Chemung County Legislative Redistricting Discussion

[Adam 372]

12 hours ago, MsKreed said:

His podcast went up today

Podcast and documents

 

On a side note.....the  County webpage underwent a complete overhaul....so some previous links we've shared here may be screwed up, and for someone acquainted with the old page, it may be unfamiliar to navigate.

were you able to listen to it? i cannot seem to get more than 1st 10 seconds then goes silent

 

[MsKreed 1,166]

8 hours ago, Adam said:

were you able to listen to it? i cannot seem to get more than 1st 10 seconds then goes silent

What device are you trying to play on....and are you using one of the apps (Apple podcasts, Spotify, Google podcasts) at the top? 

On my laptop, I just went to the play button and it ran on from there ......both the 27 sec trailer and the 16+minute Episode 1 play all the way through, then restart (like a loop)

  

[Adam 372]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

What device are you trying to play on....and are you using one of the apps (Apple podcasts, Spotify, Google podcasts) at the top? 

On my laptop, I just went to the play button and it ran on from there ......both the 27 sec trailer and the 16+minute Episode 1 play all the way through, then restart (like a loop)

  

laptop initially on spotify....no dice, tried smart phone this morning worked like a charm

[MsKreed 1,166]

Chemung Co. Exec. voices concern about redistricting, Legislative Chair responds

Quote

 

A local law needs to be established Moss explained.

"It would outline how the process would go. We will appoint five bipartisan independent individuals to oversee the redistricting process to make sure it's done fairly to make sure the lines are drawn fairly," Moss said.

Manchester says what Moss is asking is illegal.

"The legislature is supposed to do this and he is asking for a local law to create a committee to do it, totally illegal," he said.

 

Manchester's reply is false. 

There was considerable discussion, and clarification by Attorney Maggs in the beginning at the 21:00 minute mark in THIS video of the February 8, 2021 Legislative Meeting where the "Resolution establishing Legislative Redistricting and Efficiency of County Government Operations Advisory Committee on behalf of the Chairman of the Chemung County Legislature" (resolution 21-056) was passed.

Maggs did not say citizen participation on the committee was "illegal". What he said was the resolution up for vote (as submitted by the Multi-Services Committee after going through the route slip process) could not be amended to include citizens at that time....it would require a new resolution to be proposed by committee after a new route slip process was initiated. 

[MsKreed 1,166]

I will have to take time off work, but will try to attend:

https://www.chemungcountyny.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=51

[Chris 2,146]

[Adam 372]

13 hours ago, MsKreed said:

I will have to take time off work, but will try to attend:

https://www.chemungcountyny.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=51

much like when "discussing" legislative pay/benefits....they dont hear anything form the public because they schedule meetings like this during work hours.....they know damn well what theyre doing and its infuriating

[Chris 2,146]

6 minutes ago, Adam said:

they dont hear anything form the public because they schedule meetings like this during work hours.....they know damn well what theyre doing and its infuriating

Yep. Funny how that works, innit?

A pox upon them… we’ll, not all of them.

[MsKreed 1,166]

I was able to attend the Public meeting of the "Legislative Redistricting and Efficiency of County Government Operations Advisory Committee"

The full video is available HERE

In my personal view, it was more open and productive than I'd expected. Despite the inconvenient timing, there were people able to show up and allowed to engage. The public discussion comprised about 25 minutes of the entire 45-minute meeting.

Besides the legislators on the Committee, three people who have attended earlier meeting were there: the Legislative Attorney, the Planning Commissioner, and Democratic Commissioner for the Board of Elections (Jim Hare).

Additionally....two legislators not on the committee (McCarthy & Brennan), as well as three current legislative candidates (Grasso, Colwell & Freeman) and three other members of the public in the gallery.

Here are some other highlights that I found worth mentioning:

*The Committee Chair initially implied public “comment” and pointedly did not invite “questions” at the outset:

Quote

Public comments are limited to 5 minutes per person. And must, at this point, address the topic of Community priorities for redistricting. Before beginning your comment, please state your name and whether you are a resident of Chemung County.

However, he allowed it to open up to Q & A when directly pressed.

