TABLE 14: REVITALIZATION CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT TO REQUIRE
WRITTEN NOTICE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL BY AT LEAST 75% OF DEEDED OWNERS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: |
1 |
Overall 91.1% of respondents wanted HOA revitalization controlled and
enforced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 the respondent traits of Interest, Region and Additional
Remarks Made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Percentage YES and NO responses of some
Non-owner Interest groups, notably Board Members, Lawyers andCAMs are
statistically significantly different from the corresponding ones of Owners
or Overall. |
|
|
Lawyers' strong support for this reform is unusal but has to be offset
against the small number of lawyers responding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Interest shows a causal relationship with respondents'
position on this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * * * 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] |
|
1015 |
|
728 |
130 |
7 |
12 |
8 |
130 |
|
583 |
382 |
50 |
|
191 |
824 |
|
34 |
201 |
154 |
132 |
494 |
|
171 |
129 |
414 |
301 |
# OF YESes |
|
925 |
|
678 |
105 |
7 |
10 |
7 |
118 |
|
525 |
356 |
44 |
|
179 |
746 |
|
33 |
184 |
147 |
118 |
443 |
|
158 |
109 |
383 |
275 |
# OF NOs |
|
90 |
|
50 |
25 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
12 |
|
58 |
26 |
6 |
|
12 |
78 |
|
1 |
17 |
7 |
14 |
51 |
|
13 |
20 |
31 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % YES [10] |
|
91.1% |
|
93.1% |
80.8% |
100.0% |
83.3% |
87.5% |
90.8% |
|
90.1% |
93.2% |
88.0% |
|
93.7% |
90.5% |
|
97.1% |
91.5% |
95.5% |
89.4% |
89.7% |
|
92.4% |
84.5% |
92.5% |
91.4% |
t-Test on %
YESes [11] |
|
|
2.2 |
-11.6 |
9.9 |
-8.7 |
-4.1 |
-0.4 |
|
-1.2 |
2.3 |
-3.5 |
|
2.9 |
-0.7 |
|
6.6 |
0.5 |
4.8 |
-1.9 |
-1.6 |
|
1.4 |
-7.4 |
1.5 |
0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % NO [10] |
|
8.9% |
|
6.9% |
19.2% |
0.0% |
16.7% |
12.5% |
9.2% |
|
9.9% |
6.8% |
12.0% |
|
6.3% |
9.5% |
|
2.9% |
8.5% |
4.5% |
10.6% |
10.3% |
|
7.6% |
15.5% |
7.5% |
8.6% |
t-Test on % NOes [11] |
|
|
|
-2.2 |
11.6 |
-9.9 |
8.7 |
4.1 |
0.4 |
|
1.2 |
-2.3 |
3.5 |
|
-2.9 |
0.7 |
|
-6.6 |
-0.5 |
-4.8 |
1.9 |
1.6 |
|
-1.4 |
7.4 |
-1.5 |
-0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 STD.
DEVIATION [12] |
0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% YESes Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
73.3% |
11.4% |
0.8% |
1.1% |
0.8% |
12.8% |
|
56.8% |
38.5% |
4.8% |
|
19.4% |
80.6% |
|
3.6% |
19.9% |
15.9% |
12.8% |
47.9% |
|
17.1% |
11.8% |
41.4% |
29.7% |
% NOs Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
55.6% |
27.8% |
0.0% |
2.2% |
1.1% |
13.3% |
|
64.4% |
28.9% |
6.7% |
|
13.3% |
86.7% |
|
1.1% |
18.9% |
7.8% |
15.6% |
56.7% |
|
14.4% |
22.2% |
34.4% |
28.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculated
Chi-Squared Value [13]: |
0.2960X10^-6
[13] |
|
|
|
|
|
0.1774 |
|
|
|
0.1632 |
|
|
0.1231 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.0492 |
|
|
|
Implication of
Chi-Squared Test |
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc. Deland, FL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|