Dividing Detroit into Council Districts: How Would YOU Do It?

**kathy2trips** · November-28-09, 02:27 AM

I'd be interested in hearing what ideas you'd present if you were on the Charter Commission. One charter commissioner, Cara Blount wants the city divided up into 5 districts with 2 "at large". Do all 7 need to be responsible to a district? Are "at large" positions just BS? Where would you put the boundaries?

What do you think?

**DetroitPlanner** · November-28-09, 08:54 AM

Why would and at large position be BS? Others will be biased to their respective geographic units, and the at large would be the only ones responsive to the City at large.

**Mikeg** · November-28-09, 09:37 AM

120 years ago it was relatively easy, The city was split into 16 Wards, each parallel with Woodward Ave. and of varying width so that their populations were roughly the same.
Attachment 4116

**sumas** · November-28-09, 10:47 AM

An amusing thought since Detroit is a half circle would be to do pie shaped wedges, three on the west side, three on the eastside and one at large who lives on Woodward. Obviously this is a joke so no griping people.

I assume that population would be a major factor. One problem I see with that though, is to take the eastside as an example. A large urban prairie exists there. What if over the next few years the open land gets seriously developed. That would skew a districts population to be larger than others. Consequently language needs to be written for how often and when the districts can be realigned. The only thing the commission has a free hand in is district creation.

Having read the entire charter, I hope the commission goes word by word, line by line. Regarding city governance rules.

I believe the Commission to be far more important in terms of our cities future then either the mayor or council.

**wobbly** · November-28-09, 11:57 AM

Anyone know reasons why 7 is the proposed number? A larger number of council members with smaller districts [[and much smaller salaries and budgets) seems like a good idea.

**casscorridor** · November-28-09, 02:54 PM

Expand the council by two members. Six by district, three at large. District 1 - Central [[aprox the area inside Grand Blvd) District 2 - Southwest District 3 - Northwest District 4 - North [[Grand Blvd to McNichols + palmer park, Livernois to Hamtramck) District 5 - Northeast District 6 - East [[area on the Rep 7 - At large Rep 8 - At large Rep 9 - At large

**sumas** · November-28-09, 03:12 PM

Wobbly's suggestion is legitimate and has some historical basis. The only problem I see with that, is council requires staff, consequently more money for staff support.

I'd love to see the job for council as part time with only the President full time. Monica Conyers called it right, its a part time job for most of them.

Council president with top vote getters is silly. Make a vote by council members or senior member.

Drop the city supplied cars for personal use and the free parking. For security purposes, I understand the need for their special lot. Supply cars from a city fleet for official functions and clearly define official functions.

MichMatters · November-28-09, 09:14 PM

If I was doing it, I'd try to group historically and/or geographically connected areas, together whenever possible. Geographically, I'd split the city down Woodward, give two to the far west and eastsides, two the near west and eastsides, and one to southwest. Of course, they all have to have approximately the same population, so there might be "fingers/tentacles" that reach across Woodward, or the southwest side snakes all the way up to downtown.

Anyway, the plan I've heard is to simply use the current Detroit school district divisions. Not sure I like that idea.

**ASR89** · November-28-09, 09:19 PM

I'm not familiar with how the Detroit school districts are divided. Could someone please set me up a link?

**kathy2trips** · November-30-09, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by ljbad89

I'm not familiar with how the Detroit school districts are divided. Could someone please set me up a link?

I read on another thread that the school districts were gerrymandered at some point, perhaps more than once. It depends on which version you're talking about, I suppose. I'd be interested in seeking a link on that, myself.

Regarding at large positions on city councils, in general, Detroit's had all at large positions, and they haven't done so swell, eh? Exactly my point. To whom is the at large person responsible when something gets screwed up? If you're the councilperson, and it happens in your district, YOU get blamed, not some at large figurehead.

I've lived in a few cities in different states where, locally, at large positions are generally a ceremonial position, often held by some city old-timer, or a member of a founding member's family. Let's flip the script and learn from other cities' mistakes, instead them dissing us, again. [[Latest diss: "The Red Eye" this past week). I want to know their actual scope of responsibility, and how they'll be held accountable, if "at large" positions are that crucial.

AL's tend to do blue-ribbon cuttings, 5K runs and an inordinate amount of photo-ops. If you have a beef, they tell you to go to your representative in your district. There's no accountability for such a representative; they just take up space. Could you imagine not having accountability in your job?

We need all nine council people on board. If your district has fewer people, so be it. Each district should have some sort of Town Hall, where the council person has a district office and people can meet and discuss. Communication with The People is essential. Also, the council person MUST live in their district. Not just own property..it must be their main domicile. PERIOD

The REAL at-large representative of the people IMHO should be the mayor, first and foremost. Yes, he's the chief manager and leader, but he must always have The People in mind and do his best to consider them in all he/she does.

MichMatters · November-30-09, 05:40 AM

Kathy, in the current idea, the council president and vice president are the two at-large positions. So, you vote for your district council member, and then you get to vote for the at-large positions.

I personally like the idea of letting a council pick its own officers, but that's not even being discussed.

**kathy2trips** · December-05-09, 05:00 PM

from today's Free Press:
Multiple choices on districts for Detroit

**Fury13** · December-05-09, 05:31 PM

Have 13 districts, with one council member from each district; no at-large members. The council should elect its own president and vice-president.

Districts could be something like this:

1 - CBD
2 - Near West Side and Corktown
3 - Southwest Detroit and Delray
4 - Near Northwest and Middle Grand River Corridor
5 - Far Northwest
6 - Warrendale and Far West
7 - North End
8 - Sherwood Forest, Palmer Woods, Green Acres
9 - Near East Side, Lafayette Park
10 - Near Northeast and Middle Gratiot Corridor, City Airport area
11 - Far North and Northeast
12 - Indian Village to Jefferson East
13 - East English Village, Morningside, Balduck Park area

This way, all areas get represented.