*The Institute hired to conduct the project will be delivering a report outlining the “current district deviations” to the Committee on Monday....and that report is supposed to be uploaded to the County website for public access (along with a bullet list of legal guidelines that new district lines will need to abide by)

*New state guidelines have narrowed the amount of deviation permitted between largest and smallest district populations permissible by law from ten percent (+/- 5%) to five percent (+/- 2.5%). The Institute guys indicated the data they have is approximately a twenty percent spread.

*The Town of Erin is currently bisected in such a way that it violates another legal requirement (To the extent practicable, no Villages or Cities or Towns except those having more than forty percent of a full ratio for each district shall be divided)

*The large population deviations and the division in the T/Erin will likely require some significant changes.

 

A couple of other points, that I’d sort of picked up on (and questioned) in previous meetings that were clearly reiterated at the Public meeting....are factually incorrect. 

1)      In earlier meetings comments from the Planning Board and the Analyst who’s been hired noted that the “current” district map and survey (meets and bounds) data have not changed since the 2000 Census. This was repeated more than once in this week’s meeting. The analyst hired for the project believes they are working from a 20 year old map and district survey descriptions.

2)      An “urgency” to get this on the Nov 22 ballot has been expressed, as well as the repeated references to the late release of Census data that are “beyond their control” and caused “unprecedented” delays to the redistricting process and referendum date (which conventionally, would occur in the year immediately after each Census).

 

The current districts were, in fact, redrawn after the 2010 Census.....as the Charter clearly notes.  It’s troubling that the Committee, the Legislative Attorney and the Planning Commissioner seem to have provided the Institute with 2000 Census districts instead of the accurate and current data that is readily available HERE on the County’s public website.

 

To the best of my knowledge....the release date of the 2020 Census data was indeed “unprecedented” in its lateness.  But...but...buttt...... the last time the Chemung County Legislature completed a redistricting proposal in the timeframe outlined (the year following a Census in which the data was released) was 1981.

After the 1990 Census (without any Covid related delay in releasing data), the first** referendum wasn’t until November 1992. After the 2000 Census (without any Covid related delay in releasing data), the referendum wasn’t until November 2002. After the 2010 Census (without any Covid related delay in releasing data), the referendum wasn’t until November 2013.

So....the all the handwringing about how far “behind” the process is for this redistricting cycle is overstated.  

 

 

 

**The 1992 referendum was rejected by voters, as was the subsequent 1993 plan....and the voters finally approved the referendum presented on the 1994 ballot.

Edited March 27, 2022 by MsKreed

[Adam 372]

lots of information and appreciated....still brings this brass tacks question; what, based on current information, will districts look like?

[MsKreed 1,166]

3 hours ago, Adam said:

still brings this brass tacks question; what, based on current information, will districts look like?

As the analysts that WebEx'd into the meetings explained it, they are currently at the step where they need to show the number of people within current district lines, which will demonstrate which districts are overpopulated (and how much they need to be decreased) and which are currently underpopulated (and how much they need to be increased).

Then they can set about the task of calculating options that fall within legal standards and what those lines will look like. The most significant changes will be due to the +/- 2.5% deviation and T/Erin needing to be shifted into a single district.

I find the question of splitting Erin fascinating....and seriously hope that's a new standard that was passed last year and not an existing criteria that's been ignored in past redistricting cycles.

The Census stats found HERE indicate that T/Erin's population is down about 8% .....whether it will need to be fully part of the 5th or the 6th districts will depend on which of those districts have lost enough residents to absorb Erin, or if another part of either district can be redrawn. It could be tricky, and multiple options could definitely meet the legal requirement:

From the description "no Villages or Cities or Towns except those having more than forty percent of a full ratio for each district shall be divided"....

84148/15= 5609 per district (at +/-2.5%, min=5469, max= 5750) is the "full ratio for each district". 

So municipalities less than 40% of a "full ratio for each district": 2244 (at +/-2.5%, min=2186, max= 2300) can't be split.

