My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COMM. 55.1 from Chair Siracusa re Topics for Final Narrative
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Redistricting Commission
>
2011 Redistricting Commission
>
Communications
>
COMM. 55.1 from Chair Siracusa re Topics for Final Narrative
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2011 9:23:29 AM
Creation date
11/25/2011 2:07:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
Bullet points for final narrative report: <br />A. Obstacles faced by commission: <br />1. Census (legally required to use federal data) <br />a. island undercounted, but unknown by how much /where <br />b. census didn't elicit answers needed for definitive extractions <br />c. many census blocks weirdly configured (don't follow subdivision <br />boundaries, put half of one subdivision in same block as another <br />community, strange shapes, etc.) <br />2. Late start <br />a. commissioners not approved until March 31St <br />b. software not available until end July <br />3. Esri software <br />a. convoluted means of accessing for commissioners /public <br />b. paper roads on maps are misleading <br />c. included roads, subdivisions that no longer exist (i.e., Royal Gardens <br />buried under lava) <br />d. did not show all roads /streets (i.e., Shower Dr. cross - streets on north <br />side of drive), or identify all subdivision /community boundaries <br />e. difficult process to print amap - or a zoomed -in portion of a map <br />f. County had no say in contract details between Esri and State. <br />4. Bill 11 -29 /Ordinance........... <br />a. requirement that plan with smallest deviation get priority, <br />irregardless of other factors <br />b. not clear which criteria should have more weight (allowance for <br />future growth is based on past trends which may not continue into <br />future and is therefore rather nebulous compared with definitive <br />criteria like road connectivity). <br />c. limitation to 4.99% deviation per district as an overriding mandated <br />priority NO MATTER WHAT, AND DESPITE PUBLIC IN PUT THAT <br />KEEPING COMMUNITIES TOGETHER SHOULD BE THE VERY HIGHEST <br />PRIORITY ( "people vs. numbers "). If commissioners are considered <br />capable of judging how to weigh various criteria, deviations should <br />be included, as long as the 10% overall deviation is maintained. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.