City’s public engagement work in 2023 -2024. The KEV organizers wrapped up a successful 2024 campaign to get the Edmonds School District bond measure passed. Now they are working in Edmonds and running a new campaign. Their chosen software is cutting edge, but perhaps too cutting edge. Since the survey software has known issues, and since it can’t be representative of the whole City, I will sit this survey out. But I look forward to participating in the City-led public engagement on new revenue sources and expense cuts, the public hearings on the next property tax ballot measure and voting for Council positions in November. That’s the resident involvement needed to keep Edmonds vibrant.
Author Theresa Hollis lives in Edmonds.
You are so knowledgeable! Thank you for your
Informed and coherent articles. You really help me understand the underlying issues with what we are being “told”.
I fail to see anything to support your claim that the KEV effort is fear-based versus fact-based. There is 0% info in your letter about how the KEV claims are anything but real. I see you indict KEV’s polling platform while putting the city’s efforts (largely from mayor Nelson’s reign) on a pedestal, but you also neglect to mention how atrocious and vulnerable/ biased the city polling methods have been. I applaud your “curiosity” but I do think it’s dangerous, with your track record of constantly posting FEAR-BASED CONTENT on this platform, to pretend with click-bait headline that you have identified the efforts of your neighbors (indeed not just 4 rando, devious, outside operatives running a “campaign” in our precious town) as fear-based, while then not even refuting their concerns are based in reality. Find me the lie. Also, how can their efforts be a “re-do” when you spend so much time explaining how different their approach is from the city’s? And why is that a bad thing? It appears their work picks up where the city left off and where the city no longer has resources to continue. Seems like KEV’s work is focused specifically on net new information and new fears that city staff and council share. Are you claiming there is no reason to fear losing these amenities and assets?
Good to know KEV’s survey results ‘may’ contain bias.
How did KEV come to this conclusion?
“Frances Anderson, our beloved parks, and other assets will be on the chopping block in perpetuity, unless we identify and pursue new and sustained revenue sources to run the kind of thriving city we want to live in.”
https://keepedmondsvibrant.org/what-should-edmonds-be/
We spent our way into this problem, and the only way out is to spend more of our dollars?
I’d like to see a ‘balanced approach’, new revenues combined with a reduction in costs. It is unfair to renters, homeowners & businesses to pile on the property tax. Two articles below, that I believe support the need for alternatives to property tax, balanced approach to the budget (and many conversations with Edmonds residents concerned with rising costs).
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/struggling-afford-basics-study-says-you-are-not-alone/5PUDD3PUEFGPLI6VIHQBTLZKZQ/
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
I appreciate KEV for starting a conversation, but I remain skeptical. It would appear KEV is a mouthpiece for the city. The city is using their ‘language’ & the city offered preferential treatment, by allowing KEV to present at the next city hall meeting.
I don’t understand how any survey can claim to be useful when cost is not factored in. Questions like ‘would you like to see more of X?’ , or ‘would you rather have X than Y?’, or ‘do you think the City should cut back on police or fire services?’, or ‘the parks are on the chopping block’ enlist obvious answers of ‘yes, we want to see more services and no, we don’t want our public safety or our parks cut back.’ Unless or until the cost (tax impact) of increased or reduced services is objectively assessed and given to survey respondents, the survey results are nothing more than hypothetical pie-in-the-sky items. Garbage in/garbage out is hardly worth the time to discuss. The Council and Mayor have not done enough due diligence and have done too many ‘back of the envelope’ calculations to be credible. They continue to say that 48 positions have been cut. That’s not true as most of those positions were open positions that had not been filled. They say they spent $45K on a fire/ems study looking at 3 non-comparable alternatives and didn’t want to spend more to analyze peer cities’ ‘best practices’ that could save taxpayers $45 million over 5 years. These lame efforts and failure to address taxpayer distress are inexcusable. Just vote no! on any tax increases. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
I’m not part of KEV but I appreciate them trying to reach and engage a different demographic that city leadership doesn’t hear from as much. I don’t think it’s possible to have too many people that care. The more the merrier, in my opinion. KEV, if you’re reading this, stay involved and don’t feel dissuaded. I’m looking forward to your survey results! 🙂
Hi Chelsea. I sent my column to KEV before I submitted it to this editor for publication.
The purpose of KEV is not to find objective truth about the best places to put growth while protecting and enhancing your natural environmental assets. The purpose of KEV is to continue the push for taller buildings and the subdivision of city lots that aren’t already filled up with large houses as per the new state controlled zoning of municipal development code. One of the memes of some of the people in the group has been that more housing units will bring more affordable housing to Edmonds. This is not an unbiased group and their findings will not be without bias toward much greater density, taller buildings, and much higher property taxes in order to save your city. Your city will soon be Ballard North and there isn’t much you can do about it short of getting six new Council Members and a Mayor with a much different mind set. That’s not likely to happen.
Will Rogers: Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don’t have for something they don’t need.
Seems to be true of city politics also…
…just sayin’