Article gives hint of how Council will create districts.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011090...ity-corruption

Quote:

---

If voters approve the proposal, the current council would be charged with creating the districts. Council President Charles Pugh expects the new districts to be created by February, once the new precincts are drawn up to reflect the population changes in the 2010 census.

One of the goals, Pugh said, is breaking up downtown -- where the wealthiest population lives -- into multiple districts and matching them up with neighborhoods. The idea, he said, is to ensure that districts are relatively similar in economic status.

"We want to do this in an extremely nonpolitical way so that it is open, transparent and has as much community input as possible," Pugh said, adding that the council may begin hosting town hall-style meetings as early as November to hear what Detroiters want out of the districts.

"We don't want to create impoverished or super-rich districts."

Eve Hicks, a 26-year-old who lives in Midtown, said the charter offers hope for a city trying to reinvent itself.

"It's a good start," said Hicks, who moved to the city in 2008. "Districts are important to me because you'll know who your council member is. It's part of engaging residents."

If voters reject the revised charter, there would still be council by districts. That's because Detroiters, in 2009, approved Proposal D, which called for creating seven district seats and two at-large district seats. Either way, Detroiters would elect council members by district starting in 2013.

---

This might seem like a laudable goal on its face, but does it make sense to have neighborhoods which will have very different needs in the same district? Should we be pushing instead for pluralism?

Gerrymandering by any other name? The whole point was to have district representatives who stand up for specific needs in a specific area. Instead, I think they're going to try to carve Detroit up into their little "districts" that behave like at-large voting.

Pugh was all fine for democracy when it favored him, with his name recognition. This is the same guy who sat on the election committee and struck the marijuana referendum off it -- obviously, he doesn't trust people to vote his way on some things. And now, with just a little tinkering, the districts can favor the old-timers.

I gave Pugh a chance. He's turning out to be just another one of them. Maybe a little smoother.

I don't see what is laudable about this. Even if you create a relatively poor district, that relatively poor district would have a voice. Isn't that much like mandating minority-majority congressional districts - to ensure that the disenfranchised get a voice?

It is just hard to tell if Pugh is conniving or just an intellectual lightweight.

I can gather, then, that this also means breaking up Southwest Detroit as well [[that's just the unsaid part). I'm sure an entirely black council will be preserved by the powers that be.

This makes absolutely no sense. What difference does it make if one district has more money than another? The council representatives still have an equal vote. The only way money would affect an election is within that district. The goal should be to divide the city fairly equally in terms of both area and population, not mix and match rich and poor areas that have little in common. If that's done, it will be certain that the poor in that district will have zero voice.

The first thing that should flag Pugh's outpourings as a steaming pile of BS is saying that we're going to draw up political districts and it won't be "political."

Here's a sensible, seven-district plan I drew up in a few minutes.

Attachment 10578

It allows for two representatives from the fairly well-off northwest side. Much of the housing stock there is the same. Much of the income level is the same. They would likely have similar issues. Same goes for the southwest Detroit district. East siders, especially around the airport neighborhood, would have a voice to talk about policing and crime in that area. And Midtown-Woodbridge would be one neighborhood, as would Downtown-Corktown-Lafayette. The only real serious income mix should be in the north-central Detroit district, which includes Palmer Park and Sherwood, but also some distressed areas, for a balance.

Now, here's what I think Pugh's plan is:

Attachment 10579

In this "fair, non-political" districting, voices of specific neighborhoods are neutralized. Citywide issues are foregrounded. Representatives are responsible for so many kinds of neighborhoods, housing stock, issues, crimes, etc., that nobody can really be held accountable any more than they can now!

Agreed. This is a stupid idea. I hate to say it, but it sure seems like the council is afraid of the prospect of having a little diversity on the council.

I have a feeling that the folks in the CBD aren't going to go for this. If local bureaucrats were to carve up areas like Corktown or Woodbridge, you wouldn't be able to hear your own thoughts over the howl.

Wow nerd. How did you do that with those maps?! I'm impressed:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detroitsgwenivere

Wow nerd. How did you do that with those maps?! I'm impressed:)

---

Aww, shucks. Just a PC paint program and an outline to work from. I'm not a pro. ;)

i think the charter commission's plan calls for nine districts. I still have the Free Press "districts" mockup from last year, and attended a public meeting at 2nd Ebenezer Church. Pugh was there, also a representative of the city dept. of elections.. the Elections rep at the time asserted that their office would determine districts, but I guess a judge determined otherwise? also, one of the issues was whether council would have direct oversight over certain city services if/when districts were enacted. I asked Pugh for his top 3 city depts./services that he felt city council should have influence on if this route were chosen.. The answer he gave was.. well, I'm not sure he really answered it..
The assumption is that a self-contained downtown or midtown district would create an imbalance in redevelopment priorities, but, is that really the case..?

