Page One

Council OKs new, district boundaries

By John Geluardi, Daily Planet staff
Sunday October 14, 2001

The City Council narrowly approved a controversial redistricting plan Tuesday that has moderate councilmembers accusing progressives of manipulating a census undercount to add an extra 4,500 students to District 8. 

The progressive council block – Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek and councilmembers Dona Spring, Linda Maio, Kriss Worthington and Margaret Breland – acknowledged the imbalance in District 8, in the southeast section of the city. But they argued the chosen plan, drafted by two progressive residents, is the most consistent with the City Charter, which requires districts be redrawn to maintain the original districts that were drawn in 1986. 

The council approved the first reading of the new district lines by a vote of 5-4, with moderates Mayor Shirley Dean and  

councilmembers Polly Armstrong, Betty Olds and Miriam Hawley voting in opposition. The council will vote on the second reading of the new boundaries at next Tuesday’s meeting. If the council approves the second reading, the new boundaries will go into effect 30 days later. 

Moderates contend the approved plan was designed to weaken Armstrong’s popularity, by using the census undercount to put a large number of students, who are inclined to vote progressive, in her district. 

Progressives argued that the staff-produced plan, known as Scenario 5, that moderates preferred, would have weakened Worthington in District 7, by breaking up the Bateman neighborhood, a stronghold of support for him. 

The two council factions argued bitterly prior to voting on the plan, drafted by Michael O’Malley and David Blake. Blake is a former aide to Maio.  

Moderates suggested that a progressive-forged “back-room deal” during a meeting the day before the plan’s initial approval on Oct. 2.  

“Moderate councilmembers ought to reflect very carefully about the perception of this plan,” Dean said. “It needs to be fixed otherwise (the council) will forever be suspect.” 

Progressive councilmembers, which have a majority on the nine-member council, argued the plan is consistent with the City Charter and that moderate charges are baseless and the result of sour grapes because the plan they favored was not approved. 

“The moderates have been screaming bloody murder and foul play because students were redistricted into District 8 instead of homeowners,” Spring said. “This is the only plan that creates districts where no incumbent councilmember, progressive or moderate, is prejudicially favored to be removed from office.” 

The bitter conflict is largely due to what city officials estimate to be an undercount of 4,500 people - mostly students - by the 2000 U.S. Census. The undercount primarily occurred in districts 7 and 8.  

Despite solid evidence of the census blunder, the City Charter requires the council to redraw district lines so that each of the city’s nine districts have equal populations based on the current census whether it’s flawed or not.  

So, based on the census, the new council districts have close to 12,800 residents in accordance with the City Charter. But “real” numbers, based on the 1990 U.S. Census and the UC Housing Office, suggest that District 8 far exceeds the other seven districts with a total of 17,100 residents, of which 55 percent or 9,700 are students. 

Further complicating the issue, the city is currently disputing the official count with the U.S. Census Bureau and if the count is adjusted to reflect the actual population, the charter would require the council to scrap the approved plan, which has inspired the worst acrimony between the two council factions is recent years, and begin the redistricting process anew. 

Prior to the vote, Armstrong, who represents District 8, wanted to make sure the record reflected the new plan’s defiance of the intention of the charter by creating a population imbalance. 

“This plan goes in with eyes wide open, understanding (the progressives) have moved 5,000 (Armstrong’s estimate) extra people into District 8,” she said. “I want to make it clear that District 8 will have 5,000 more people when the dust clears.” 

Also prior to the vote, Maio said she was troubled by the population imbalance but chose to support the progressive plan and called the moderates’ charges of a back-room deal a “red herring.”  

“I felt very supportive of (the progressives’) issue because they have been very supportive of issues that matter a lot to me,” she said and then added. “I do acknowledge that approved plan puts a larger number of people into Polly Armstrong’s district.” 

In an Oct. 12 press release, Maio said the approved plan is the best plan given the restraints of the charter because it does not distort existing boundary lines and does not create a disadvantage for any sitting councilmember.  

Maio said she supports redrawing the district lines if the census is corrected to reflect the actual populations in districts 7 and 8. 

“We may be embroiled in another redistricting debate in just a few months,” she said. “Something to look forward to!”