Question RE: City Council by District

I've read many posts on the forum about having city counsel members elected by district. I've also read a lot about a need to "downsize" Detroit. Specifically, the mayoral candidates mentioned looking into helping people in low density or bad neighborhoods move to more highly concentrated areas where city services can be delivered more effectively and Detroit can reduce the large geographic area it needs to provide services to.

If we have a council by district system will this frustrate attempts to engage in downsizing or "right-sizing" in the city? What council person in a district slated to be "downsized" or that is having residents moved to another district would support this plan? Is it possible council by district could thwart policies that focus resources on areas of the city that have the best chance of surviving and growing? Thanks for the responses.

The answer is to gerrymander the city into districts, avoiding the vacated areas, and placing them into the managership of one city agency which oversees mothballed land which will be one day developed, then annexed to an adjoining district when that development arrives.

Unofficially, the City is trying to rightsize, it's doing that by neglecting some areas a lot more than others, hoping that the people in those areas will get fed up and move out. The problem is that they're not moving into a denser neighborhood in the City, they're moving out of the City altogether.

Rightsizing won't work in Detroit. There are too many depressed areas in this City. In order to rightsize, you would have to limit access and freedom of movement through the city. Additionally, businesses are not going to look to locate in a city where it's client base may be moved away and into a competitor's area. One of the reasons, just one, that people are moving out of the City is that they want to move to an area where the schools will not get closed shortly after they move there. Can you imagine the mass exodus that will happen once the City closes an area? Those residents would take whatever money they get and move out of the city. Rightsizing would take the City's population below 500,000 practically overnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

Unofficially, the City is trying to rightsize, it's doing that by neglecting some areas a lot more than others, hoping that the people in those areas will get fed up and move out. The problem is that they're not moving into a denser neighborhood in the City, they're moving out of the City altogether.

Rightsizing won't work in Detroit. There are too many depressed areas in this City. In order to rightsize, you would have to limit access and freedom of movement through the city. Additionally, businesses are not going to look to locate in a city where it's client base may be moved away and into a competitor's area. One of the reasons, just one, that people are moving out of the City is that they want to move to an area where the schools will not get closed shortly after they move there. Can you imagine the mass exodus that will happen once the City closes an area? Those residents would take whatever money they get and move out of the city. Rightsizing would take the City's population below 500,000 practically overnight.

---

Maybe a more direct approach would be in order. The city could alway use its powers of Eminent domain to clear out and package certain areas for economic development [[industrial or residential). Perhaps the city could sweeten the deal with property taxes breaks, etc to keep the displaced from moving outside of the city. At least people and businesses will know what areas they should invest their time and money. Somehow, I think some form of rightsizing will need to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

Maybe a more direct approach would be in order. The city could alway use its powers of Eminent domain to clear out and package certain areas for economic development [[industrial or residential). Perhaps the city could sweeten the deal with property taxes breaks, etc to keep the displaced from moving outside of the city. At least people and businesses will know what areas they should invest their time and money. Somehow, I think some form of rightsizing will need to be done.

---

It's an issue that's going to need studying. I know there are a number of cities that are looking at rightsizing. But, I don't know of any cities that have actually done it. If anyone knows of any cities that have I hope that they post the information.

In the meantime, the city should look at rightsizing city government and design a strategic plan to do so. A hiring freeze on the city's staffing departments would be a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraig

It's an issue that's going to need studying. I know there are a number of cities that are looking at rightsizing. But, I don't know of any cities that have actually done it. If anyone knows of any cities that have I hope that they post the information.

---

The city of Youngstown, Ohio is successfully rightsizing their city. To see the official site, visit:
http://www.youngstown2010.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

The city of Youngstown, Ohio is successfully rightsizing their city. To see the official site, visit:
http://www.youngstown2010.com/

---

Thanks for the info. Although Youngstown is much smaller than Detroit, there were a lot parallels between our two cities.

Great posts on rightsizing. Although, my original question was more related to council by district and how this will impact attempts to rightsize the city. How would the districts be created in Detroit? If you did it by geographic area you'd have districts where a council person would represent a much smaller number of people than districts with high population density. If you did it by saying each district should have roughly the same number of voters you might have some pretty weird looking districts that don't accurately reflect the neighborhoods, etc.

i'd say that if/when the city gets sectioned into Districts, the district Rep needs to just accept it if their part of town is dwindling.. push for green re-development..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paris_of_the_Midwest

Great posts on rightsizing. Although, my original question was more related to council by district and how this will impact attempts to rightsize the city. How would the districts be created in Detroit? If you did it by geographic area you'd have districts where a council person would represent a much smaller number of people than districts with high population density. If you did it by saying each district should have roughly the same number of voters you might have some pretty weird looking districts that don't accurately reflect the neighborhoods, etc.

