Preliminary Council Map Released (Houston, Austin: homes, gated, income)

[Trainwreck20]

Yeah, that is the only one that kind of looked odd to me, but I am guessing that maybe the 'rough' area Rundberg is cut out so as to have its own representative, I guess? If the districts cut across that general area, then they would be accused of diluting out the poorer area that is currently represented in D4....

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

... but I am guessing that maybe the 'rough' area Rundberg is cut out so as to have its own representative, I guess?

One of the chief goals of 10-1 was to increase minority representation - black and Hispanic - past the 1-1 "gentlemen's agreement". Certainly, District 1 was drawn to elect an African American, while 2 & 3 were drawn to elect Hispanics. The interesting part is that 4, with the right candidate, could elect a third Hispanic.

Would love to see the overlay of ethnicity on these districts. All the handwringing over "gerrymandering" would probably become much clearer then.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Dunno, seems to me to be about the least gerrymandered set of districts I have seen. Yes, they are a bit odd shaped, but it is impossible to make them all square or whatever, and then people would get mad at that anyway. The discussion seems to indicate that everyone wants the districts gerrymandered to meet their own desires

I think that pretty much covers it... Thank you, folks! and Good Night!

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by AustinGuy

Well, District 7 (the one with both Tarrytown & Techridge) is the one that specifically seems to be the most odd.

7 is very odd. Since 7 is 3.64% over their target population and 1 is 3.85% under their target population, why not give Techridge/Parmer to 1? I want to know what geopolitical issue is driving 7 so far north.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by thesonofgray

7 is very odd. Since 7 is 3.64% over their target population and 1 is 3.85% under their target population, why not give Techridge/Parmer to 1? I want to know what geopolitical issue is driving 7 so far north.

Because it would dilute the African American percentage in District 1.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Dunno, seems to me to be about the least gerrymandered set of districts I have seen. Yes, they are a bit odd shaped, but it is impossible to make them all square or whatever, and then people would get mad at that anyway. The discussion seems to indicate that everyone wants the districts gerrymandered to meet their own desires

Um, really? You don't think the slicing up of Central Austin is just a little bit weird? That linking 78704 and Hyde Park in a single district makes sense?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Um, really? You don't think the slicing up of Central Austin is just a little bit weird? That linking 78704 and Hyde Park in a single district makes sense?

It's ridiculous. All of this for a law passed in a different era that was mostly struck down just this year for being completely out-of-step with the times.

Slicing and dicing a city like this is no way to respect the various communities that comprise it.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

It's ridiculous. All of this for a law passed in a different era that was mostly struck down just this year for being completely out-of-step with the times.

The Attorney General, appointed by the guy that carried Travis County by 60 to 36, doesn't care.

More schadenfreude.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by tildahat

I think oblivious-to-the-urbanism-debatists will outnumber those of us invested in it 50-1.

Anecdotally, my neighbors have been excited about the new South Mopac Flyer Capmetro added, the Violet Crown Trail, and think there's "a lot of cool stuff" going on downtown, SoCo, etc. I think that's part of what you're missing. A lot of people, especially in close in suburbia, like the what's going on centrally, as opposed to say the BCNA who thinks the world is going to end with every new development. Politics makes strange bedfellows as they say.

I'd be willing to bet that a fair number of those people who say they like the "cool stuff" downtown end up supporting the very policies that make it impossible to happen in their neighborhoods.

If Austin ends up being a cool hyper exclusive central core surrounded by mile after mile of sprawl (the current tragectory) then we're sure to become exactly what most people profess to hate: a huge cancerous blot on the map completely indistinguishable from Houston, except with worse shopping and fewer museums.

At least there was a fighting chance when the Urbanists weren't relegated to a single district.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Dunno, seems to me to be about the least gerrymandered set of districts I have seen. Yes, they are a bit odd shaped, but it is impossible to make them all square or whatever, and then people would get mad at that anyway. The discussion seems to indicate that everyone wants the districts gerrymandered to meet their own desires

One of the best classes I took in college was a senior seminar on redistricting with Bill Hobby. We were all on teams to redistrict Houston and had to follow the basic guidelines/laws but were assigned different normative goals. We all came up with "correct" maps according to those goals (though it was an incredible amount of work - hopefully the computer programs are better than they were 20 years ago!) but are maps were nonetheless all completely different.

I guess my point is that there are no "right" answers, though egregiously wrong ones are possible...