My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Ward Redistricting - Criteria
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 06/27/11 Work Session
>
Item B: Ward Redistricting - Criteria
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2011 1:50:54 PM
Creation date
6/24/2011 9:58:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/27/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment B – Public Feedback <br /> <br /> <br />1.4J construction/investment location <br /> <br />2.What ways the ward process can be skewed to allow for special interest groups to prosper. By dividing <br /> <br />up or by grouping certain areas together, you can either allow or disallow all voices to be heard. Do <br />your job. <br />3.It would be interesting to hear why last time this process was done, the least desirable scenario was <br /> <br />chosen. How will the City prevent political/financial interests from unduly influencing the process this <br />time as well? <br />4.Existing demographic information within each ward (age, race, gender, income, etc.), other existing <br /> <br />boundaries (census, school district, etc.) overlaid to facilitate understanding of overlaps/gaps, identify <br />schools/stores/other locations of interest/attractors. <br />5.Make certain that recently annexed areas and potential annexed areas are properly represented by <br /> <br />being attached to adjacent areas that have the same interests. This is not the case in our area. We feel <br />very much the "stepchild" in Eugene, however, we pay Eugene taxes. <br />6.considering any political reality is tantamount to gerrymandering. There is no politically based scheme <br /> <br />that cannot be found to be detrimental to another group. We need a completely technocratic method <br />that is transparent. <br />7.My preference would be for the current boundaries to stay the same as much as possible. <br /> <br />8.It would be nice if someone could explain how on Earth Ward 4 could have grown by less than the city- <br /> <br />wide average over the last few years - with all the new development in the Chase Garden and Crescent <br />areas. Likewise, how could Ward 3 have grown faster than the city-wide average when there has been <br />next to no new housing starts in within the boundary. Did the census just do a much improved job of <br />counting students south of the river will doing a lousy job of counting them north of the river? Or did <br />one or both of these two wards start off with a large deviation from the ideal-sized district last time <br />around? <br />9.Precinct by precinct populations to help with comments on which precincts should be part of which <br /> <br />wards. <br />10.How people voted in the last election in the different wards. <br /> <br />11.pros and cons to proposals-notes or gist, not details <br /> <br />12.Show general age and income levels and how each ward will have a diverse mix of our population. <br /> <br />13.The City should be promoting involvement through the Neighborhood Services staff and the <br /> <br />Neighborhood Leaders Council. <br />6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.