I live in Greensboro Precinct 50 that has been located in City Council District 5 from the very inception of the district system in Greensboro. Imagine my surprise and chagrin to learn that the current council redistricted me right out of the district that I had represented for the past 16 years and moved my precinct into District 4!
Interestingly enough, Precinct 50 was not touched in any of the other plans that had been available for public review and comment. I find it odd that at the 11th hour, here comes "Plan Q" that not only ousted my precinct from the district, but also other precincts that supported me instead of my opponent in the November 2007 election. How convenient for the current incumbent!
Oh, and by the way, I learned of this action through someone who attended the meeting of the Guilford County Republican Executive Committee and heard it being discussed and laughed about there. Partisan politics rears its ugly head again!
FOUL PLAY !!!!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
...sigh...politicks at work!!!
Answer to the un-asked question: they're afraid of you.
Sounds like the same skullduggery used by the school board when they redistricted students living in the southernmost part of the city to Southwest, a bus ride of 40-45 minutes each way, when the choice plan failed. A little clique of the board met behind the scenes, developed the map, then pulled it out, and approved it without public discussion or even knowledge of other board members. Feels pretty rotten doesn't it, when it happens to you?
You can always reclaim your rightful seat in District 5.
I don't pay attention to City type activities ever since people of D5 chose the other side for whatever reason.
So far? I've seen all sorts of things that I feel like is a waste of Council time that they discuss.
The fact that they redistrict you right out is very "interesting". And it's really sad. Why is there even redistricting being done anyways?
I truly don't get local politics. Always seems to be like everyone wants to be king/queen of their own little hill, like the hill actually mattered for whatever reason.
Darkmoon,
The redistricting was required because of the annexation of the Cardinal and the addition of 9,000+ residents to District 4. Federal law requires that the districts all be within plus or minus 10% of each other population-wise. Thus some precincts had to be shifted to balance things out again. Original plans drawn by the city's technical staff accomplished this with as few as two precincts being shifted. However it was rejected in favor of this Plan Q that cuts out almost half of the former District 5 -- a totally different district now. Why????
Darkmoon asks: "Why is there even redistricting being done anyways?"
Because, as Sandy notes, of the annexation of the Cardinal, which Sandy doesn't mention, she voted for.
hmmmmmmmmmm I was at the Republican Executive Committee meeting and did not hear mention of redistricting. This is the first I've heard of it.
Sorry Sandy, but your information is wrong on that score.
Roch,
I have no problem whatsoever about the fact that redistricting was necessary. What does bother me is the NON-TRANSPARENT manner in which the adopted plan was sprung at the last minute with no possibility of public scrutiny or comment. I thought TRANSPARENCY was supposed to be one of the mainstays of this new council -- apparently only when it suits their personal agendas.
Anonymous,
My source overheard it from a private conversation at that meeting, not as an official announcement or item of business.
Yes, Sandy, you are right. That several plans were put out for public review and that a "secret" one emerged at the last minute is a mark against the new council.
Cut half of the original D5? Ick. Wonder if I still live in D5. Oh well. Don't really care.
I hope you're glad you're working in/for Pleasant Garden now.
This council has a least 2 members who are not afraid to stand up for the truth.The same could not be said for the previous council.It is a shame a few others on the council did not lose their seats also.The city would now be moving in the right direction if that would have happened.
Anonymous,
We obviously disagree! The previous council had plenty of members who stood up for the truth, myself included, and who served honorably and tried to do the right things. I see some members of this new council moving the city in the wrong direction with their (in my opinon)negative "shoot from the hip" mentality that is not serving this city well. I guess time will tell.
That is your opinion.Lots of other folks have a different view on this one than you.I would say the 2 council members are shooting from the heart instead of from the hip.They are using common sense on the issue of the city manager.I think your problem is that you are bitter because you lost the election.
I can't seem to get an answer for my question so I thought I'd ask here:
"This just begs that Carmany answer one question.
Sandy, upon your first opportunity to vote on redistricting in 2001 did you not vote to move the College Hill precinct out of District 5 and that precinct included Bill Burckley who was the incumbent that you had defeated in a previous council election?"
Posted at 3:14PM 2-25-08
I watched the hearings regarding this and it was quite obvious that the machinations were sinister especially on the part of Zach. It was particularly interesting how Wade was fairly silent on the issue. I'm quite sure there was a back-door, last minute pact between Matheny and Wade to line up the votes to push this through. I almost think the plethora of plans offered served to undermine debate since it would be a monumental task to pour over all the plans and compromise given the limited time of the council meeting. This is sickening and just the tip of the iceberg in how the status quo becomes such. At the very least there should have been more debate surrounding Plan B given that our so many city staff resources and time went into its development and involved the expertise of the bureaucrats we pay to provide expertise to our local political process. Not to mention that it had the least amount of deviation from the current state.
I'm not sure our options as citizens at this point, but I think there should be more public awareness surrounding this to perhaps make these deviants pay for there actions and at the very least make there new acquisitions less inviting to their new council person.
Obviously, Bill Burckly doesn't like you. That is Burckly with a "Q".
Anonymous,
Bitter? No! Just ask anyone with whom I have had a conversation in the last couple of months on this topic -- they can confirm what I've said -- "With all the mess and stress they're dealing with right now, thank God I'm not there! God sure knew what he was doing when I lost that election!"
Tony,
If I remember correctly, that plan adopted in the 2001 redistricting was the original one presented by staff as the least disruptive to the least number of precincts having to be moved. The only controversy I can recall is that (then) Councilmember Earl Jones wanted to trade that precinct that contains College Hill for the UNCG precinct, but that would have created a 'satellite' non-contiguous precinct that did not make sense. I believe that vote was unanimous, and yes, I voted for it.
Sandy,
I find it very troubling that you would censor my rebuttal (by not approving it and thus not allowing it to be published) a few weeks ago regarding your 'shoot from the hip' comment about the current City Council. I guess you run your blog the way you used to govern - with a total disdain for the truth...
Anonymous,
Please resubmit your comment. I can't find what you are talking about.
Post a Comment