| TABLE 13: BAR DEVELOPERS FROM CHANGING HOA DEED RESTRICTIONS
WITHOUT HOMEOWNERS' APPROVAL PLUS OTHER PROTECTIONS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KEY
FINDINGS: |
1 |
Overall 90.9% of respondents want developers' authority to
unilaterally alter HOA deed restrictions subject to stricter regulation and
homeowner approval. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Boldfaced values in the rows of column
YESes and Noes differ significantly from the overall average as they are at
least 3 standard deviations away from that value. The disparities are notable within all |
|
|
respondent traits except
membership or nonmembership in CCFJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Percentage YES and NO responses of some Non-owner Interest groups,
notably Board Members, Lawyers and Other, are statistically significantly
different from those of Owners or Overall. |
|
|
4 |
Some percentage YES and NO responses in the
Gender, Region and Additional Remarks Made sections are significantly
different from either the Overall figures or those for Owners. |
|
|
5 |
The
YES and NO percentage responses of CCFJ members are not significantly
different from one another or from those Overall or for Onwers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
Only
the respondent trait Additional Remarks Made had a potentially causal
influence on responses to this question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * * * INTEREST * * * *
* * * * |
* * * * * * * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * *
REGION [8] * * * * * * * * |
* *
ADDITIONAL REMARKS MADE * * |
|
|
|
|
|
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] |
|
1025 |
|
734 |
130 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
133 |
|
582 |
388 |
55 |
|
191 |
834 |
|
35 |
200 |
156 |
134 |
500 |
|
174 |
130 |
417 |
304 |
| # OF YESes |
|
932 |
|
673 |
113 |
4 |
12 |
7 |
123 |
|
533 |
352 |
47 |
|
177 |
755 |
|
33 |
185 |
148 |
123 |
443 |
|
165 |
109 |
386 |
272 |
| # OF NOs |
|
93 |
|
61 |
17 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
|
49 |
36 |
8 |
|
14 |
79 |
|
2 |
15 |
8 |
11 |
57 |
|
9 |
21 |
31 |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| COLUMN % YES [10] |
|
90.9% |
|
91.7% |
86.9% |
57.1% |
92.3% |
87.5% |
92.5% |
|
91.6% |
90.7% |
85.5% |
|
92.7% |
90.5% |
|
94.3% |
92.5% |
94.9% |
91.8% |
88.6% |
|
94.8% |
83.8% |
92.6% |
89.5% |
| t-Test on %
YESes [11] |
|
|
0.8 |
-4.5 |
-37.6 |
1.5 |
-3.8 |
1.7 |
|
0.7 |
-0.2 |
-6.1 |
|
1.9 |
-0.4 |
|
3.7 |
1.8 |
4.4 |
1.0 |
-2.6 |
|
4.3 |
-7.9 |
1.8 |
-1.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| COLUMN % NO [10] |
|
9.1% |
|
8.3% |
13.1% |
42.9% |
7.7% |
12.5% |
7.5% |
|
8.4% |
9.3% |
14.5% |
|
7.3% |
9.5% |
|
5.7% |
7.5% |
5.1% |
8.2% |
11.4% |
|
5.2% |
16.2% |
7.4% |
10.5% |
| t-Test on % NOes [11] |
|
|
|
-0.8 |
4.5 |
37.6 |
-1.5 |
3.8 |
-1.7 |
|
-0.7 |
0.2 |
6.1 |
|
-1.9 |
0.4 |
|
-3.7 |
-1.8 |
-4.4 |
-1.0 |
2.6 |
|
-4.3 |
7.9 |
-1.8 |
1.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 STD.
DEVIATION [12] |
0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % YESes Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
72.2% |
12.1% |
0.4% |
1.3% |
0.8% |
13.2% |
|
57.2% |
37.8% |
5.0% |
|
19.0% |
81.0% |
|
3.5% |
19.8% |
15.9% |
13.2% |
47.5% |
|
17.7% |
11.7% |
41.4% |
29.2% |
| % NOs Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
65.6% |
18.3% |
3.2% |
1.1% |
1.1% |
10.8% |
|
52.7% |
38.7% |
8.6% |
|
15.1% |
84.9% |
|
2.2% |
16.1% |
8.6% |
11.8% |
61.3% |
|
9.7% |
22.6% |
33.3% |
34.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Calculated
Chi-Squared Value [13]: |
0.1091 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5094 |
|
|
|
0.3524 |
|
|
0.0627 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.0041 |
|
|
|
| Implication of
Chi-Squared Test |
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc. Deland, FL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|