COMM. 42.31 from J. Weatherfo...lation Numbers and Growth

Home

10.12.1.1 Aloha Commissioners, At the Redistricting Commission's October 11 public hearing in Hawaii, a commissioner commented, by means of inquiry, regarding the appropriate response to anticipated rapid growth in a particular area. As alluded to by the commissioner, this anticipated growth might be responded to by `under populating' a Council District with less than the average size district while remaining within the required range of 4.99% of the optimum. The issue of responding to anticipated rapid growth is an issue to be considered. However, it is not the only consideration and in the circumstances at hand in Puna, not the most important consideration. For example, it is more important, in the Puna context in the year 2011, to keep together communities with material common interests. With two Council members representing almost ( -95% of) everyone in Puna and no one outside of Puna, this could bring productive consolidation and cohesiveness to Puna representation on the Council -- as a Puna resident, I think that is a goal worth working toward. Because of the census population numbers and Puna geography, one outcome of maximizing the Puna population in two districts could be creation of two districts each with population numbers that approach the maximum allowable (average plus 4.99 %). This, of course, theoretically presents problems of inequitable representation for a fast growing community. That is the theory. In this case, Puna geography and population distribution on the ground offers more insight into bringing about stronger Council representation for Puna than that theory does. Furthermore, the 4.99% deviation required by law establishes a very narrow range, such that `under populating' can only have a relatively small effect regarding such theoretical `equitable' representation. James Weatherford PO Box 2017 Kea`au, Hawaii 96749 808 - 982 -5549 COMM. 42.31