Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be kids' and families' neighborhood with the new redistricting plan. Prior to the new proposal, downtown was and is represented by several wards and folks who have lots of families and kids as their constituents, whether in Harrison, Near North, or some areas in Southeast Minneapolis in Ward 2. Seward, for instance, has a small but growing kids population and currently has nearly 1/2 of the kids of all of newly proposed Ward 7. Near North currently has nearly as many kids in all of Ward 7. Both Seward and Near North, however, will no longer be within the newly configured "downtown" ward. In the past, Seward and Near North were represented by Council Members who also represented parts of downtown.
The new Ward 7 unfortunately diminishes kids and families' interests in wanting to have a more kid-friendly downtown. Here's some info gleaned from census data: the new Ward 7 would represent about 2,900 kids out of a total population of about 30,000, or roughly 10%. If you look at households with kids, there are about 1,500 families with kids out of about 12,000 total households (or roughly 12%). Most of the families with kids live in five neighborhoods: Kenwood, Lowry Hill, Bryn Mawr, Ellliot Park, and Loring Park, a majority of wealthy neighborhoods.
I cannot stress enough the need to look at kids and their interests as we develop our plans, and I find the current plan unacceptable with respect to how children are represented and effectively cut out of downtown interests. Given the really cool discussion of kids' fun downtown, I'd love to hear others' comments and criticisms on this issue.
By the way, it looks like you have to call the Minneapolis Elections office to be on the list of speakers for the April 11 Public Hearing on redistricting. That number is 612-673-2070 (and it is unfortunately not included on the City's redistricting web site). You should also be able to e-mail the elections office at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get on the list.
Gregory Luce
Project 504/Minneapolis (North Phillips)
loki anderson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Dang! I really wish I knew where this Star Chamber
that Mr Luce speaks of is located, cause I know I've
been involved in the Mpls DFL on and off for the last
12 years and haven't been able to find it. To
reiterate what Brian stated in his previous post, the
Mpls DFL presented the Charter Commission with a list
of candidates to be members of the Redistricting
Commission, only one of which was chosen. Not quite
the performance of the machine that everyone claims
we are.
If the DFL members of the commission are talking with
council members and collaborating with each other to
create a plan, they are doing so without any
authorization or knowledge of the party. Period.
And, frankly, I'd be happy if they reject the NAACP
plan. As those of you who read my posts know, I live
in the Marshall Terrace neighborhood in northeast
Mpls. Were this plan enacted we would be added with
two other small neighborhoods to a new Third Ward
which would be largely dominated by the Camden
community of neighborhoods. If you want to talk about
gerrymandering, there it is. I cannot imagine how
marginalized we could potentially be should this come
to pass, no matter who the council member is.
I don't agree with everything the tentative plan does
(what IS with that new Third Ward anyway), but I do
know that three small neighborhoods in NE would be
feeling the effects of it rather harshly for the next
decade. Call me parochial but I am not about to see
this happen.
Loki Anderson
Marshall Terrace
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Gregory Luce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:[Mpls] NAACP Redistricting PlanGene Martinez wrote:
. . . I agree completely that the NAACP plan is
superior to the DFL 'incumbent protection plan'.
Does the DFL Central
Committee plan on weighing in on this issue? Does
the party consider the
opinions of the NAACP important in determining what
plan will best serve
people of color? I hope there is a vigorous effort
to get the DFL majority
on the Commission to adopt the NAACP plan. It is
time to raise some hell!"
Brian Melendez responded: I am aware of no current
plans for the City DFL Central Committee's
consideration of redistricting, and the Party has
not taken a view in favor
of or against any proposed plan. What has been
labeled the "DFL" plan is not
the product of the Party organization, but rather of
DFLers who serve as
commissioners, only one of whom was nominated
through the Party
organization. Those commissioners, including the on e
commissioner whom the
City Party nominated, are all free to act according
to their conscience and
do not answer to the Party organization.
Frankly, I am discouraged by Mr. Melendez's response
because it raises directly and indirectly to me one
of the most frustrating things in politics: the
politics of "plausible deniability." Brian
plausibly denies that the DFL party has anything to
do officially with the development and approval of
any plan, stating that the "Party has not taken a
view in favor of or against any proposed plan," and
that the DFL folks on the Commission "are all free
to act according to their conscience and do not
answer to the Party organization." True indeed.
C'mon. I'm no party insider (in fact, I'm an
outsider) but everyone who knows something knows
that there is considerable back-room dealing and
hobnobbing to assure that the party is protected,
particularly incumbents. Plus, folks ar e not
appointed to the Commission without some real
political party connection. To say that the
Commissioners are free to act their conscience is
very true, but it certainly does not reflect
reality, and Mr. Melendez's political statement of
plausible deniability truly reaffirms to me why I
left the DFL--it is a party of insiders whose
mission is to protect those insiders, often by
excluding and punishing others who do not conform.
Often, because of its narrow mission, it begins to
exclude or actually does exclude the interests of
perceived "outsiders," such as the well-thought out
(but necessarily open to change) NAACP plan. But
the DFL party is a whole 'nother issue, as I
digress.
As a test of the Commission's "conscience," I
challenge it to truly open the public hearing to the
public and to spend the night if necessary hearing
from the public. Politics is messy, public hearings
are messy and tiring, but to shortchange a necessary
mess and process through back-room deals and limits
on the ability of the public to participate fully is
unacceptable. So, my question to Commissioners:
what process will be available to the public to
participate on April 11? What changes will be
considered to existing plans and how do we best
prepare to suggest those changes, or even propose
other plans? How much time will we have?
Gregory Luce
Project 504/Minneapolis (North Phillips)
=====
"In their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking"
-George Harrison
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
