Redistricting Maps 3
From Queens Civic Congress:
Woodhaven / Richmond Hill / Kew Gardens
The Commission has proposed a wholesale shift in Council District representation for
Woodhaven, Richmond Hill and parts of Kew Gardens, moving well over 200 blocks
between the 28th, 29th 30th and 32nd Council Districts. The area is divided into five
neighborhoods (Figure 17): Woodhaven, Woodhaven North, Richmond Hill, Richmond
Hill North and Kew Gardens. All of Woodhaven and 1/3 of Woodhaven North is
presently located in the 32nd Council District, while the rest of Woodhaven North,
Richmond Hill North portions of Richmond Hill and Kew Gardens are located in the
30th. The rest of Kew Gardens and a portion of Richmond Hill are in the 29th, and the
remainder of Richmond Hill is located in the 28th (Figure 14).
The Council District boundaries proposed by the Commission (Figure 15) represents a
significant change in representation in what QCC believes to be not in the best interests of these important areas of Queens. The character of these neighborhoods is rather specific: Woodhaven North is comprised mostly of two-family detached houses, while the remainder of Woodhaven is more typically a mix of detached houses, rowhouses and small apartment buildings; Richmond Hill North is comprised mostly of one-family detached houses, while the remainder of the area is also similar mix to Woodhaven. Kew Gardens is largely split between areas containing large single-family houses, two-family rowhouses and six-story apartment buildings.
Richmond Hill North and Kew Gardens also have the distinction of being the first
suburban planned communities in Queens County, developed by the Man family between
1870 and 1930. These neighborhoods, which have tenacious civic organizations including the Kew Gardens Civic Association and the Richmond Hill Historical Society, are adamant about not being split between several Council Districts, and the Queens Civic Congress agrees with them.
The main natural and manmade boundaries in these neighborhoods are quite prominent
and obvious: The Brooklyn-Queens County line on the west; the Long Island Railroad
trestle between Woodhaven and Richmond Hill in the center; and the Van Wyck
Expressway on the east.
From north to south, the boundaries are Forest Park and the Jackie Robinson Parkway;
Jamaica Avenue, which acts as both a commercial center and a visual dividing line
(including in housing type) due to the elevated subway; and Atlantic Avenue on the
south. Additionally, Richmond Hill North and Kew Gardens have a specific boundary
line delineated when the areas were developed over a century ago.
QCC has proposed certain common sense boundary adjustments based upon the
geography and natural boundaries of these neighborhoods (Figure 16) which will cause
decreased disruption to the shape and content of the current Council Districts. We believe that, for the most part, Jamaica Avenue should act as the boundary between the 30th and 32nd Council Districts as it is being proposed between the 28th and 29th Council Districts; the only exception to this is a section between the Long Island Railroad trestle and 111th Street that would continue south to Atlantic Avenue, which would remain in the 30th Council District (which represents most of that area presently).
Additionally, the QCC proposes that a section of Woodhaven between Woodhaven
Boulevard and the Long Island Railroad from Jamaica to Atlantic avenues would be
moved to the 32nd Council District, as would an area of South Richmond Hill south of
Atlantic Avenue and east of the Long Island Railroad trestle (Figure 16).
The 29th and 30th Council District lines between Richmond Hill North and Kew Gardens
would also be shifted to reflect the actual boundary between these two discrete
neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, the Woodhaven Residents Block Association has its own proposal.
17 comments:
Gerrymandering geography can be VERY interesting.
Who says that maps are dull?
Look at what shady pols can map out to benefit themselves.
Enduring these maps
is like putting up with pledge week on PBS.
Interesting article. Though it is a waste of tax payer dollars for council districts to be kept at 150,000. It would be better usage of our money to increase the density to 300,000 and reduce our city councils down from 51 to maybe 30 something.
Interesting article. Though it is a waste of tax payer dollars for council districts to be kept at 150,000. It would be better usage of our money to increase the density to 300,000 and reduce our city councils down from 51 to maybe 30 something.
----
Back in 1989, the City Charter was revised dramatically because the city was violating the Federal Constitution - y'know, that old adage one person, one vote - and the government was considered unrepresentative, due to the tremendous powers that the Borough Presidents had over the Mayor and City Council through the old Board of Estimate.
As a result, the Borough Presidents had most of their power stripped away. Also, the Council was expanded from 35 to 51 members...again, this was based on the fact that there were too many people per district.
Paul Graziano
It's ignorant apathetic people like "CRina3"
that are responsible for making Queens the abused backward borough that it is.
So, sit back and enjoy being stepped on.