According to 2020 population of T/Chemung found HERE, they have 2358 (just barely above teh "we are allowed to split a municipality threshold) , so could conceivably be split to fall partially into the 15th district, making room for T/Erin in the 6th. Or.....T/Horseheads at 19,374 (beginning to rival the City of Elmira in population) could have whatever portion now in the 5th shoved elsewhere. So many possible choices....I sincerely hope they allow Erin residents full involvement in the process to voice their thoughts and concerns. 

 

There are a few other criteria that don't seem like they'll have as much of an impact for Chemung County. The current layout pretty much adheres already to the "as compact as possible" (no 50 sided Rorschach diagrams or long, narrow tangential arms) and the "contiguous" requirement.

One notable legal requirement, that Executive Moss had raised concerns about, is minority communities. However, the none minority populations in Chemung County (~6.% black, 3.5% Hispanic. 1.7% Asian) comprise large enough segments of localized residents to create a district of >50% minority constituents.

[KarenK 382]

Personally I don't think Erin has lost any population and in fact I think it has gained.  The problem with Erin is that sooo many people refused to participate in the census.  There were so many people who threw away mail ins and refused to talk or deal with door to door. They felt they were being violated or "it was no ones business" or that they were being scammed.  I was completely floored at the comments on read on Erin page and others.  I have to wonder where or if 1/2 of these people even went to school because so many had no idea what the census was.

I'm not a fan of Erin being split however do not want it absorbed.  I think it should be one district.  Just Town of Erin.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by KarenK

[MsKreed 1,166]

19 minutes ago, KarenK said:

Personally I don't think Erin has lost any population and in fact I think it has gained.  The problem with Erin is that sooo many people refused to participate in the census.  There were so many people who threw away mail ins and refused to talk or deal with door to door. They felt they were being violated or "it was no ones business" or that they were being scammed.  I was completely floored at the comments on read on Erin page and others.  I have to wonder where or if 1/2 of these people even went to school because so many had no idea what the census was.

I don't doubt that a bit....I think a lot of communities have a surprising number of people who think that way!

But, it's doubtful that an accurate count in Erin would have changed the need to un-split it districtwise. It looks like its population is still a small enough number to not meet the "splittable 40% of a district" threshold of about 2300. I can imagine that any choices that the number crunchers come up with are going to be met with some strong opinions from some segment of Erin's population. Those in either current district (5th/6th) that will complain if they're district might change....and the others demanding that they would prefer to change districts.....LOL

 

For reference in case anyone is interested, here are the 2020 figures from the Comptroller's Census data page:

 

27 minutes ago, KarenK said:

I'm not a fan of Erin being split however do not want it absorbed.  I think it should be one district.  Just Town of Erin.

I agree with you.....I think every municipality should have its own representation at the County level. That would be more like the Board of Supervisors model that we used to have, which, as was suggested in a recent Guest Blog, was a government structure that Chemung County was far more prosperous under.

And it would be "possible" for the public to compel a return to a Board of Supervisors....although Court rulings for "one person/one vote" equal representation would require some kind of "weighted" voting for each municipality. Weighted voting is something that isn't as common as equal legislative districts, but it's still practiced in some NYS counties. 

 

But as it stands for this redistricting cycle..... each district has to have at least 5469 and no more than 5750 per district, and no individual Town fits that range.

 

[Chris 2,146]

On 3/19/2022 at 9:30 PM, KarenK said:

The problem with Erin is that sooo many people refused to participate in the census.  There were so many people who threw away mail ins and refused to talk or deal with door to door. They felt they were being violated or "it was no ones business" or that they were being scammed.

There's two different census types. There's the census which is every ten years, and then there's the American Community Survey ( ACS ) which is sent out all the time. The first, people really should participate in. It's not that invasive, and just counts how many people live where. The ACS however, even I have found to be far too invasive in their questioning. Nobody needs to know what time I leave for work and arrive home, for example. That one gets thrown in the trash and repeated phone calls asking me why i didn't do it or telling me I have to are met with decreasing amounts of politeness:

"So what you're telling me is you refuse to do it?" "It's about time you guys got the picture." *CLICK*

What redistricting would mean for us here in our town, I can only imagine, although I can't imagine it will change much. Frankly, I think our town needs to be absorbed into one with more competent leadership. Particularly after the last 12 years. And if you know me, you know that's an idea I was once firmly against!

