Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e e <br /> <br /> <br />DON'T KNOW .................................... 11 % <br /> <br />NOTHING........................................ 15% <br /> <br />TAXES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% <br /> <br />GROWTH ........................................ 17% <br /> <br />SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20/0 <br /> <br />TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17% <br /> <br />CRIME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% <br /> <br />CITY GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% <br />CITY SERVICES ................................... 5% <br />NO SHOPS AVAILABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% <br />POOR LOCATION.. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 7% <br />OTHER RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 % <br /> <br />) '1,- <br /> <br />Fifteen percent were "boosters," who disliked "nothing" about the community. Nine percent <br />cited "city government," while seven percent each discussed "lack of shopping opportunities" <br />and "poor location in the Metropolitan Area." <br /> <br />"Growth" and "traffic" were posted most often by residents of Precinct Two. "City government" <br />bothered men. "No shopping" troubled less than five year residents, 18-34 year oIds, women, <br />and residents of Precinct IB. "Taxes" was cited by 18-34 year oIds. <br /> <br />City Desirability <br /> <br />Residents were queried: <br /> <br />For you personally, do you think that in the pastfew <br />years the City of Ramsey has become more desirable <br />as a place to live, become less desirable, or is it about <br />the same as it has been? <br /> <br />Residents were split: while thirty percent thought it was "more desirable," twenty-eight percent <br />called it "less desirable:" <br /> <br />MORE DESIRABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28% <br />LESS DESIRABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30% <br />ABOUT THE SAME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 38% <br />DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ............................ 4% <br /> <br />Thirty-eight percent, though, thought the city was "about the same as it has been." <br /> <br />"More desirable" was posted most often by households connected to public sanitary sewer and <br />water services and residents of Precinct lB. "Less desirable" was most frequently mentioned by <br />five-to-twenty year residents, 35-44 year oIds, households not connected to public sanitary sewer <br />and water services, and men. "About the same" was the view ofless than five year residents and <br />residents of Precinct 3A. <br /> <br />15 <br />