Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-2012 - City Redistricting Committee Notes Below are the voting tallies and reasoning for each vote taken at the last City Redistricting Committee meeting on April 19,2012. One note that I think is worth mentioning is that how we structured the Committee meetings allowed a more thorough discussion of the various factors and the various maps that we discussed.That is,unlike a more formal committee meeting where there is a public input component at tie beginning of the meeting, followed by a discussion by the committee,we included those who were attending to participate as discussants throughout the meeting. Although there are some downsides to this approach,I do think the issues could be,and were,more thoroughly discussed because they involved those who had brought such issues,questions,concerns,and/or suggestions. Another note is that,prior to voting,we had discussed whether to recommend to Council just one scenario or one with an alternative(s). We decided that one with alternative(s)was acceptable. The First Vote. Moved by Mr. Dullea that Scenario 4-6 be recommended to Council as the preferred scenario; seconded by Mr. Strong Not carried:Vote:2 yays and 3 nays (Voting no were Tom,Nancy and Cora,and voting yes Hank and Ed) The reason that 4-6 was first moved has to do with its history as a"preferred 4Ward scenario'that we had voted on in January in consideration of what County Independent Commission was doing. At that time, the County was about to hold public hearings on 3 County Versions;one of which had 4 legislative districts in the City;the County Commission had drawn their own lines;we were asked if, at that time, we were to recommend a 4-ward scenario,what version would be our preference. The result of our"straw poll,"non-binding,vote on our preference would be used for the.legislative district boundaries in the City,with understanding that our preference was contingent on our finishing our work,resulting scenario approval by Council and by referendum if necessary. We held the"straw poll'vote and 4-6 was approved 3 to 2.Nancy and Tom voting no. The County used 4-6 as their Legislative districts line in the City throughout their public hearings and in their recommendation to the County Legislature. At the time, there was the understanding that if we changed our 4 boundary lines,the County, if feasible,would as well.If we recommended other boundaries,say 8 or 5,then the County would stay with our 4-6 ward lines.Since we recommended 4-5a,the County has adjusted their City District lines to 4-5a,and that is what are being considered by the full Legislature on June 5 . Thus both 4ward scenarios would align with the County Legislative Districts. The first vote then,was in essence was to retain,or affirm,or bind,the January"straw poll'on scenario 4-6. This time it failed. The main difference between the two votes was the idea that although both maintain neighborhood boundaries,historic districts,and present small deviations from the average size wards,aligns with the County legislative districts,is that it doesn't balance permanent/non-permanent residents in those neighborhoods. The Second Vote Moved by Mr.Dullea that Scenario 4-5 as amended for Stewart Park be recommended to Council as the preferred scenario; seconded by Ms. Schuler. Carred-Vote:4 yay and 1 nay (Voting yes were Cora,Nancy,Hank and Tom;Voting no was Ed) The yays voted primarily that 4-5a maintains neighborhood integrity,balances non-permanent and permanent resident,maintains historic districts,and that East Hill and South Hill neighborhoods dealt with similar issues facing,those areas.Also 4-5a has the least deviation from the ideal average,and thus is closest to a 1 person, 1 vote ideal.4-5a aligns with County Legislative Districts. Ed voted against primarily because he felt that 4-6 joined more similar neighborhoods in East Hill and South Hill. The Third Vote Moved by Mr.Dullea that Scenario 8-3 be recommended to Council as an alternative scenario; seconded by Ms. Schuler Carried-Vote:4 yays 1 nay (Voting yes were Hank,Cora,Nancy,and Ed;voting no was Tom The yays supported this scenario because it allows a Ward 2 its own representative,retains key neighborhoods of Northside and Southside in one ward,and still fits the 8 wards into a 4 legislative district structure for more efficient,less confusing and less costly elections process. Tom voted no primarily because 8-3a creates a split in other neighborhoods and also that 8 ward scenario had had little support from the majority of Common Council members,past and current,due to workload issues and the benefits of staggered terms; The Fourth Vote Moved by Chair Frank that Scenario 5-4 be recommended to Council as a second alternative scenario; Seconded by Mr. Strong Not carried Vote:2 yays and 3 nays (Voting no were Cora,Nancy and Hank;voting yes were Tom and Ed) Tom moved the idea of second alternative recommendation with 5 ward model because we had heard from many people in favor of retaining a 5 ward model primarily that a move from 5 wards to 4 would result disproportionate loss of political representation in geographic terms;i.e.,a loss of 15%of Council representation for West Hill and Downtown from Ward 2.That is,most of the old Ward 1 and 2 would have gone from 4 reps to 2 reps a 50%loss).Note that this is in geographic terms,although numerically 4 wards are the best statistically,we heard repeatedly about this loss.Because there is arguably a class factor in Ward 1 and 2,at least expressed in median housing values,and by knowledge of the City,thus lower income sections of the City would be disproportionately represented under a 4 ward scenario. Tom and Ed voted yes for the above reasons,and because Ward 2 would also remain,and also that retaining a 5 ward scenario creates the least amount of change. The nays voted against,primarily because of the problem of Ward 1 being so out of line in geographic terms,and that South Hill and West Hill needed to be in different wards.For example,the President of the South Hill Civic Association felt that South Hill would align better with either Downtown or East Hill.Committee members also felt that presenting too many alternatives might undermine the focus of our work and might lead to the perception that there was lack of unity for a recommendation,thus running the risk of communicating that all the work would need to be revisited.