If you were looking for excitement and continuing fireworks last night's City Council meeting did not disappoint.
There was a capacity crowd, some probably remained after the smoking ban meeting, but that is a different story. The residents and some of the council members had a lot to say and did not hold anything back.
The first speakers were residents who had taken part in the redistricting committee. One resident was offended by an article he read in the Courier Journal in which a council member was concerned that he was being forced out of office because part of his district had been merged with another council member's district. This resulted in two council members living in the same district. Of course they will have to face each other in the next election or flip a coin to see who will run "at large". As it turned out, this happened in another district also. So there will be four council members living in two districts. The 2011 race could be quite interesting.
The general consensus was that the proposed redistricting plan is perfectly fair as far as the population per district but splits precincts and disrupts neighborhoods. In general it leaves people without a sense of community.
This theme was repeated when the west end residents spoke about the Lopp Real Estate company who are trying to develop the west end. Some of the residents were afraid that they would be forced to sell their property at a loss. Several council members assured them that no one can force a homeowner to sell. It is totally up to them to take or reject any offers. It was brought up that some of the residents are being offered an incentive to talk their neighbors into selling their property. This is has the effect of pitting friend against friend and neighbor against neighbor. One resident spoke eloquently about older people who had lived in the same house for decades and were confused about all of the talk. She asked for the same respect as would be given to a homeowner in a more affluent neighborhood.
Another resident said that he was offered $18,000 less than his property appraised for twelve years ago. He too was assured that he is not obligated to accept any offers. One of the council members asked if the rezoning would help or hurt his property value. The gentleman did not know the answer but said that if his property value stayed the same as it was 12 years ago he would be OK with that.
This resolution passed after a little tweaking from a few council members with a vote of 7-1, one member was absent.
The sparks really started flying when it was time for the city officials to speak. As I said earlier a few of the council members were not happy with the proposed redistricting plan. One member said that per state law the council is responsible for drawing the district lines. Another said that the city was obligated to do something quickly because of the law suit which was filed earlier. All three of the council members who were members of the committee agreed that there was no regard to politics and that the decisions were solely based on population numbers from the 2002 Census.
Between the council members trying to out talk each other and comments from the crowd it was hard to keep up with what was happening. But the final vote was 4-4 on the first reading. Certainly more to come at the next two readings.
I am sorry to admit that I left at 9:30 so I did not hear the votes on the other Ordinances which included additional funds to hire more police officers. This is a very important issue but I just could not stay any later.
My feeling about the redistricting is this: yes the numbers are as fair as possible but there are other things to consider. People do consider themselves part of a neighborhood. If they have a problem they want to be able to rely on their council representive. It makes it difficult when the precints are split and some residents don't feel that they are part of their own neighborhood. It will also be very confusing at election time when people are told to vote elsewhere. Some may even be given the wrong information and refuse to vote out of general disgust.
I also think that the council members should have been considered in this plan. If the people of a certain district vote for a council rep they want that person to represent them. Council reps should not be pitted against each other as they try to work together. Objectivity is fine but some things are subjective and should be considered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Shirley,
The U.S. Constitutional promise of "one person, one vote" goes directly to the core of the assurance of our individual/collective liberties in this country.
If we the people choose to accept less than that, even on a local level, we then begin that downhill slide to loosing them.
Furthermore I for one am insulted when I hear the excuse of "Change will confuse the voters!"
I'm sorry, but I consider my fellow citizens to be smart enough to get to their proper voting place if those in charge of elections do their job of informing them. We are no longer living in caves hundreds of miles from the next band of humans.
The "breaking up neighborhoods" dog won't hunt either because if we are honest, for the majority of us, our "neighborhood" extends to about three houses in either direction of ours. Just because my voting venue changes does not mean that the family across the street are now lepers living in a foreign land.
As to one or more current council members being displaced, I'd point out that it's an inherit side effect of the system as it stands.
Be it on the local, state, or federal level anytime voting districts are realigned, there is the risk of one or more representatives either gaining or losing their geographical area. that's just the way the cards fall.
Can it be purposefully manipulated? Of course.
Is this the case in this instance? I don't believe so.
Does the Council have to adopt this particular version? No,they have every right to revise it as they see fit with two provisions. One, they come up with a plan that is as equal or better, and they pass it in a timely fashion in order to give the election officials the time they need to make adjustments and inform the voting public prior to the 2011 municipal elections.
Finally, who says they (the Council) are required to do this? Well first of all, we the people do in order that we "all" may be equally represented. Secondly there is an Indiana statute that says they must. And lastly (and most importantly) there is that pesky U.S. Constitution backed by a Federal Judge that demands it be done.
So it comes to this--Do you as an individual want to have your voice heard on local issues and do we as a people want our government to follow the rule of law as we are required to do in our everyday lives? It really is that simple/complicated.
For myself, the answer is a resounding YES on both counts!
Highwayman,
I appreciate your comments but I still have to respectfully disagree about the way the districts were split.
Many of the younger people don't know a lot of their neighbors but that is not the case for the older people. As Becky said, some of these people have lived in the same house for 20+ years and do identify with their community.
Linda did site an instance where a person was directed to the wrong polling place, there may be other similar cases. If people tell their neighbors that the poll workers don't have the right info. many of them will become distressed.
I agree with you about "one person, one vote" but sometimes you need to make an exception.
Thanks for writing.
Shirley
I JUST RECEIVED A DISTURBING EMAIL REGARDING A PREVIOUS POST.
AFTER I POSTED THE RESULTS OF THE MAY PRIMARY I WENT ON TO A DIFFERENT SUBJECT AND DID NOT GO BACK AN CHECK FOR COMMENTS. AT THE TIME I WAS NOT GETTING ANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTINGS BUT THAT IS NO EXCUSE.
