COMM. 48.1 from M Wille transmitting Plan_40 10.24

Home

Microsoft Word - Redist ltr10-25.docx Margaret Wille Attorney at Law 65-‐1316 Lihipali Road Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 margaretwille@mac.com October 25, 20011 To: County of Hawaii Redistricting Commission Here is revised version of Plan 40 taking into account testimony at the various public hearings (labeled Plan 40 10/24). The key goal is that the overall Redistricting plan should be fair -‐-‐and not lop-‐sided in favor of one or another area. At the August 24th Redistricting Commission meeting the Commission discussed what they thought was an overall fair plan-‐-‐which would be: 1 Hamakua District, 2 Hilo Districts, 2 Puna Districts, 1 Southern District, 2 Kona Districts, and 1 Northern District (but ended up not passing a motion on this point -‐-‐given all the unknowns). Plan 40 (10-24) implements the objective of a fair overall plan based on the above allocation of Districts as recommended by this Commission. On the other hand Commission Plan A plan is lop-‐sided -‐-‐effectively eliminating an independent Hamakua District and giving Hilo the likelihood of a third (undeserved) seat -‐-‐by combining most of rural Hamakua with a portion of urban-‐suburban Hilo. It is generally understood that when you combine a concentrated area of more urban/suburban with a large rural area into one voting district, almost always a candidate from the urban/suburban center wins, and the more urban development concerns take priority over rural agricultural concerns when their interests diverge. Understandably with respect to individual neighborhoods, there are pros and cons with both maps. Commissioners need to stand back from just representing their own neighborhood’s immediate boundary line concerns in the interest of creating a Plan that is overall fair. I realize this revised Plan 40 – could still use some “tweaking”, and look forward to your consideration of this revised Plan at your next Commission meeting. Sincerely, /s/Margaret Wille