Wouldn't forcing all districts to be equal in demographics actually further disenfranchise a segment of the population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

i think the charter commission's plan calls for nine districts. I still have the Free Press "districts" mockup from last year, and attended a public meeting at 2nd Ebenezer Church. Pugh was there, also a representative of the city dept. of elections.. the Elections rep at the time asserted that their office would determine districts, but I guess a judge determined otherwise? also, one of the issues was whether council would have direct oversight over certain city services if/when districts were enacted. I asked Pugh for his top 3 city depts./services that he felt city council should have influence on if this route were chosen.. The answer he gave was.. well, I'm not sure he really answered it..
The assumption is that a self-contained downtown or midtown district would create an imbalance in redevelopment priorities, but, is that really the case..?

---

No, because the council member still only has one vote! If anything the other districts would hold more sway over downtown.

I find the Pugh plan, as imagined in Dnerd's radial ward map, intriguing. It is somewhat in the spirit of the original Woodward Plan.

All wards would have a piece of downtown and be a part of the heart of the city. All wards come together and have at least one area of common interest as opposed to separated districts in Dnerd's 2nd map.

Why would the far west ward have anything in common with the far east? The city essentially becomes a downtown with six suburbs in that scenario.

Whatever they do it can't be as bad as the state congressional redistricting. Elbridge Gerry was smiling from beyond the grave when he saw that pile of dung.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

I find the Pugh plan, as imagined in Dnerd's radial ward map, intriguing. It is somewhat in the spirit of the original Woodward Plan.

...

Why would the far west ward have anything in common with the far east? The city essentially becomes a downtown with six suburbs in that scenario.

---

The Woodward radial plan was about transportation and doesn't have anything to do with political representation, though. So I don't think it's particularly relevant here.

Also I think the point others are making is that the spirit of the ward system people envisioned is best served if the wards don't have everything in common with one another. Otherwise, there isn't a forum for competing interests--and the city is full of them. A neighborhood-based system like Dnerd drew also would shake up the current at-large council, which is probably the main reason why the council doesn't want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

I find the Pugh plan, as imagined in Dnerd's radial ward map, intriguing. It is somewhat in the spirit of the original Woodward Plan.

All wards would have a piece of downtown and be a part of the heart of the city. All wards come together and have at least one area of common interest as opposed to separated districts in Dnerd's 2nd map.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Why would the far west ward have anything in common with the far east? The city essentially becomes a downtown with six suburbs in that scenario.

---

While I think it's great that Detroit is on a track to a ward system, perhaps we have been without a ward system so long that we do not understand why it is desirable.

Sure, some things will improve no matter how the districts are drawn. Ballot choices will be simpler. Voters will have a better chance to know their candidates, and candidates will find it easier to campaign among their ward residents. Campaigns will also be less costly and time-consuming, potentially taking some of the money out of politics. Smaller areas mean that candidates will tend to be more familiar with the issues affecting the communities they seek to represent.

But that isn't to say the way the lines are drawn isn't important. It's very important. One of the primary benefits of a ward system is that ward representatives tend to provide more community-specific representation. That means an east side councilmember could put crime front and center, whereas a southwest councilmember might highlight environmental justice. For that matter, a mid-city councilmember might be a Bay Area-style liberal; heck, a downtown councilmember might even be a pro-business republican.

But drawing together neighborhoods that are similar in character and face similar issues into one ward means somebody is going to speak to the real problems of the neighborhoods, instead of councilmembers being weighted toward downtown, the way it has been. You might even see people rise outside of party lines, competent neighborhood leaders winning as independent candidates. What if we could draw on the abilities and experiences of people who want to serve their fellow citizens, but have not found a home in any political party?

This cannot be accomplished without carefully drawing lines so that people can represent specific interests. The proposed benefits of "commonality" among councilmembers is actually NOT one of the benefits of a real ward system. After all, different wards SHOULD want different things. And what is politics except the place where those differences are hashed out?

And, frankly, what business have our current councilmembers deciding how to draw these boundaries? They have a vested interest in preserving their power. Naturally, they envision the wards as being smaller versions of at-large voting, because it would benefit them. They could move to specific neighborhoods, set up shop, trade off their name recognition, and then still wouldn't have to do a damn thing to improve their ward. If Pugh really wants this districting plan to be nonpolitical, the council should be stopped, and the districts should be drawn up by a data expert like Kurt Metzger.

Yes, we want districts. But we want them drawn so we, the people, get full benefit of them -- not the current crop of councilmembers!

For this reason - council drawing the districts- and one or two other things like how the police commission would be elected, I plan to vote no on the charter.