---

I don't think you would want to do to much gerrrymandering with the districts. I would maintain it shouldn't make much of a difference in terms of size because each councilperson will still have only one vote. I guess thats where the rightsizing part comes in since districts would have to be drawn up with possible areas for rightsizing in mind.
I'm sure eight or nine districts can be drawn up that makes sense for the neighborhoods that are involved.
What could happen is when the charter gets re-written we might have one or two at-large spots to go along with the districts even though I am not sure how that would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

I don't think you would want to do to much gerrrymandering with the districts. I would maintain it shouldn't make much of a difference in terms of size because each councilperson will still have only one vote. I guess thats where the rightsizing part comes in since districts would have to be drawn up with possible areas for rightsizing in mind.
I'm sure eight or nine districts can be drawn up that makes sense for the neighborhoods that are involved.
What could happen is when the charter gets re-written we might have one or two at-large spots to go along with the districts even though I am not sure how that would work.

---

The problem isn't that each council person has one vote. The problem is that your vote counts less if you live in a district where 50,000 people elect a council person versus someone who lives in a district where 10,000 people elect a council person. Then that % of the population would be overrepresented and have more power to control city funds and politics than they truly deserve. No politician is going to run on a platform of doing less for their district because it's in the best interests of the city as a whole. You will get elected by the funds and resources you divert towards your district. Certain districts may be over-represented and divert funds and resources away from other areas and priorities. How can we be sure that council by district won't turn out to be worse than what it replaces? Basically, without knowing how districts will be drawn, do supporters still back the idea?

Edit: Your idea of electing some at-large councilpersons in addition to districted councilpersons is very intriguing.

If the new charter proposes council by districts, it will also have to spell out how the districts will be drawn and how many districts there will be. It will also determine whether there are any "at large" councilmembers. So, people will not be voting in the dark, so to speak.

I have to reserve my opinion until I see what the charter comission comes up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paris_of_the_Midwest

Great posts on rightsizing. Although, my original question was more related to council by district and how this will impact attempts to rightsize the city. How would the districts be created in Detroit? If you did it by geographic area you'd have districts where a council person would represent a much smaller number of people than districts with high population density. If you did it by saying each district should have roughly the same number of voters you might have some pretty weird looking districts that don't accurately reflect the neighborhoods, etc.

---

Council by districts will impact attempts to rightsize. Councilmembers will support their constituents in fighting efforts to vacate their district. If they don't they won't be a good representative of their district. This is part of the fear people have with council by districts, it starts to pit one area of the city against the other for services, funding, projects, etc. You lose the "what's good for the city" focus and gain a "what's good for my district [[and me getting re-elected by my district) focus.

But, there are more important things that stand in the way of "rightsizing". Two big ones that I can think of, but that's not what this thread is about.

There is actually a project right now, dedicated to putting Detroit back on the ward system. They propose a council with seven districts and two at-large seats.

http://councilbydistricts.org/

You can contact them by e-mail, snail mail, or phone.

info@councilbydistricts.org


The League of Women Voters Office
1420 Washington Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226

313-962-0905

Of course, most of the council's current members oppose their plan. Many of the arguments against it claim districting would open the city to racist gerrymandering to create white seats on the council [[highly unlikely, given Detroit's current demographics), but the more likely culprit is that a council by districts would make council members responsible to actual neighborhoods, and could even force them to live in some rather unfashionable parts of the city.

Infighting and squabbling? I'd rather have council members fight for the health of their districts than have 3/4 of the city ignored entirely. The majority of Detroit's landmass is uninhabitable, and while I realize this city needs to find a way to clear out large swaths of land and manage its shrinking population, ignoring the problems of the residential areas isn't going to do that. The more people *leave* this city, the more difficult it becomes to manage this problem.

