| TABLE 1:
WILLING TO PAY $4 PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR TO FUND AN INDEPENDENT REGULATORY
AGENCY TO PROTECT HOA OWNERS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KEY FINDINGS: |
1 |
Overall 93.0% of the respondents are willing to pay $4 per year to
fund an agency to protect HOA owners,
This is a very important finding in the light of claims by some lobbyists
and politicians |
|
|
|
that
Florida HOA owners don't want or need such an agency and are unwilling to pay
for it. Those familiar with the
statistical technique to test that notion can determine the odds of that |
|
|
|
assertion being correct for themselves with
the data in this table. Those unable
to do that might like to know that there's far less than one chance in one
billion of that assertion being correct. |
|
2 |
Boldfaced values in the row of column YESes and Nos differ
significantly from the overall averages as they are at least 3 standard
deviations away from those overall averages. |
|
|
|
3 |
The percentage YES and NO responses of
Interest groups other than CAMs differ significantly from the Overall
values. While Board members and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
While Attorneys favored this recommendation, they were significantly
less in favor than Overall or Owners.
The Northern and West Coast Regions were significantly more favorably |
|
|
|
disposed than either the other
regions or the Overall response. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
YES and NO percentage responses of members and non-members of CCFJ
essentially were the same and not statistically significantly different than
the Overall figures. |
|
|
|
5 |
The
Chi-squared test indicates possible causal relationships between two traits
of respondents, Interest and Additional Comments Made, and their answers to
this question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * * * INTEREST * * * *
* * * * |
* * * * * * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * *
REGION [8] * * * * * * * |
|
* * ADDITIONAL REMARKS MADE * * |
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD |
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * |
GENDER |
* * * * |
|
*CCFJ MEMBER* |
|
|
WEST |
EAST |
|
|
PRIORITY |
COMMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD |
|
|
|
|
|
* * * GENDER [5] * * * |
|
CCFJ
MEMBER [7] |
|
|
WEST |
EAST |
|
|
PRIORITY |
COMMENT |
|
|
|
|
OVERALL |
OWNER |
MEMBER [1] |
LAWYER |
C.A.M. [2] |
OTHER [3] |
N.A. [4] |
|
MALE |
FEMALE |
D.K. [6] |
|
YES |
NO |
|
NORTH |
CENTRAL |
COAST |
COAST |
SOUTH |
|
ONLY |
ONLY |
BOTH |
NEITHER |
| OVERALL TOTALS |
|
1033 |
|
740 |
130 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
135 |
|
584 |
389 |
60 |
|
196 |
837 |
|
35 |
202 |
156 |
137 |
503 |
|
176 |
131 |
418 |
308 |
| % WITHIN CATEGORY |
|
100.0% |
|
71.6% |
12.6% |
0.7% |
1.3% |
0.8% |
13.1% |
|
56.5% |
37.7% |
5.8% |
|
19.0% |
81.0% |
|
3.4% |
19.6% |
15.1% |
13.3% |
48.7% |
|
17.0% |
12.7% |
40.5% |
29.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ADJUSTED # [9] |
|
992 |
|
740 |
130 |
7 |
12 |
7 |
96 |
|
560 |
374 |
58 |
|
189 |
803 |
|
34 |
194 |
148 |
131 |
485 |
|
169 |
126 |
401 |
296 |
| # OF YESes |
|
923 |
|
706 |
111 |
6 |
11 |
7 |
82 |
|
516 |
356 |
51 |
|
174 |
749 |
|
33 |
180 |
143 |
122 |
445 |
|
163 |
110 |
380 |
270 |
| # OF NOs |
|
69 |
|
34 |
19 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
|
44 |
18 |
7 |
|
15 |
54 |
|
1 |
14 |
5 |
9 |
40 |
|
6 |
16 |
21 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| COLUMN % YES [10] |
|
93.0% |
|
95.4% |
85.4% |
85.7% |
91.7% |
100.0% |
85.4% |
|
92.1% |
95.2% |
87.9% |
|
92.1% |
93.3% |
|
97.1% |
92.8% |
96.6% |
93.1% |
91.8% |
|
96.4% |
87.3% |
94.8% |
91.2% |
| t-Test on % YESes [11] |
|
|
2.9 |
-9.5 |
-9.0 |
-1.7 |
8.6 |
-9.4 |
|
-1.1 |
2.6 |
-6.3 |
|
-1.2 |
0.3 |
|
5.0 |
-0.3 |
4.4 |
0.1 |
-1.6 |
|
4.2 |
-7.1 |
2.1 |
-2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| COLUMN % NO [10] |
|
7.0% |
|
4.6% |
14.6% |
14.3% |
8.3% |
0.0% |
14.6% |
|
7.9% |
4.8% |
12.1% |
|
7.9% |
6.7% |
|
2.9% |
7.2% |
3.4% |
6.9% |
8.2% |
|
3.6% |
12.7% |
5.2% |
8.8% |
| t-Test on % NOes [11] |
|
|
|
-2.9 |
9.5 |
9.0 |
1.7 |
-8.6 |
9.4 |
|
1.1 |
-2.6 |
6.3 |
|
1.2 |
-0.3 |
|
-5.0 |
0.3 |
-4.4 |
-0.1 |
1.6 |
|
-4.2 |
7.1 |
-2.1 |
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 STD. DEVIATION [12] |
0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % YESes Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
76.5% |
12.0% |
0.7% |
1.2% |
0.8% |
8.9% |
|
55.9% |
38.6% |
5.5% |
|
18.9% |
81.1% |
|
3.6% |
19.5% |
15.5% |
13.2% |
48.2% |
|
17.7% |
11.9% |
41.2% |
29.3% |
| % NOs Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
49.3% |
27.5% |
1.4% |
1.4% |
0.0% |
20.3% |
|
63.8% |
26.1% |
10.1% |
|
21.7% |
78.3% |
|
1.4% |
20.3% |
7.2% |
13.0% |
58.0% |
|
8.7% |
23.2% |
30.4% |
37.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Calculated Chi-Squared Value [13]: |
0.2155*10^-16
[14] |
|
|
|
|
|
0.051 |
|
|
|
0.5358 |
|
|
0.2378 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.0024 |
|
|
|
| Implication of Chi-Squared Test |
|
Relationship Present |
|
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
RELATIONSHIP PRESENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc. Deland, FL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|