Well, that's not the first time people have taken umbrage over surveys when they disagree with the results, and it won't be the last. Many surveys provoke controversy over the way they are constructed and administered. No one denies that opinion-research firms can — and do at times — word questions cleverly and interpret responses creatively in ways that benefit the people paying the bill.

In this latest survey, however, we think the Land Use Coalition doesn't have much of a case. For one thing, the survey was scientifically constructed and carried out by a reputable firm, located outside of Boulder County and headed by a Republican. (All three commissioners are Democrats.) For another, the survey results are hardly a surprise. Essentially the same survey was conducted twice before, and the results are basically the same.

We have sympathy for the 1,000 members of the Land Use Coalition. Many of them are still shellshocked over home-building issues with officials. Others have been waiting for years to build their dream home on secluded land in the mountains. They have walked their acreage dozens of times, picking out the perfect place for their home and plotting the road they would build to get to it.

Then reality hits with an awful bang when they walk into the courthouse to present their site plan to county planners. It is then they learn that changes must be made. That's because the plan may have failed to take into account wetlands problems, wildlife habitat, the scarring of the mountainside from building a road, the visual impact of the house if placed on a ridge line, the choice of exterior color that prevents the house from blending in with its mountain surroundings, and on and on.

The regulations are tough. Their enforcement is not just what the majority of people in Boulder County want — if you believe, as we do, this and past surveys — but what the vast majority demands.

County officials claim that 90 percent of people applying for building permits in the mountains find a way to conform to requirements. Ten percent go through an elaborate hearing process in hopes of getting the commissioners to overrule the planners. And sometimes they do. A few applicants become so exasperated that they take the commissioners to court, a process which can take several years. And sometimes they win.

The stories of anguish are numerous. For instance, one applicant, who proudly called himself an environmentalist, showed planners a site plan in which his home would be built on the bank of a creek. To make way for the house, he had already cleared away several trees. Imagine his anger when informed that he must select another site on his acreage because of potential ecological damage to the creek.

To the Land Use Coalition, many of the rulings by county officials are arbitrary, if not mean-spirited, and intended to frustrate applicants to the point of giving up and not building at all.

There could be some truth to that, and, if so, changes need to be made. We urge commissioners to take complaints about abuse of citizens seriously and to put a more customer-friendly system in place.

At the same time, we are fully aware that land-use decisions by city and county officials everywhere are among the most emotional rulings they make. And decisions on mountain properties are probably the most difficult to understand because of the nature of the terrain. Properties are not platted into nice little blocks of parcels as they are with city lots. The mountain acreage rolls down slopes, among wetlands, through wildlife habitat and across streams. What is built and where it is built must be weighed against potential ecological damage and visual degradation.

And taxpayers have entrusted their three county commissioners with the dual duties of watchdog and enforcer. The survey underscores that responsibility. A total of 506 adults were interviewed by phone between June 9 and June 17. Here is a snapshot of the results:

In an open-ended question asking the respondent to identify the one most important issue facing Boulder County, the answer, by far, in every corner of the county, was management of growth. Interestingly, a higher percentage of Longmont citizens (48 percent) cited growth management than Boulder citizens (39 percent).

• On a question asking whether the county should exercise more or less management of growth, the answers were overwhelming for "more." Overall, 82 percent either approve of current actions or want the commissioners to be tougher yet. Again, interestingly, a higher percentage of Longmont citizens desire more management of growth (52 percent) than Boulder citizens (47 percent).
  
  
• A similar strong response came when the above question was applied specifically to the mountain areas. Overall, 71 percent either approve of what the county is doing there to manage growth or want it to do more. Longmont was three percentage points — 45 to 42 — more adamant than Boulder about wanting the county to do more.

We feel it is worth citing the results from Longmont because of that community's image of being pro-growth and opposed to government interference. It's beginning to become apparent that Longmont citizens, unlike their city officials and local daily newspaper, are more in step with the attitudes of the rest of the county than many might think.

With each passing year, residents throughout Boulder County are becoming more interested in preserving open space and mountain lands — and the views and the enjoyment both provide. It was nice to have the survey, but it really wasn't necessary to convince us that our county commissioners are in tune with the people they are elected to represent.