With only seven districts [[or even nine), you will have a City Council with the virtually the same makeup as what you have now. Instead of having seven crazies and a couple of halfway sane at-large members, you'll have seven crazies and a couple of halfway sane members living in districts. Your socioeconomic and racial makeup will remain the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paris_of_the_Midwest

The problem isn't that each council person has one vote. The problem is that your vote counts less if you live in a district where 50,000 people elect a council person versus someone who lives in a district where 10,000 people elect a council person. Then that % of the population would be overrepresented and have more power to control city funds and politics than they truly deserve. No politician is going to run on a platform of doing less for their district because it's in the best interests of the city as a whole. You will get elected by the funds and resources you divert towards your district. Certain districts may be over-represented and divert funds and resources away from other areas and priorities. How can we be sure that council by district won't turn out to be worse than what it replaces? Basically, without knowing how districts will be drawn, do supporters still back the idea?

---

Paris, first off, I like your screen name. I just wanted to note that under Supreme Court precedent, the situation that you described above cannot occur for very long. The Supreme Court has held that under the 14th amendment, the "one man, one vote" principal must apply to the drawing of election districts. So the city could not have districts with such disparate populations. Of course, while changes were occurring, districts' populations could change, but at some periodic interval, the city would need to redistrict. If a population change as drastic as that above occurred, the city would need to redistrict at some reasonable time interval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cman710

Paris, first off, I like your screen name. I just wanted to note that under Supreme Court precedent, the situation that you described above cannot occur for very long. The Supreme Court has held that under the 14th amendment, the "one man, one vote" principal must apply to the drawing of election districts. So the city could not have districts with such disparate populations. Of course, while changes were occurring, districts' populations could change, but at some periodic interval, the city would need to redistrict. If a population change as drastic as that above occurred, the city would need to redistrict at some reasonable time interval.

---

Exactly. It's a non-issue. A city with wards is required, just like congressional districts, to have approximately the same number of people in each ward. As population shifts within cities, wards boundaries are tweaked to reflect the changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by humanmachinery

There is actually a project right now, dedicated to putting Detroit back on the ward system. They propose a council with seven districts and two at-large seats.

http://councilbydistricts.org/

You can contact them by e-mail, snail mail, or phone.

info@councilbydistricts.org


The League of Women Voters Office
1420 Washington Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226

313-962-0905

Of course, most of the council's current members oppose their plan. Many of the arguments against it claim districting would open the city to racist gerrymandering to create white seats on the council [[highly unlikely, given Detroit's current demographics), but the more likely culprit is that a council by districts would make council members responsible to actual neighborhoods, and could even force them to live in some rather unfashionable parts of the city.

Infighting and squabbling? I'd rather have council members fight for the health of their districts than have 3/4 of the city ignored entirely. The majority of Detroit's landmass is uninhabitable, and while I realize this city needs to find a way to clear out large swaths of land and manage its shrinking population, ignoring the problems of the residential areas isn't going to do that. The more people *leave* this city, the more difficult it becomes to manage this problem.

---

The problem is that council members will fight for the health of their district regardless of whether that's in the best interests of the city as a whole. Take for example regionalism [[or the lack of it) here in Metro-Detroit. So many good things don't happen because politicians in Oakland, Wayne and Macomb are too busy fighting for their individual district to put the interests of the region first. Won't we just be transplanting this regional fighting system to a smaller scale within the city of Detroit. So rather than being able to focus on the districts/wards that actually have a chance of surviving and growing we'll get disjointed policies that don't move the city as a whole forward. One example might be the need to continue to strengthen downtown Detroit. However, under a council by district system, individual districts might not see the benefit to having a strong downtown when they're all out on the West side of the city [[even though most newer school urban developers recognize the need to have a strong central city). So, we'll have a situation like we have now with Oakland County residents [[now Detroit residents who don't live downtown which is the majority) not seeing the value in and supporting downtown.

edit: It's not that I oppose council by district [[I don't) but more that I do see some of the drawbacks to a greater extent than many of its ardent backers.

I don't think a councilperson would necessarily be opposed to depopulating sparsely populated areas if it meant repopulating a denser or more vibrant part of their own district. People could be moved within their own district.

OR, if all the districts had to agree to some kind of rightsizing, then there would be no opposition because everyone is in the same boat.

The urban villages concept works for this. Let's take a look at Poletown East. Just for the sake of illustration let's call the area from I-94, south to the River, and between St. Aubin & McDougall a single district. People living north of Gratiot, where the prairies are, could be encouraged to move south of Gratiot & Van Dyke, where there are more houses, density, and conveniences. The citizens would be moving in their own district so the councilperson wouldn't be able to complain about losing people. They would be doing two good things -- greening their district & also redensifying and reinvigorating their more vibrant and upcoming neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

OR, if all the districts had to agree to some kind of rightsizing, then there would be no opposition because everyone is in the same boat.

