My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MIN RDC 2011-08-24.tif
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Redistricting Commission
>
2011 Redistricting Commission
>
Minutes
>
MIN RDC 2011-08-24.tif
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2011 4:01:37 PM
Creation date
9/16/2011 4:01:26 PM
Metadata
Document Relationships
MIN RDC 2011-08-24
(Original Version)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Redistricting Commission\2011 Redistricting Commission\Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />CHR. SIRACUSA <br />: Mike. <br /> <br />: It seems to me that based on the growth over the past 10 years, we <br />MR. MIDDLESWORTH <br />can pretty much project forward. Jeff, of course, has considerable experience in the field, and he <br />can help us make a decision. But we do have the 10% deviation business to work with, so that <br />once we decide which districts are the ones that are slow growing, we can make them bigger by <br />whatever percentage we decide and make the faster growing districts smaller. ItÓs not brain <br />surgery, it is pretty simple math; to say one district is going to be 4% big and this district is going <br />to be 4% low. <br /> <br />CHR. SIRACUSA <br />: Jeff. <br /> <br />: I think itÓs possible to do that. The challenge is going to be, by the nature of <br />MR. MELROSE <br />the Ordinance we were handed by the Council, variation is what matters as far as that Ordinance <br />is concerned with kind of in the bottom line. I think we need to take a logical progression of <br />actions, so that we are not going to get subject to that nit pick when we are trying to keep <br />communities together and accommodate growth. As we have seen from some of the plans that <br />have already been submitted, itÓs not hard to get under a 1% variation in a plan, but that does not <br />generate the best plan. I think we need to consider that Puna needs to be quantified lower than <br />the average, and maybe the Kona and North Kohala seats, depending on where those boundaries <br />fall, should be quantified lower, and that the Hilo seat, at lea <br />University votes in it, needs to be higher. But those two areas particularly should be seen as <br />reduced. Setting a number is not the intelligent way to deal wi <br />accommodate it in the context of census blocks. <br /> <br />MR. MIDDLESWORTH: I go back to what I have said several times. There are confl <br />provisions in the Ordinance. One says that we have to take into account growth, the other one <br />says that we have to have the numbers match. I have asked Mike about it, and we have <br />discussed this before. There is no penalty clause in the Ordinance. ItÓs up to us to decide and <br />have good, sound reasons for what we do. We can go one way, or the other; or we can try to <br />accommodate both. But, whatever we do, there is nothing in the Ordinance that penalizes us for <br />what we do. Somebody could take us to court; they took the last Redistricting Commission to <br />court. ThatÓs the chance we are going to run no matter what we do. So, I think we just need to <br />plow ahead, and do the best we can, in our view, and see what happens. <br /> <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: Thank you. Any more comments? In that case, letÓs vote. <br />The motion to file COMM. 33, regarding Future <br />Growth Projections was carried by the following vote: <br />Ayes: Commissioners Carvalho, KahawaiolaÒa, <br /> Kanuha, Melrose, Middlesworth, <br /> Poindexter, Ugalde, and Chair Siracusa. <br />Noes: None. <br />Absent: Commissioner Kahui. <br />6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.