Detroit council-by-district draft maps

LMich · #1 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 10:58 AM**

Here are the draft maps for the seven new council districts. The council wants to pick one of these by March:

Map #1

Marp #2

Map #3

Map #4

My personal preference is that any map that divides downtown/inner-city is just stupid, so that rules out 3 and 4. I like both 1 and 2 for different reasons. I like 1 because of how it more properly divides the westside north-to-south, but not that it groups downtown in with the far east side. I like 2 because of how it keeps "old Detroit" together, but not how they divide the out-city neighborhoods. All of them smartly create a Southwest Detroit district.

Here's the Freep story with some details about demographics and changes that had to be made.

fishrose · #2 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

My personal preference is that any map that divides downtown/inner-city is just stupid, so that rules out 3 and 4. I like both 1 and 2 for different reasons. I like 1 because of how it more properly divides the westside north-to-south, but not that it groups downtown in with the far east side. I like 2 because of how it keeps "old Detroit" together, but not how they divide the out-city neighborhoods. All of them smartly create a Southwest Detroit district.

Here's the Freep story with some details about demographics and changes that had to be made.

I like 1 and 3 the best, but I still have some concerns. I don't like the idea of dividing downtown, but I feel like map 3 does the best job of keeping the far east side intact. Grouping the Villages and Rivertown together with Connor Creek and Jefferson-Chalmers (as in map 1) seems like a recipe for marginalization, but I feel the same way about grouping Woodbridge and Midtown in with Southwest (as in map 3).

Using map 3 as a starting point, I would push the boundary between the green and red districts west to Grand River south of I-94, but push it east to Rosa Parks north of I-94. Absorbing Woodbridge and more of the CBD would likely push red's population high enough that you could move Linwood into the blue or yellow districts, which is a better fit in my opinion.

I'm really torn between a desire to see the outer neighborhoods get more of a voice and a fear that dividing districts directly down neighborhood lines would be counterproductive because no one would manage to agree on anything.

subterranean · #3 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 9:39 PM**

I doubt this will be a done deal. The city will probably have to be redistricted pretty often as certain areas hollow out and other areas grow over the next couple of decades. That being said, from what little I know about the populations of the various districts, I think #3 would work out pretty well.

subterranean · #4 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

My personal preference is that any map that divides downtown/inner-city is just stupid, so that rules out 3 and 4. I like both 1 and 2 for different reasons. I like 1 because of how it more properly divides the westside north-to-south, but not that it groups downtown in with the far east side. I like 2 because of how it keeps "old Detroit" together, but not how they divide the out-city neighborhoods. All of them smartly create a Southwest Detroit district.

Here's the Freep story with some details about demographics and changes that had to be made.

I actually like the fact that in the last two maps Southwest Detroit would have a say in Downtown matters...

hudkina · #5 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 10:04 PM**

I think they should break it down by socio-economic areas. For example, I would create a district that basically connects the more middle-class neighborhoods of Northwest Detroit and the Grandmont-Rosedale area. I would maybe put Southwest Detroit and Warrendale in a district. I would maybe create a district that surrounds Downtown.

vid · #6 Posted: **Jan 23, 2012, 11:29 PM**

Only seven? Do they elect multiple members or is Detroit city council that small?

hudkina · #7 Posted: **Jan 24, 2012, 1:06 AM**

There are seven district members and two at large members.

LMich · #8 Posted: **Jan 24, 2012, 8:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

I actually like the fact that in the last two maps Southwest Detroit would have a say in Downtown matters...

I like the idea in redistricting of splitting historically similar and/or ethnically similar neighborhoods as infrequently as possible. Ethnically, downtown's population is much more similar to say the areas directly north or east of it than it is to the areas west-southwest of it. My idea for a downtown district would go no further southwest than the bridge, otherwise, things start to get really dissimilar, demographically.

EDIT: The News reported, today, that the southwest district in each of these four drafts map are approximately 40% hispanic, which I would guess is a plurality.

hudkina · #9 Posted: **Jan 24, 2012, 9:37 PM**

I would do something like this:

This is just off the top of my head. I have no idea what the population would be of each of these districts, but I think this is generally what I would do.

subterranean · #10 Posted: **Jan 26, 2012, 1:24 PM**

A rough map I made a couple years ago of the CDCs in Detroit:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=...84581,0.617294

iheartthed · #11 Posted: **Jan 26, 2012, 5:07 PM**

Map 1 would be my preference followed by Map 4. I don't mind them splitting downtown. It may even work better that way since the district that includes downtown wouldn't ever get too top heavy, but that is balanced by it having two votes.