The urban villages concept works for this. Let's take a look at Poletown East. Just for the sake of illustration let's call the area from I-94, south to the River, and between St. Aubin & McDougall a single district. People living north of Gratiot, where the prairies are, could be encouraged to move south of Gratiot & Van Dyke, where there are more houses, density, and conveniences. The citizens would be moving in their own district so the councilperson wouldn't be able to complain about losing people. They would be doing two good things -- greening their district & also redensifying and reinvigorating their more vibrant and upcoming neighborhoods.

---

Yes but practically, some districts will likely be hit much harder by any downsizing/rightsizing effort and surely council persons in these districts will fight for funds and against plans that see their district receiving less city/state funds. It's very unlikely that "everyone will be in the same boat." Some will benefit more and some will be hurt more. This is especially true in Detroit where there are incredibly large swaths of land that in all practicality will not be developed in the near future. These large swaths tend to be concentrated in certain districts.

It seems that Detroit really should concentrate on the greater downtown/riverfront area [[plus a few other more densely populated places). With the limited resources the city has, it is foreseeable that a practical development plan would entail the city devoting a very significant amount of resources to jump-start a small number of viable neighborhoods [[that eventually will grow and spread) but this likely wouldn't be politically feasible in a council by district system.

The ballot language for Detroiters for Council by Districts indicates that “The election commission shall, to the greatest extent possible, establish wards that are compact, contiguous, and of equal population.” This proposal would create 7 wards of approximately 125,000 residents each.

Nobody is proposing moving residents from one part of the city to another. Equating this with Council by Districts is a fear tactic. Don’t fall for fear tactics. Support Council by Districts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paris_of_the_Midwest

The problem is that council members will fight for the health of their district regardless of whether that's in the best interests of the city as a whole.

---

The majority of current council members not represent or concern themselves with the interests of the city as a whole. When's the last time Alberta Tinsley-Talabi or Barbara-Rose Collins did anything productive? Ideally, an at-large council [[as seen in Vancouver) views the whole of the city as its concern, and takes a "not in my town" approach to problems, but this has never reflected the political culture of Detroit. We have a long history of corruption and incompetence, and in such an environment, the dictum of James Madison remains true. Ambition must be pitted against ambition.

Quote:

---

Take for example regionalism [[or the lack of it) here in Metro-Detroit. So many good things don't happen because politicians in Oakland, Wayne and Macomb are too busy fighting for their individual district to put the interests of the region first.

---

That's because nobody ever bothered to create a system for regional cooperation back when the suburbs were first growing, and Detroit could still use its resources as bargaining chips. Now the city and its suburbs exist in a parasitic relationship, where the utilities are still centralized, but all power and wealth lies in the outer rings. Those few persons in Detroit who still retain some authority and means guard it jealously, for fear of losing what little they have left.

Quote:

---

Won't we just be transplanting this regional fighting system to a smaller scale within the city of Detroit. So rather than being able to focus on the districts/wards that actually have a chance of surviving and growing we'll get disjointed policies that don't move the city as a whole forward. One example might be the need to continue to strengthen downtown Detroit. However, under a council by district system, individual districts might not see the benefit to having a strong downtown when they're all out on the West side of the city [[even though most newer school urban developers recognize the need to have a strong central city).

---

The downtown area is already the focus of most economic development plans. It is also where the city's few remaining business interests lie, and so it is the focus of most policy concerns at present.

But if Detroit wishes to raise its tax base, it will need to convince PEOPLE to move back into the city. In order for this to happen, the government will need to fix the schools and provide better services. These are concerns that affect the neighborhoods, not just downtown.

But if you are concerned about gerrymandering being used to favor one region of the city over another, that is why an independent districting authority should be used. If necessary, the council can employ a contracted non-partisan group.

Quote:

---

So, we'll have a situation like we have now with Oakland County residents [[now Detroit residents who don't live downtown which is the majority) not seeing the value in and supporting downtown.

---

The majority of Detroit's residents have NEVER lived downtown. In that sense, the land use patterns of this city have always been backwards.

