Thanks to Cam for taking my arguments seriously. I hope we geeks are not discussing in an echo chamber.
1. I noted the 4th Ward also helped pack the 5th. Cam counters that the 4th stayed the same and the 3rd and 7th changed more, so that's what's to blame. OK, I admit I'm stirring the pot a little. Cam's analysis is superior. However, I mostly want to get people noticing what stayed the same as well as what changed. Any reason why 4 was preserved when everything else moved? Perhaps because it's a natural way to draw it....or, 4 has always protected white officeholders and that has been preserved even with a rising minority population throughout the north side. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Cam's analysis focuses on Green opportunity - and it's persuasive. I'm focusing on minority opportunity, and ask again why you have an 82 percent minority ward next to a 49 percent ward instead of *two* minority-majority wards, since there's enough population for that. 2. Re: Downtown. At other points in his post, Cam argues against splitting groups up - but he would split up Downtown. He notes that the Downtown Council opposed a Downtown ward....with all due respect to DC CEO Sam Grabarski (who writes a column for my newspaper) this is not necessarily a virtue. I know plenty of Downtown residents who want to be together precisely to balance the commercial interests' sway over livability. It's also worth noting that Elliot Park - by far the poorest neighborhood Downtown - was the most vocal for Downtown being in one ward, which would inevitably be the 7th because Lisa Goodman is a Downtown resident. This is not to say that putting all of Downtown in the 5th wouldn't work, too...but I know more than a few "silk stocking" Downtown residents who fear their concerns wouldn't be heard by a council member with bigger problems in the poorer neighborhoods. (However, I understand it's easier for this group to get attention through money and turnout than a minority group that's disenfranchised in a majority ward.) I am not saying Cam is wrong, just that there are virtues on both sides. 3. Cam neatly characterizes the Redistricting Commission as "appointed by an appointed body." Not precisely true...two of the nine members are appointed by the elected council members....one (Rick Stafford) is derided in some quarters as the evil genius of this whole deal, the other (Fred Marcus) is derided in others as someone who completely marginalized himself and let Green interests go unprotected. (I hope some of those who feel this way come out of the woodwork, because they've sure been talking to me. Theirs is the "the fault is not in your stars but in yourselves, you Greens" caucus, about which I am only a faithful reporter.) Ok, the above is a minor point. Cam admits he doesn't have the answer, and neither do I but... Cam, I think, is wishing for the greener grass: let the politicians pick and hold them accountable...in 2005, in districts they themselves drew?! Hmm, sounds problematic to me. I still like the idea of a fully political body and a fully appointed body tackling redistricting and letting judges chose between their plans. But I share Cam's humility that there's probably a better answer out there. And when one emerges, how do we get *that* enacted? I'll wait for the strategy geeks to tell us about that one. David Brauer Kingfield...in the soon-to-be-renowned Precinct 8-7....aka "The Dogleg" _______________________________________ 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