"CRina3" is tailor made for crooked politicians to take advantage of.
There is no neighborhood called "Woodhaven North."
The Woodhaven Residents' Block Association supports the proposal by the Districting Commission, in which Woodhaven is finally united into a single district (except for a teeny-tiny slice, which we have requested be shifted into the same district as the rest of Woodhaven).
Our belief is that, unless drop-dead necessary, no neighborhood should have its representation split.
Ed Wendell
President
Woodhaven Residents' Block Association
So you're proposing that Maspeth be split down the middle in order to make Woodhaven whole?
If I recall, almost all of Woodhaven is currently in the 32nd Council District (Eric Ulrich's).
If Woodhaven Residents' Block Association wants to be united in one district, that makes sense...I would think it should probably still be in the 32nd, rather than create issues for other neighborhoods in the 30th (which seems to be what's happening here).
Paul Graziano
Woodhaven is currently split between two districts, fairly evenly -- with more residential land in District 32 - and more land mass (because it includes Forest Park) in District 30.
We have made zero proposals for Maspeth or any other neighborhood* -- we're only speaking for our community.
*The exception being a general statement that we believe no neighborhood -- unless drop dead necessary -- should be divided.
Ed Wendell
President
Woodhaven Residents' Block Association
We appreciate the sentiment that no neighborhood should be divided, but in order for 100% of your neighborhood to be in the 30th District, ours would have to be split in half due to population quotas. On the other hand, both neighborhoods could be left intact if Woodhaven were moved to the 32nd District.
We are fine with any proposal that leaves Woodhaven 100% in a single district -- and have zero preference as to which district that is. 30, 32, makes no difference to us. Nor do we care which of our neighbors we are combined with - we like `em all.
While we believe that no community should ever be split we cannot assume that other communities feel that way -- so we would not presume to speak for them.
We support the current proposal as it relates to Woodhaven and have asked that any changes they make to satisfy other communities do not wipe out what they have proposed for us - namely, that we will be in a single district.
Ed Wendell
President
Woodhaven Residents' Block Association
As I said before, I'm pretty sure that the lines could easily be drawn so that Woodhaven would remain completely in the 32nd and Maspeth would remain almost entirely in the 30th, as they are today.
By adding Woodhaven into the 30th, it is dividing Maspeth in two. As Mr. Wendell stated "we believe that no neighborhood - unless drop dead necessary - should be divided."
Your support for all of your own neighborhood being moved into the 30th Council District is doing exactly that - it's dividing Maspeth in two, because of population limits per district that the City Charter has mandated.
Paul Graziano
Mr. Wendell -
My last comment was posted after yours, so I didn't see your comment about not caring which Council District you are in.
Again, the most important thing is that you do want to be united in one district. Unfortunately, the current proposal as it relates to Woodhaven is doing this at the expense of dividing several other neighborhoods, most notably Maspeth.
Paul Graziano
Again, we support any plan that keeps our community in one district.
Despite our belief that no community should be divided, we would not presume to make that argument on behalf of Maspeth, or any other community.
Why? For all we know, they might not agree. They may decide that having 2 representatives on the City Council gives them 2 votes on matters that concern their community. Or they may have other reasons, unique to their community, that we are unaware of.
Ed Wendell
President
Woodhaven Residents Block Association
The point is that the Maspeth & Middle Village groups are part of the Queens Civic Congress which published this report. Since your civic is not, your neighborhood's wishes were not known when they drew their Queenswide maps, otherwise I am sure they would have taken them into consideration. They can't map out one district without also mapping out the others to see where the lines will lie.
And perhaps the correct response to the commission should have been exactly what you wrote here, that as long as your neighborhood is kept whole, you don't care what district it's in. Because what you wrote instead would force them to split another neighborhood in half which would also like to be kept together. In fact, there's still a good chunk of Maspeth that has been left out of district 30 even if the current lines of Woodhaven were to be left in place. I am sure they would love to have you move to another district so that their entire neighborhood could be left intact and in the same council district.
It's time for all parties to stop the knee-jerk parochialism and realize that a decision made in one neighborhood will affect the others around it.
All of these plans are still chopping up Richmond Hill and giving my portion to Jamaica. I was given to Jamaica as a wacky strip in the last redistricting and never received any services because the representation didn't really view us as a core constituency in Richmond Hill. They were right--we belong to Richmond Hill and we should be redistricted back together without creating little strips that get treated like stepchildren!
As crazy as this might sound, it might be time to have MORE Councilmembers, not less. That way, more neighborhoods could have their own representatives instead of getting marginalized.
Post a Comment