Still, while I recognize that Detroit needs business, the first priority of any government ought to be its citizens. Government by consent of the governed and all that. What is best for General Motors is not necessarily what is best for America, and what is best for downtown does not automatically improve Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48202

The ballot language for Detroiters for Council by Districts indicates that “The election commission shall, to the greatest extent possible, establish wards that are compact, contiguous, and of equal population.� This proposal would create 7 wards of approximately 125,000 residents each.

Nobody is proposing moving residents from one part of the city to another. Equating this with Council by Districts is a fear tactic. Don’t fall for fear tactics. Support Council by Districts.

---

Actually, at some point we may need to focus our limited resources on a limited geographic area and those areas left out will not be happy [[read, their local council person will protect their funding to the detriment of the city at large). For me, it's not that I "fear" that council by districts entails moving residents...it's the opposite. At some point we may need to encourage certain migration patterns in our city to more stable neighborhoods and a council-by-district would actually prevent this.

Council by Districts will not prevent anything. Council by Districts will produce better representation, and better representation will produce better planning decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

Maybe a more direct approach would be in order. The city could alway use its powers of Eminent domain to clear out and package certain areas for economic development [[industrial or residential).

---

In part, this is the mechanism that was used in Youngstown. However, I believe that in Detroit today, thanks to Hathcock v. Wayne, eminent domain may no longer be used for this purposes. I have been researching alternative mechanisms for accomplishing rightsizing, mostly market-based approaches, and will ostensibly have a thesis on the topic by the end of the summer, but we'll see. :)

I'd think the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2005 would override that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London


And I'm totally in favor of seeing condemned and abandoned buildings bulldozed for economic redevelopment, but not well-maintained residences, with owners who pay their taxes. Kicking some little old lady out of a house she's owned for 50 years so you can put up a shopping mall is just wrong.

or it could be that the more rabble rousey among us will go constitutional:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....43908e5d.html

Support Council by Districts www.councilbydistricts.org.

Sign the petition
Circulate the petition
Donate online

There should be AT LEAST 15 districts, not seven.

More districts would:

-- Reduce the amount of power wielded per councilmember.

-- Possibly allow for the election of "minority" [[read: Latino) representatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48202

The ballot language for Detroiters for Council by Districts indicates that “The election commission shall, to the greatest extent possible, establish wards that are compact, contiguous, and of equal population.� This proposal would create 7 wards of approximately 125,000 residents each.

Nobody is proposing moving residents from one part of the city to another. Equating this with Council by Districts is a fear tactic. Don’t fall for fear tactics. Support Council by Districts.

---

It's not about "supporting council by districts" or not supporting it. It's about using the forum to engage in a serious discussion of the council by district plan. You seem intent on seeing the measure passed, that's fine but it seems that in the heat of the campaign you are resorting to typical tactics of not acknowledging that your position has any drawbacks whatsoever. There are negatives to any system of representation. I'm not against council by districts, I just think we'll end up with a better plan in the end if we don't ignore anything that might be bad about council by districts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fury13

There should be AT LEAST 15 districts, not seven.

More districts would:

-- Reduce the amount of power wielded per councilmember.
-- Possibly allow for the election of "minority" [[read: Latino) representatives.

---

interesting-- perhaps arrange districts along police precincts..
would a larger council then perhaps be a non-paid position, or at best, part time? hmm... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andylinn

In part, this is the mechanism that was used in Youngstown. However, I believe that in Detroit today, thanks to Hathcock v. Wayne, eminent domain may no longer be used for this purposes. I have been researching alternative mechanisms for accomplishing rightsizing, mostly market-based approaches, and will ostensibly have a thesis on the topic by the end of the summer, but we'll see. :)

---

let us know, Andy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by humanmachinery

I'd think the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2005 would override that.

---

The Kelo decision doesn’t block stricter controls at the state level, such as Michigan ’s in the Hathcock case. In fact, they cited the Michigan case, IIRC.

Given the history of abuse of eminent domain in the state, I wouldn’t support its use to “rightsize� the city.

At some level, we’re overthinking the “rightsizing� issue. The people are moving out already. There are plenty of urban prairie streets on the east side where the city currently provides nothing [[except street resurfacing?!?!) already. Simply post signs at the designated boundaries, “You are now entering a nature preserve� and let the built environment disintegrate on its own.

donate to www.councilbydistricts.org. today! any amount is appreciated. we've got a small army of petition gatherers out there right now. sign the petition. circulate the petition. we need your support to make this a reality!