LMich · #12 Posted: **Feb 6, 2012, 12:38 PM**

Data Driven Detroit has come up with a 5th option, which I think kind of includes the best of all of the current four:

UglymanCometh · #13 Posted: **Feb 6, 2012, 3:23 PM**

^That map actually makes sense... which means that it won't even get looked at.

Trumbull · #14 Posted: **Feb 17, 2012, 5:37 AM**

http://www.freep.com/article/2012021...istricting-map

Quote:

Detroit City Council approves new map for districts
By Steve Neavling

Closing in one of the most sweeping changes to elections in Detroit, the City Council today approved boundaries for new council districts that voters mandated in November.

But the council did it without debate, angering audience members who wanted to hear why each elected official chose one map over the four presented.

Council members, who have all been elected at large, were to debate the merits of the proposed district maps during the 3 p.m. meeting on the 13th floor of the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center.

The council chose option 3.
...

LMich · #15 Posted: **Feb 17, 2012, 8:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UglymanCometh

^That map actually makes sense... which means that it won't even get looked at.

You were right. They didn't even formally approve it for consideration, and I would bet you it was for no other reason than that they (the city) weren't the ones to come up with it. Petty.

subterranean · #16 Posted: **Feb 17, 2012, 2:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

You were right. They didn't even formally approve it for consideration, and I would bet you it was for no other reason than that they (the city) weren't the ones to come up with it. Petty.

The Data Driven Detroit map is almost identical to the map they selected. They even adopted the same color scheme. The only major difference I see is that the Detroit map splits downtown, which I think is great. You get a better representation of both the neighborhoods and downtown residents in two districts. A pure downtown district IMO is basically gerrymandering.

vid · #17 Posted: **Feb 19, 2012, 2:15 AM**

Thunder Bay has its downtown split between districts. (Basically, it is like a pie with downtown at the centre). Both of our downtown cores are split between two wards, and the ward I am in includes the north of one downtown, the south of another, and a large industrial/big box store area between the two, with the residential area by the university at its west end.

Downtown issues were basically ignored until a few years ago when the city realized that it should probably do something to fix the blight. So many suburban people are included in the wards that have parts of downtown (one "downtown" ward also includes a large rural area!) that when we have ward meetings, downtown issues are basically ignored in favour of silly suburban issues. Downtown residents are poorer and less politically active (even with the most people, my ward has the smallest number of voters) so no one really speaks out in their favour. Business interests from the downtown cores simply "buy" what they want. The people who actually live downtown are neglected and ignored. In the case of the downtown I live in, they're pushed out of downtown in favour of big ticket items like casinos, court houses and arenas.

Splitting the downtown will only work in downtown's favour if the representatives from each ward live in or near downtown. It looks OK from the current map, but if the incumbents are replaced by representatives from the outskirts of those wards (that does happen; we have councillors from two different wards who basically live in the same neighbourhood, the boundary runs along a major street between them) then downtown can basically forget about having any representation on council.

It's very risky.

Downtown South is split between McKellar and Westfort, right by the river. Downtown North is split between Red River, McKellar and Current River. In the Canadian political system, the process of splitting a single community between multiple districts, each one it shares with a demographically different region, is called "cracking". Thunder Bay itself is "cracked" between two federal and provincial ridings, with the city having 75% of the population in either riding, resulting in the total canceling out of rural voices when we elect representatives, which fosters resentment between the rural areas around the city and the city itself as they feel we're "exerting control over them".

LMich · #18 Posted: **Feb 20, 2012, 8:51 AM**

I never quite got how people thought that splitting business districts in half somehow means that you get two representives for these geographically small areas. That's simply not how it usually works in reality, particularly if the business districts aren't all that heavily populated, residentially, which is the case in most American cities. It's like trying to make an argument that it makes to split urban municipalities at the state and federal level.

Looking at the map, I'd be surprised if the new councilperson from District 5 won't be from far southwest Detroit, and for District 3 someone from the near eastside. The whole point is to try to keep neighborhoods with similar history, or economic interests, or build together. I guess it could have been worst, but Map 5 is about as perfect as you can get for a 7-district plan.