Several alders sent out notices about redistricting meetings coming up and a few of the east side alders added some of their own comments about the maps.
Satya Rhodes-Conway sent this out and most copied it.
As you may know, the City of Madison is in the process of determining how to redistrict the city in the wake of the 2010 census. There is a wealth of information here: http://www.cityofmadison.com/cityHall/redistricting/, including draft maps (click on the “meetings” link). We are holding community input sessions May 10th, 11th and 12th at 5:30 pm, locations TBA.
and
We are interested in hearing from you where you think the lines should be – what geographic area do you identify with and why? Please plan to attend one of these input sessions. If you can’t make any of them, please contact Brian Grady at bgrady@cityofmadison.com to share your input.
Alder Rhodes-Conway also had this to say:
All aldermanic districts are affected by this process, and some of the lines will change dramatically. For example, Brentwood and Whitetail Ridge could be in District 12 or 18 and Eken Park could be in District 12, 15, or 2.
Alder Marsha Rummel didn’t add much comment.
Alder Bridget Maniaci added this:
All aldermanic districts are affected by this process, and some of the lines will change dramatically. For District 2, there are a number of plans which would keep the boundaries relatively the same, with the Yahara River and Camelot & Sherman Terrace as the northern-most end, and shift the district inward to cover much of Mansion Hill and the State-Langdon Neighborhoods. Our district needs to increase in size by over 2,000 inhabitants. However, as proposed under Plan 5, District 2 would drastically shift to the north, bisecting James Madison Park and dramatically change the dynamics to the district. I personally am opposed to this plan for a number of reasons related to the environment, infrastructure, neighborhood, parks and communities of interest.
One resident responded this way:
Here’s my quick review of the different plans:
Plan 5: shifts district east to Blair and north east to Oscar Meyer
Plan 6: all of langdon street
Plan 7: all of Langdon street
Plan 8: all of Langdon street plus Essen Haus, CardinalPlan 5 is a large change for district 2 since it would make it much more owner-occupied. Plan 5 has Alder Satya Rhodes-Conway in district 2
Plans 6-8 will increase the number of students in the district significantly.
The breakdown of voting in the last 2 aldermanic races shows the alder won in Ward 39 (James Madison/Gates of Heaven). Much of this ward would be lost in Plan 5.
This was a quick review, more discussion needed.
Maniaci also sent this out:
Hi Mark, Lauren & Brian,
I looked over the new redistricting proposals in addition to the ones sent out last week.
Looking strictly at District 2 and the greater isthmus, I have the following comments:
I believe that the integrity of the neighborhood relationships and the populations of individuals living in the neighborhoods is best preserved in plans 1, 2, 7 (and all other plans/sub-plans that incorporate the boundaries in 1,2,7). Also under these three, the population differences between Districts 2,4,5,6,8 & 13 are relatively equal (..on a side note, I believe the population number for District 4 is missing on the map for Plan 2). I cannot speak to the nuances of the proposed boundaries to the farther outlying districts.
I am opposed to plans 5 and 8 for a number of reasons.
Plan 5: I hope to god this map was for illustrative purposes only. I notice that District 4 has over 14,000 people, and district 2 has only 9,996 and District 12 has even less individuals at 8,661. Far off the target (or legally divergent) population figure of 11,660.
Bisecting and dividing James Madison Park, eliminating representation of the James Madison Park neighborhood from District 2 and diluting diverse alder representation of undergraduate communities is a poor idea and completely and unnecessarily breaks apart these neighborhoods. Basing your mapping completely on neighborhood association boundaries, as you did in Plan 5, is a position I cannot support. Unlike South Blair Street, North Blair is very much a residential street. Also, neighborhood associations are not iron-clad, or based on geography. They are a function of the civic engagement and organization of the people who organize them. Prior to the expansion of Tenney-Lapham to Blair Street and the creation of the James Madison Park NA as part of Capitol Neighborhoods Inc., Old Market Row NA existed, and Blair street fell in the center of this NA. This is a neighborhood naturally joined between the current boundaries of the James Madison Park NA and Tenney-Lapham NA, and these NA on face value do not represent the functional boundaries of the neighborhood. The near-east isthmus neighborhood functionally starts at Wisconsin Ave. and continues on down the isthmus to the Yahara River, which has always served as a natural geographic boundary to east-side neighborhoods in the city. It already is divided in part between Mansion Hill and James Madison Park, on top of Tenney-Lapham. It appears that Plan 5 takes the Downtown as one Neighborhood Association because of CNI. That is not the case, it is very much made up of distinct and diverse associations that enjoin under the banner of CNI, but are in and of themselves independent and are of varying organizational levels.
Further, To include SAYSY in District 2 make little functional sense, or on the arguments of needing to add population to District 2 and lose population from District 4. The Yahara (and the rail yards & the Town of Madison that further surround it) are a natural and historic boundary within the dynamics of the functioning of neighborhoods in the city. Many of your proposals seem to recognize this and respect it. Plan 5 does not. Plan 5 also does not match up to police district boundaries nearly as well as plans 1,2 & 7 do.
Additionally, as proposed, you’d have not 2 but 3 sitting alders who would reside within the boundaries of Plan 5 for District 2, making for a messy transition. That point (in addition to all the others) should illustrate the misguided nature of this proposal.
Please remove this Plan from consideration.
Plan 8: I cannot comment on the expansion of District 6 into the SAYSY neighborhood and across E Washington Avenue. I will leave that to Marsha & Satya to comment upon. I can however say that changing the representation of the First Settlement neighborhood from District 6 to District 2 seems completely unnecessary compared to all of the other maps that were proposed where that NA stayed represented by District 6. It appears that little variation occurs in population shifts from District 4 to District 2 under this plan, yet all of First Settlement is added. I would believe that it is unnecessary for District 2 to cross E Washington Avenue.
I would love to discuss this further with you and other committee members if you would like. Please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Alder Bridget Maniaci
One resident responds:
As a homeowner on the Isthmus in District 2 near the Lapham school, I am opposed to adding more student housing sections into District2. I’m not saying I like plan 5, but I believe the section of District 2 near Lapham school where I live, is much more in character and demographic to the area around East High School, which it appears plan 5 incorporates.
When I testified, my main concern was to just follow the neighborhood lines and when it comes to Capitol Neighborhoods, you need to follow the district lines within. I recommended keeping the entire Mansion Hill Neighborhood in District 2 and State Langdon in District 8. Putting First Settlement with the others is of interest, but it is odd to cross E. Washington, but the neighborhoods have the most in common and it would be easier to represent the interests that are more in common.
Lots of maps to look at but most are largely the same. I recommend you look at where you live and how it impacts you, because we need to hear from people about their concerns. Now is the time!
