I'm sure there's a law somewhere that says that no matter how completely indefensible a position, there is some contrary-minded group who will loudly proclaim allegiance to it. And if there isn't, there is now.
(Edit: OP, not suggesting your survey was silly, just that the 3.9% might have thought so.)
I interpret this that the parks department might be doing a really bad job in certain parts of the city. The trees are not kept well and trimmed, obstructing views and making driving unsafe, branches in the street after heavy winds, something like that. Now if I already think the city is doing a piss poor job, I'm sure not going to give them the justification they need to raise my taxes just so they can plant more trees (when they can't be trusted to take care of the ones that already exist).
In other words, the respondent's answer depends on the who they think is asking the question and how they think their answer might be used.
> In other words, the respondent's answer depends on the who they think is asking the question and how they think their answer might be used.
Also, a good point about surveys in general.
Add'l note about the data: folks who wanted fewer trees were spread fairly evenly across the city; they were slightly more likely to come from the Southeast, but it wasn't a big effect, and within any given district all the other relationships were still true.
We could call it the Flat Earth Law. http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Thanks for the clarification about the rudeness, though I took no offense at the time. Cheers!