On 3/19/2022 at 10:19 PM, MsKreed said:

I think every municipality should have its own representation at the County level. That would be more like the Board of Supervisors model that we used to have, which, as was suggested in a recent Guest Blog, was a government structure that Chemung County was far more prosperous under.

I like this idea very much and would love to see it happen. Imagine the money saved at the county level if we didn't have all this multi-layered bureaucracy.

 

[Kevin 334]

I had the ACS last year and while I said I wasn't doing it, my wife is the type of person (God, love her) that worries about it because Google said it has to be done or you could be fined or sent to jail. 

So I made up answers and didn't. Told them my monthly income was something like $150 a month but my house payment was $2000 just ridiculous information, but she was content that it was done. She doesn't know the info I entered, just that I told her it was done.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Kevin

[Hal 340]

3 hours ago, Chris said:

What redistricting would mean for us here in our town, I can only imagine, although I can't imagine it will change much. Frankly, I think our town needs to be absorbed into one with more competent leadership. Particularly after the last 12 years. And if you know me, you know that's an idea I was once firmly against!

Whoa ….! 🤭 

Its out there now , and for you to come out with it … well it’s serious !! And since i don’t see our Town being a Community ever again I am solidly behind being picked up by another Municipality. 

[KarenK 382]

3 hours ago, Chris said:

There's two different census types. There's the census which is every ten years, and then there's the American Community Survey ( ACS ) which is sent out all the time. The first, people really should participate in. It's not that invasive, and just counts how many people live where. The ACS however, even I have found to be far too invasive in their questioning.

 

I have no memory of the ACS so I likely didn't do that.  I am referring to the 10 year census as far as Erin goes.  I posted on our page and my personal page multiple times about what it was and why it was important and still heard the "scam" "none of their business" stuff like that.  I was more concerned with budgets than redistricting at the time.

[MsKreed 1,166]

I've never gotten the ACS surveys, but I think I recall someone telling me about it and seemed like it's only sent out to a certain "cross-section" of Census recipients based on a few basic demographics. 

[Jack 67]

Brennan has called for Jim O’Hare to step down from the committee and make no further comment for (whether it should have been said) a sarcastic comment. 
 

🙄🙄🙄
 

Brennsn has video of it posted on his facebook page 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jack

[KarenK 382]

23 minutes ago, Jack said:

Brennan has called for Jim O’Hare to step down from the committee and make no further comment for (whether it should have been said) a sarcastic comment. 
 

🙄🙄🙄
 

Brennsn has video of it posted on his facebook page 

Well, he has a point although his solution is a bit harsh.  Technically an election can change all those Republican districts to Democratic districts so it doesn't make sense anyway.  However not my area of expertise.

[Jack 67]

1 hour ago, KarenK said:

Well, he has a point although his solution is a bit harsh.  Technically an election can change all those Republican districts to Democratic districts so it doesn't make sense anyway.  However not my area of expertise.

He does, but his reaction is also telling. He knows what he’s doing. 

[MsKreed 1,166]

The minutes of last Wednesday’s meeting (3/16/22) are available HERE

The Minutes include a list of the legal requirements:

Quote

 

The law requires county redistricting to follow specific criteria including:

1. Population equality. District size cannot vary more than 5% between the largest and smallest districts (used to be 10% allowable variation). Chemung County’s population per the 2020 Census is 84,148. This equates to an ideal average size per Legislative District of 5,610. The 5% deviation would allow for the largest District to have 5,750 residents and the smallest to have 5,469. Currently, ten of the fifteen districts are out of proportion. It will require some tweaking to get districts within the current allowable deviation of 5%.

2. Districts cannot be drawn to deny or abridge minority groups to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice. Mr. Wice noted that Chemung County does not have minority blocks that need to be considered for redistricting purposes, however, minority blocks could and should be considered wherever possible. The population of Chemung County is 88% White, 6.5% Black, and 3% Hispanic, 50.5% female and 49.5% male.

3. Districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

4. Districts shall be as compact in form as practicable. Current districts are quite compact.

5. Districts cannot favor or disfavor incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties. Communities of interest shall be considered. To draw a district where people of a likeminded interest are included in the same district. To the extent practicable, no villages, cities or towns except those having more than forty percent of a full ratio for each district shall divided.

6. Districts shall be formed so as to promote the orderly and efficient administration of elections.

 

 

The minutes of today’s meeting and the report of current map deviation have not been uploaded yet, but the full video is HERE

 I watched the meeting and, although some points will be much clearer once we have the report to follow along with, there was still a lot of good information. Here are my initial takeaways (I’ll probably add more once we see the report).....

 

1)    For redistricting purposes, the adjustment for prison populations moving inmates to their county of origin has reduced the County population from the raw US Census total of 84,148 to 82,535. This lowers the allowable population for each district to a range of no less than 5,365 and no more than 5,640 per district.

2)    The African American population blocks in the city of Elmira are not geographically concentrated enough to constitute the majority of a legislative district (for criteria #2 above to apply)....but the analyst recommended still treating them as a “community of interest” (as outlined in point #5 above).

3)    There are 6 municipalities that are too small to be split between legislative districts: The villages of Millport & Wellsburg (that fall within towns so would not be split anyway), and the Towns of Ashland, Baldwin, Erin & VanEtten. The committee’s guidance to the analyst on the possible options to shift the T/Erin into one district seems to lean toward the full towns of Erin, VanEtten and Baldwin in one district that includes enough of the northern portion of T/Chemung to make up the minimum.  

4)    In addition to considering ethnic/racial neighborhoods as “communities of interest”, he also recommended looking a “census designated places” that may not want to be split up....various hamlets, etc that are not incorporated but may have a unique ‘identity’: former V/VanEtten, hamlets of Southport, W Elmira, Big Flats, Horseheads North, Breesport and Pine Valley. (Fun fact, Mike Smith made a comment later that indicated he wasn’t aware that there is no longer Village of VanEtten)

5)    On the topic of “community of interest”, the next point the analyst said he’d like the committee to consider and provide guidance on is: one African American concentration (that someone said they think is Dewittsburg and Eastgate) that is currently split between districts 9 & 11 and would be interested in the committee’s ideas on how they would “reimagine concentrating more of that population together”......during this part of the discussion, Mr. Sweet blurted out: “Can I ask why? Why is it so important to create that?” 

6)    Population deficits in the districts within the C/Elmira will likely require that some portions of the City district north of the river (9, 10 and 11) will need to extend to include borders outside the city. It sounds like the first draft will try to extend district 10 westward into some of what is currently district 7....with no further specification on what to do with the minority population that 9 & 11 split up.

7)     Districts 3 & 4 have the largest population surpluses and need the most reduction. They are each over by more than 10% (roughly about 600 people each). Didn’t catch any recommendations on how that might happen.

8 )    The draft of proposed map should be available Friday.....Stay tuned!

9) Yes....Jim Hare's sarcastic comment was unprofessional and unbecoming of someone who serves on the Board of Elections. But it was clearly not meant, nor taken as a serious suggestion. Frankly, a lot of people might find Sweet's (dead serious) comment questioning the importance of racial makeup as a “community of interest” more troubling.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,146]

Thank you for your continued coverage of this issue, @MsKreed!

[Chris 2,146]

46 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

…one African American concentration (that someone said they think is Dewittsburg and Eastgate) that is currently split between districts 9 & 11 and would be interested in the committee’s ideas on how they would “reimagine concentrating more of that population together”......during this part of the discussion, Mr. Sweet blurted out: “Can I ask why? Why is it so important to create that?” 

Oof.

46 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

Yes…Jim Hare's sarcastic comment was unprofessional and unbecoming of someone who serves on the Board of Elections. But it was clearly not meant, nor taken as a serious suggestion.

Honestly, I just heard it as a joke and didn’t think anything else of it.

[Adam 372]

11 hours ago, Chris said:

Frankly, I think our town needs to be absorbed into one with more competent leadership. Particularly after the last 12 years. And if you know me, you know that's an idea I was once firmly against!

can tell you, through past conversations with other officials as well as first-hand experience with "leadership"...no other municipality wants anything to do with this once fair hamlet