Isn't it important to report, after the fact is known, that only the survey responses in favor of the line were forwarded to the Council? The survey was not only unscientific, it was biased and was blatantly used to manipulate the Council to believe that the public support for D1 is higher than it in fact may be.

Thanks for clarifying. How was the survey sample determined? Random sample? Seems important to know if the survey is being cited as an important source of data and justification for the opinion that "the majority of residents like this idea and want to see it go forward." I appreciate sources of information arrived at through the use of accepted best practices. I am not against surveys per se, just surveys that purport to be objective and are not.

It wasn't the majority of Golden Valley residents, it was a slight majority of the people they polled - 220 people out of a total of 383. It's easy to make the results sound like more than they actually are in reality if that's what you are trying to do!

"Names were collected." Not particularly persuasive as confirmation of a random sample. Every third person? All precincts? Perhaps the city should invest in a truly objective survey, using accepted best practices, if this kind of data is necessary to inform the decision. I object to allowing the impression to remain that this survey is in some way valid without understanding more about the survey methodology.

The survey means nothing. The group that funded it even admits that it's not scientific, and the group has an obvious bias. Taking this to actually be a representative sample of Golden Valley residents' opinions makes as much sense as taking a poll from Foxnews.com or MSNBC.com and pretending that it's representative of the general population.

The Minneapolis Building Trades Council phone poll is worse than worthless, and merely a thinly-disguised attempt to put pressure on the Golden Valley City Council to support D-1. It has no validity. It appears no attempt was made to design it to be a representative poll, and we don't know what people were asked or how their responses were recorded. For instance, if a person was in favor of light rail or Bottineau generally, but opposed to the D-1 route, as many are, were they reported as for or against?

At $80-$100 million per mile (no, that's not a typo), what's not to love if you are in the construction business, so you can't blame the Minneapolis Building Trades for pushing the project. One wonders why they aren't pushing for the D-2 route through north Minneapolis, which would be even more expensive. But the Golden Valley City Council represents the citizens of Golden Valley, not outside special interests. It should ignore the "survey" results and continue to vote against this ill-considered plan.

Finally, how can anyone, especially our mayor, call this phony poll "grassroots advocacy?" A phone campaign masquerading as a poll, sponsored by a blatantly and admittedly biased outside special interest group, is about as far from grassroots advocacy as you can get. Dozens of Golden Valley residents spontaneously giving up an evening to show up up at a city council hearing and overwhelmingly oppose Bottineau for very valid reasons – now that's grassroots!

It was a hastily fabricated mediocre effort to manipulate recipients' opinions, even if the recipient had no opinion before the call---a technique often referred to as "push polling." It seemed that those who spoke at the council hearing either had not been called or, if they had been, were not persuaded. An interesting observation by one of the citizens was that jobs will be created during construction regardless of the route. Indeed, there would be more jobs for the building trades if the D-2 route were chosen.

If the survey is not scientific, then it is completely worthless. You can design a survey to get the results you want. All this survey business tells us is that the Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Council wants light rail built and they are willing to say and do anything to see that it does.

The artical , in my mind is incorrect. We live were the rail will change our quality of life, lower our property values and distrupt this local for ever. It seems that the rail on university has change the short term thinking of the commision. As a Golden Valley resident we will only get a lower life standard that will be with us and this city many life times without any value to our fellow neighbors and the city. If there is to be a station who will walk mile(s) in winter to ride the train. It should be located were changes can accomodate the over all community now and in the future. The wild life will never return. Think about the future .

Ms. Engler, I respectfully submit that in light of these comments, your article has been shown to be biased and misrepresentative of public opinion. If I search Bottineau on the Golden Valley Patch site, this article comes up. As a casual user of the site, I might have the impression that some official body has done a survey and most Golden Valley residents are in favor. This survey should never have had the kind of visibility and credibility you've given it. I am not in favor of dueling unscientific surveys, but if they receive such good treatment in the Patch, perhaps that is the strategy those opposed to the D1 should pursue.

This survey was not done by "an outside special interest group" This was a resource that was used by a group of Golden Valley residence who happen to be members of the Minneapolis Building Trades and asked for their resources in assistance. A poll was done to gain the feel of support by Golden Valley residents. If the resident supported the Light rail project then they were asked to attend the public hearing or contact the council to voice there support. Yes, there was an effort to get supporters to participate in public opinion, that does not dismiss that there were a certain number of people who supported the light rail plan and a certain amount who didn't, those findings were recorded. Ms. Engler is reporting on a survey that was done, in the byline of the survey she states that is was unscientific. It was the only survey done up to this point and it has been reported on. I would hope the council takes all input on the issue into consideration; public opinion should only be a portion of the consideration, also to be considered should be the facts presented by Hennepin County, the Met Council and our other community partners. More so by the facts that are yet to be presented through continued study of this effort. This resolution will allow the continuation of this study to gather more facts. This is a project that will help create the future vision of our community and it's involvement in the bigger picture of a metro wide cooperation to build a better transit system.

Thank you to everyone who has commented on this article. It's our goal at Patch to keep neighbors informed on important issues and provide a platform for meaningful conversation. As a journalist, I work hard to remain unbiased in my reporting. I felt like it was important to write an article about the survey that was conducted because it's information that the City Council is reviewing, among other letters, phone calls and comments.

I appreciate that. Title might simply have been more appropriately "Building Trades Survey," rather than "Bottineau Survey," which sounds like an official survey. There could very well be another headline someday saying "Bottineau Survey Shows Light Rail Opposition." : )

I'm done now, just making a point about how important language is in shaping public perception.