**MikeM** · December-05-09, 07:33 PM

The way the Yellow Pages divides Detroit into geographical regions:

Attachment 4201

**kathy2trips** · December-05-09, 10:58 PM

So in looking at the map above, and eliminating the non-Detroit entities, you have: 1. Downtown 2. Central 3. East 4. Northeast 5. Northwest 7. West 8. Southwest [[Downriver). That makes 8. Should the Central district be separated into East and West [[divided by Woodward) sections. That would make 9. Or, perhaps the West Side is too big? Should that be split up, instead? Also, will using the Edsel Ford as a boundary split up cohesive areas? This map makes it even more obvious to me that 9 is the best number: workable, manageable, and yet, no one is left out. Again, IMHO, at-large positions are basically do-nothing figureheads with no accountability. That map is actually a pretty good guide.

MichMatters · December-06-09, 12:22 AM

Just so you know, on the map above where it's labeled "Redford" that's actually Old Redford within the boundaries of Detroit, as they differentiate between it and Redford Township.

**MikeM** · December-06-09, 12:45 AM

That map was from 1967. I wasn't serious - just threw it out there as an idea.

**MotownSpartan** · December-06-09, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by MichMatters

If I was doing it, I'd try to group historically and/or geographically connected areas, together whenever possible. Geographically, I'd split the city down Woodward, give two to the far west and eastsides, two the near west and eastsides, and one to southwest. Of course, they all have to have approximately the same population, so there might be "fingers/tentacles" that reach across Woodward, or the southwest side snakes all the way up to downtown.

Anyway, the plan I've heard is to simply use the current Detroit school district divisions. Not sure I like that idea.

I generally agree with some of your sentiments but dividing the city along woodward is a horrible idea. Just look at the central district, [[the district bound by Grand Blvd) it makes no sense to divide this neighborhood in half based on Woodward. Furthermore, its a bad political move as it makes sense to have this "district" as a solid political voting unit.

MichMatters · December-06-09, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by MotownSpartan

Furthermore, its a bad political move as it makes sense to have this "district" as a solid political voting unit.

Well, that's if this whole process is centered around downtown as if nothing else exists. Downtown is no more deserving of its own district than any other cohesive neighborhood. I'd not mind it as part of a city center district, since, after all, it certainly count as a historical and geographic center, but I hardly think this whole process should be built solely or even mostly around downtown. I am beginning to be bothered that for some, the only reason they want districts it to essentially split off downtown socially, and now politically, more than it already is.

**MikeM** · December-06-09, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by kathy2trips

So in looking at the map above, and eliminating the non-Detroit entities, you have: 1. Downtown 2. Central 3. East 4. Northeast 5. Northwest 7. West 8. Southwest [[Downriver). That makes 8. Should the Central district be separated into East and West [[divided by Woodward) sections. That would make 9. Or, perhaps the West Side is too big? Should that be split up, instead? Also, will using the Edsel Ford as a boundary split up cohesive areas? This map makes it even more obvious to me that 9 is the best number: workable, manageable, and yet, no one is left out. Again, IMHO, at-large positions are basically do-nothing figureheads with no accountability. That map is actually a pretty good guide.

Re-reading your post, you skipped number 6, but then you also missed the Grand Blvd-Woodward section south of Highland Park, so you still have a total of eight. Then there's Redford, so that makes nine.

**cman710** · December-06-09, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Fury13

Have 13 districts, with one council member from each district; no at-large members. The council should elect its own president and vice-president.

Districts could be something like this:

1 - CBD
2 - Near West Side and Corktown
3 - Southwest Detroit and Delray
4 - Near Northwest and Middle Grand River Corridor
5 - Far Northwest
6 - Warrendale and Far West
7 - North End
8 - Sherwood Forest, Palmer Woods, Green Acres
9 - Near East Side, Lafayette Park
10 - Near Northeast and Middle Gratiot Corridor, City Airport area
11 - Far North and Northeast
12 - Indian Village to Jefferson East
13 - East English Village, Morningside, Balduck Park area

This way, all areas get represented.

Fury13, I agree that there do not need to be at-large members. While I am not completely opposed to the idea, I think that having legislative body members represent a district-based constituency has many benefits.

At any rate, one factor that will need to be considered is the population of whatever districts are created. Since the 1964 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims, "one person, one vote" is required in apportioning electoral districts. Therefore, at least at the time the districts are initially drawn up, the populations of each district will need to be nearly the same. Then, the districts would need to be redrawn every 10 years based on census data. As a result, I think the best that will practically happen is to do the districts roughly by geography, and then play with the district lines to account for population.

**kathy2trips** · December-08-09, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by cman710

.......Since the 1964 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims, "one person, one vote" is required in apportioning electoral districts. Therefore, at least at the time the districts are initially drawn up, the populations of each district will need to be nearly the same. Then, the districts would need to be redrawn every 10 years based on census data. As a result, I think the best that will practically happen is to do the districts roughly by geography, and then play with the district lines to account for population.

You know, that's an excellent point. Anyone know of a link to a population map of Detroit?

**ASR89** · December-08-09, 02:21 AM

Kathy, here are some population density maps from the 2000 census:
http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/Map...popdensity.pdf
http://www.cus.wayne.edu/content/Map...ks-density.pdf

MichMatters · December-08-09, 03:00 AM

There aren't any proper population maps for Detroit, whatever that means, especially since Detroit isn't divided into municipal wards, yet, obviously. But, you can use the American FactFinder tool on the Census website and use it to divide the city into individual census tracts, piece together the ones you want to make a district, and find the population of those. It's be an incredibly tedious, task to say the least.