Loading...

35 – 39 • A. Questionnaire

Resident questionnaire evaluated by Dr. Lee Koppelman’s office.

Resident Questionnaire

More than 100 responses were received to a twenty-three point survey distributed throughout the community. In addition to the check-off answers relating to satisfaction and concern, there was room for personal comment. The responses were detailed and provided positive and negative emphasis on the residents concerns and attitudes.

Table 1 contains the numerical tabulation of the check-off responses.

Table 2 contains the translation of the numerical responses into percentages.

Table 3 is a consolidation numerically and percentage of satisfaction and concern. Obviously, as satisfaction increases, concerns decrease. There is, as expected, an inverse relationship.

One overall conclusion is that the citizens are overwhelmingly satisfied with Brookhaven Hamlet as a place to live (82%), and as a place to raise children (73%). They are also pleased with shopping (78%), proximity to jobs (71%), and garbage pickup (66%). Yet, the response relative to the Hamlet as a place to grow old clearly indicates a strong concern for the future.

The school system evoked a strong negative reaction (26% satisfaction). Waste management and water pollution, vandalism, litter, taxes and LILCO rates were overwhelmingly negative, ranging from 2% to 17% satisfaction, or conversely as high as 94% concern.

These views were corroborated by their detailed written responses. The positive features shared by the residents stress the bucolic, scenic and historic ambience, and the proximity to the marine environment. One should also note the strong expression of appreciation for friendly and community conscious neighbors.

The negative views were strongly against the high level of school taxes which is reflected in their negative attitudes towards the school system.

The Brookhaven landfill was also criticized – not an unusual response.

The balance of the complaints were less generally expressed and are identified in the Summary of Comments following Table 3.

Table 1 – Brookhaven Hamlet – Resident Questionnaire
Numerical Responses

Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Concerned Very concerned
Our community as a place to live 59 29 16 1
Our community as a place to raise children 38 40 15 6
Our community as a place to grow old 26 25 31 21
Our school system 6 22 29 40
Our community’s parks and recreation 28 48 19 7
Shopping in this area 25 59 13 3
Housing 27 57 9 7
Proximity to jobs 26 50 13 5
Traffic 17 41 29 15
Public Transportation 4 37 28 19
Attention given to this area by town officials 4 27 34 31
Zoning patterns and decisions 2 32 29 32
Pine Barrens 6 30 22 37
Open Space 9 30 21 42
Waste management (Town recycling, landfill, etc.) 4 15 25 62
Water Pollution 3 13 35 49
Noise 13 45 27 16
Garbage pickup 16 55 24 10
Graffiti 3 18 43 39
Vandalism 1 17 51 34
Litter 1 16 40 49
Electric rates 1 1 19 82
Taxes 1 5 13 84

Table 2 – Brookhaven Hamlet – Resident Questionnaire
Response by Percentage

Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Concerned Very concerned
Our community as a place to live 55 27 15 1
Our community as a place to raise children 35 37 14 6
Our community as a place to grow old 24 23 30 20
Our school system 6 20 27 37
Our community’s parks and recreation 26 45 18 7
Shopping in this area 23 55 12 3
Housing 25 53 8 7
Proximity to jobs 24 47 12 5
Traffic 16 38 27 14
Public Transportation 4 35 26 18
Attention given to this area by town officials 4 25 32 30
Zoning patterns and decisions 2 30 27 30
Pine Barrens 6 28 20 35
Open Space 8 28 19 39
Waste management (Town recycling, landfill, etc.) 4 14 23 58
Water Pollution 3 12 33 46
Noise 12 42 25 15
Garbage pickup 15 51 22 9
Graffiti 3 17 40 36
Vandalism 1 16 48 32
Litter 1 15 37 46
Electric rates 1 1 18 77
Taxes 1 5 12 79

Table 3 – Brookhaven Hamlet – Resident Questionnaire
Consolidated Responses by Number and Percentage

—– Satisfied —– —– Concerned —–
# % # %
Our community as a place to live 88 82 17 16
Our community as a place to raise children 78 73 21 20
Our community as a place to grow old 51 48 52 49
Our school system 28 26 69 64
Our community’s parks and recreation 76 71 26 24
Shopping in this area 84 78 16 15
Housing 84 78 16 15
Proximity to jobs 76 71 18 17
Traffic 58 54 44 41
Public Transportation 41 38 47 44
Attention given to this area by town officials 31 29 65 61
Zoning patterns and decisions 34 32 61 57
Pine Barrens 36 34 59 55
Open Space 39 36 63 59
Waste management (Town recycling, landfill, etc.) 19 18 87 81
Water Pollution 16 15 84 79
Noise 48 45 43 40
Garbage pickup 71 66 34 32
Graffiti 21 20 82 77
Vandalism 18 17 85 79
Litter 17 16 89 83
Electric rates 2 2 101 94
Taxes 6 6 97 91

Positive Features

  • The high quality of the rural scenic ambience of the community.
  • The historic aspects of the community.
  • The access to the Great South Bay and marine related activities.
  • The friendly and neighborly attitudes of the residents.

Negative Features

  • The high level of school taxes.
  • The Brookhaven landfill.
  • The need for more sidewalks and bikeways.
  • The high cost of LILCO rates.
  • The need for improved garbage removal.
  • The need to control development; in particular, strip malls and large stores should be prohibited.
  • The need to control graffiti.
  • The excessive amount of empty stores.
  • The need for improved mosquito control.
  • The need for improvements, particularly pedestrian walkways on Beaver Dam Road.
  • The need for increased police protection.
  • The need for more public water.
  • The need for increased youth facilities and programs.
  • The need to improve the public dock.
  • The need to control traffic speed on the Montauk Highway.
  • The need to regulate and control illegal multiple residences.
  • The need to provide sidewalks to the elementary school.

Note from the Brookhaven/South Haven Hamlet Study Committee
Regarding the “Negative Features” listed above:

Item #3 – The committee believes that “The need for more sidewalks and bikeways” is placed too high on this list and is also redundant, since sidewalks are also mentioned in item #17.

Item #14 – The committee feels that community would like to see the dock policed, rather than improved.