Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Presentation- Ken JettChair, Commissioners, Neighbors & Friends: It is with disdain that I must address you today. Despite two very successful public hearings, Mr. deGrandy was unable to accurately report the experiences in his supplemental report. I commend the one commissioner per the communications dept who requested copies of the DVDs and I hope that they were reviewed by that commissioner. The supplemental report accurately reflects the number of attendees as 150-170 residents and also reflected correctly that those attendees unanimously requested that the Upper Eastside be maintained as an entire traditional community within one district with no expressed preference for the resulting district. The reasons provided for maintaining the area together were varied and included: that the Upper Eastside is marketed as an area of interest by both the city and those who live within it; that the marked gains in developing the area have resulted in a wealth of diversity that drew many to call the area home; that any attempts to split the Upper Eastside would result in political, cultural, and financial harm to the area and the residents. The supplement inaccurately reflects the number of residents suggesting that the Little River should be used as a natural boundary; that Biscayne should not be used as a dividing line for the east west boundary; and that the east coast railway was a better boundary. Mr. DeGrandy failed to reflect those numbers and point out the way in which those concerns were couched. Of the over 100 attendees at the first hearing, I reviewed the DVDs to find that 4 individuals stated the first two things and only 1 suggested the FEC as the dividing line. Less than 4% and less than 1% respectively presented these suggestions and those suggestions were parenthetical to their requests to keep the Upper Eastside as a whole within one district. I fear that Mr. deGrandy's choice of words and lack of clarity was intended to sway board opinion back to his original proposal. The same loose style was used in reporting the same suggestions from the second hearing. On page 4 of his supplement, the consultant proffers that the proposed plan or a potential plan is neither right nor wrong. The original plan is most definitely 'wrong' in that: it fails to maintain a traditional neighborhood, recognized and marketed by the City of Miami itseff as an area of interest, within one district; it fails to make the districts more compact but instead creates the continual malformation of district 5 along racial lines by drawing a strange j-O92 Subm nti-jori Ke qubmitted into the public record in connectionjwithi item.2 on Todd B. Hannon City Clerk leg all the way to the bay; and as I've made city officials aware it creates concern around potential gerrymandering by packing district 5. Now one minor comment about Little River and Off -Biscayne Change model, again 4 people — that's less than 4% -- suggested these changes and they were parenthetical to their requests to keep the Upper Eastside as one neighborhood in one district. I would like to focus our attention on the ill-conceived model for moving the entire Upper Eastside into District 5. I thought that my previous emails to the commission and Mr. DeGrandy would be enough, but alas they were not. I want to explain for the commission what we see as the easiest solution, notice no one is saying the preferred solution. Our only expressed requirement to city officials is that the Upper Eastside, in its entirety, remain within one district. DeGrandy slants his model to suggest that such a model would exceed the 10% deviation threshold. Members please look to my craft project here... In closing, thank you for allowing me the time to present and no plan will be acceptable that does not keep the Upper Eastside together as a whole within one district. Your citizens have made a very loud request and it is imperative that you heed that request. Submitted into the public record in connection wi itemsL 2 on o��3/.5 Todd B. Hannon City Clerk I offer these numbers gathered from the City's 2010 Census data by NET area and from Mr. deGrandy's data found in the report. Mr deGrandy shows the subarea 5 (core of district 5) as containing the following: 66,666 population with 75% black totalling 50,000 with 20% hispanic totalling 13,333 with 4% white totalling 2,666 with 1% asian other totalling 667 Submitted into the public record in connectio9 w'th items on 0i%� Todd B. Hannon City Clerk DeGrandy's subarea 12 contains the following: 383 total population With 32% black totalling 123 With 58% hispanic totalling 222 With 7% white totalling 27 With 2% asian/other totalling 8 Submitted into the public record in connectigqn yyvvith items D12 on 03(I4(L Todd B. Hannon City Clerk According to the City 2010 Census data by NET area, the Upper Eastside contains the following: 12,859 population with 38% hispanic totalling 4,886 with 30% black. totalling 3,858 with 28% white totalling 3,601 with 0.3% other totalling 39 Before I amaze you with my math, I want all of you to look at the beauty and balance of those Upper Eastside percentages. All hovering around 30% -- we are an integrated community that you will harm by dismantling any part of us. Submitted into the public temsd,2on ©.3)II4 3 Todd B. Hannon City Clerk The resulting NEW District 5 with the Upper Eastside intact using Subarea 5 and 12 along results in the following numbers: Total resulting population = 79,908 With an average goal of 79,891 the deviation is .02% (two hundredths of a percent NOT 2%) Breakdown of the population would be: 68% black = 53981 23% hispanic = 18441 8% white = 6294 less than 1% other = 714 (with rounding errors spread) Submitted into the public record in connecti��,n ith items on (1 _ Todd B. Hannon City Clerk