HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMM. 42.31 from J. Weatherfo...lation Numbers and Growth10.12.1.1
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