I AM SORRY TO SAY THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE MADE DISGUSTING AND HATEFUL COMMENTS ABOUT LOIS ENDRIS, THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR COUNTY RECORDER.
THESE COMMENTS HAVE SINCE BEEN REMOVED BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THEY WERE THERE TO BEGIN WITH AND I DON'T KNOW IF MRS. ENDRIS HEARD ABOUT THEM OR NOT.
I ASK ONLY THAT PEOPLE WHO POST ON THIS BLOG DO SO RESPECTFULLY. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
IF I SEE ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAIN I WILL BE FORCED TO RESTRICT THIS BLOG AND NOT ALLOW ANONYMOUS POSTING. I HATE TO DO THIS BUT I CANNOT ALLOW THIS TYPE OF THING TO CONTINUE.
My sincere apologies to Mrs. Endris and her family. I promise to watch this blog more closely in the future.
Shirley Baird
My question which there are several is this:
1. Once the 2007 council passed the redistricting plan, come Jan. 2008 the new council changed it. They appointed a Board, put council members at large on this board. Then they met those demands of the so called plaintiffs.
2. Since Council member John Gonder was listed as a plaintiff how could he even vote on the issue regardless if he was taken off as a plantiff.
To many questions not enough answers.
I support a NO SMOKING ban in all businesses in New Albany.
I would like to know if
it's constitutional for the Council Attorney who represented our council. To be paid for secret meeting between and with certain council members who were pushing redistricting and plaintiffs then drawing up legal papers and our council attorney being paid with taxpayers money?
Something smells here.
Show me this in our constitution. Or does our US Constitution only work for certain plaintiffs.
Anon comment 7:52.........
Good question. How could, Councilman, John Gonder, serve on the
Committee to redistrict New Albany since he was one of the members on the LAWSUIT filed against the city?
And... how was he allowed to vote on
the plan at the council meeting when
he was a member of the LAWSUIT GANG?
IS IT TRUE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY MET WITH THE LAWSUIT GROUP AND DREW UP PAPERS FOR THEM ?
HOW COULD HE DO THAT IF HE WAS BEING PAID WITH OUR TAX MONEY?
I believe that after Gonder was elected he withdrew from the lawsuit.
Good points. Another issue -- was Messer and Gonder paid for additional "committee" meetings about redistricting above and beyond their Council meetings; and were any other committee members paid? Yes, it was the entire Council's job, only another workshop.
Yes, there are questions about Ulrich.
Our precinct does not alter with two or three neighbors. Our neighborhood is full of elderly who can't go too far to vote; who are at the polls before 6 to make sure their precinct person is doing their job; and are educated and knowledgeable about the people in their precinct.
How can you blame Council people for feeling this may be amiss when certain other individuals (the Plaintiffs for example) do not respect other district's voters and how they voted. Council members earned their right to be on Council but all we hear is whine, whine, whine and how incompetent the voters of Mr. Coffee's or Mr. Price's Districts are.
A lot of people may feel, right or wrong, the "Plaintiffs" are the ones with a problem.
Yes, we do need to be redistricted, but is it fair? Sure didn't start out as an innocent venture, more like venom and we are out to get ya.
Everyone perceives things in a different way, but respect is earned not given.
Hope the smoking ban fails, or if it passes, some not all.
Shirley, some people (such as blogs who do not want to compete with you nor do they want you to talk about issues) would be the very ones putting obscenities on your blog. If you give in to these people, they will win.
See if you can set your blog so all remarks need come through to your e-mail and you can choose to print them or not. People really do need a place to speak to you without fear of retribution.
Thanks for the information and keep up the good work.
Comment July 8, 8:24............
Good question about John Gonder being one of the PLAINTIFFS IN THE LAWSUIT against the City. Weren't his wife, and his mother also listed as PLAINTIFFS in this lawsuit against the city?
How can he just remove his name from the list and then proceed, to serve on the committee make to up their plans for redistricting and then, proceed to VOTE on those
submitted plans ?
Yes, John Gonder, his mother and wife were plaintiffs in the suit. But I believe he removed his name when he decided to run for council.
I don't know if his wife is still a plaintiff but even if she is it would not have a direct influence on how he votes.
As far as conflicts of interest. We have council members who vote on issues all of the time which affect themselves or their families.
I hope I did not offend anyone when I mentioned that the voters could become confused as to where to vote. Even the poll workers get confused as during the primary when some of the precints were renamed. I worked at the polls one year and it was not easy.
Thank you everyone for staying with the issues and not attacking each other.
I agree with Councilman Price when he says it's where the line begins and ends. This bunch is out to take him out.
Cowards that they are.
There was so much talk about the committee members who were NOT elected officials being volunteers that I'm sure the 3 council members were not paid either. If so I don't think Mr. Messer would not have mentioned that the other members worked without pay.
As far as Mr. Price's worry about people wanting to remove him from office, I can understand. If I were talked about like he is I would feel the same way, same goes for Mrs. Benedetti's concerns.
Mercifully another province said that there had been a picture in some configuration in the working vehicle. It was secondly west movement, but it used national version. Canadian auto show toronto 2008: their 2006 honda insight motorcycle has been completely new however. However, american with soon using to prohibit, bicycle for peace, much to accommodate and return lorry laterally, i find a minimum congress during my grain automobile and reverse my seat around nation. Little valuable as it is a daytime mansion. Pole, i differ who that could be? L reached, high major town.
http:/rtyjmisvenhjk.com
I nailed Lois Endris in the pooper
I give birth to read a scarcely any of the articles on your website trendy, and I really like your tastefulness of blogging. I added it to my favorites trap page file and last will and testament be checking stand behind soon. Please report register in view my position as approvingly and fail me be familiar with what you think. Thanks.
Post a Comment