Reponding mostly to Terrels comments on this... I was at the redistricting hearing as well and it is clear to me that some of the concerns, particularly those about the packing of the 5th ward and placing of all its downtown area in the 7th ward, we not heeded by the commission.
Terrel wrote: > [TB] I'm not sure the City Charter gives the council an option other than adopt the presented plan. I am curious about this as well. I know of several people looking over the city charter and state statutes on this. I would like to hear from others out there (Brian?, David?). It is the position of the City Elections department that the council cannot do anything, but must set the precinct boundaries. I am wondering. Just what are the City Council options? What if they voted not to approve it? What if the did nothing? And why isn't this clear to council members and citizens, why is it so confusing? If indeed the council os powerless in all this, is this the best way to do redistricting? back to Terrel > Same press release quoting Cam Gordon: "Under the new plan, Downtown would become its own island � and a powerful one at that � insulated from the interests of the neighborhoods and the City at large. > Terrel goes on to say that downtown is a neighborhood. I think downtown may actually be a few neighborhoods. Under the new plan, however, they are all placed in with the affluent areas of Cedar Lake and Lake of Isles to form a new whiter and richer 7th ward. My point was not that the council might not all be concerned or involved in downtown, but that what happens there will now be further removed from input from the diverse interests of neighborhoods. This after a campaign where downtown development was clearly an issue for many voters. By having a council person who covers some of downtown and also represents other neighborhoods and interest groups it is more likely that the concerns of the groups will also find their way into the meetings of business associations and other groups that the council member attends. I contend that downtown is different from uptown and dinkytown. The city has a bigger stake in it and so do other interests. We should think very carefully about how we represent it and breaking from the historic decision to include several wards in downtown will not be without consequences. I am also concerned about this downtown ward because it will contain 25% minority population (according to the city figures) and much of that appears to come from shelters. Compare this to the 85% minority population of the 5th ward and it almost appears we are l ooking at classic cases of the "silk stocking" and "packing" redistricting tricks some of you may have read about in history books. Holle Brian is right. It is time to find a new system that does not place so much emphasis on needing to live together to vote together. After the dust settles from this round I would like to see us to a careful study of alternatives and work to create at least some city-wide or multimember wards that might be elected using proportional representation. In that way communities of interest could earn representation and they would not need to live together. I am not sure where this will all go from here, but I am not willing to stand down now considering the quality of the map that the council will have before them on Friday. In cooperation for a better democracy, Cam Gordon Seward _______________________________________ 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
