Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Elections & Legislation |
GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
Current rating: 0 |
by Vote No At-Large Email: noatlarge (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!) |
29 Oct 2004
|
The Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) has become the latest in a long list of organizations that have publicly endorsed a "no" vote on the at-large ballot question in Urbana. |
(Urbana)// - The GEO is the latest organization to join the growing list of those who publicly endorse a “no” vote on the at-large referendum. The full list of organizations includes the NAACP, Champaign County Branch; the Democratic Party of Champaign County; UCAN (United Citizens and Neighbors), the King School and Crystal Lake Park neighborhood association; the University of Illinois College Democrats; the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO); the Prairie Green Party of East Central Illinois; and the Independent Voters of Illinois.
The NAACP’s unanimous resolution stated that “the addition of at-large seats to the Urbana City Council will dilute minority representation on that body.” Every other endorsement also addressed the fact that at-large elections are proven to dilute minority influence in local governments nationwide. The Democratic Party’s resolution noted that the Party believes at-large elections threaten to dilute the one-person, one-vote principle, and urged Democrats in Urbana to vote “no.” UCAN’s mailing to its members noted that the assertion that at-large dilutes minority influence “is documented fact evidenced by 35 years of scientific research.”
Statements by the College Democrats and the GEO both included discussion of student issues. The College Democrats stated that “the proposed addition of 2 [at-large] seats would weaken student influence on the city council as well as the influence of minorities in the community.” The GEO noted that the addition of at-large seats would make student interests a minority on the Council, and linked student-friendly policies like apartment recycling and the landlord-tenant ordinance to the fair representation students receive under the ward system in Urbana.
Nearly 30 current and former elected officials from the city of Urbana have endorsed a “no” vote on at-large. These officials include Alderman Jim Hayes (Ward 3), City Clerk Phyllis Clark, former Aldermen Michael Pollock and John Taylor, and former Mayor Hiram Paley.
Vote No At-Large is a grassroots organization that opposes the addition of at-large seats to the Urbana City Council. The last question on the ballot on Election Day will ask voters whether to add these seats. Vote No At-Large and their endorsing organizations and officials oppose at-large for Urbana because at-large is proven to dilute minority representation, and because it injects big money into local campaigns.
More information, including text of the endorsements and a list of all public officials supporting a no vote, is available from http://www.noatlarge.org.
### |
See also:
http://www.noatlarge.org |
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
A Handy Reminder |
by voter X (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 29 Oct 2004
|
Click on image for a larger version
|
Print this handy reminder off to take to the polls.
The ballot language is just a little confusing, but if you do NOT support adding at-large seats to the Urbana City Council, just remember to vote NO! on the last question on the ballot.
Or you can print this handy reminder and take it with you on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 2.
Just don't forget to vote and vote NO! on the at-large referendum...
Or, as it is now known in most Urbana households, "Tod's Great Big Power Grab (with a Taste of Republican Seasoning)!" (TM, Tim Johnson_I'd Rather Join Him, Than Beat Him_ sez Tod). |
It Figures |
by one of Tod's female constituent's (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 29 Oct 2004
|
Don't you just know, Tod's referendum talks a LOT about alder_men_ and sez nothin' 'bout any alder_women_.
That pretty much solves what the thing is that Tod wants most for Xmas -- an all-male city council. He thinks that would solve ALL his problems.
Except what to do about companionship that is.
He wishes...
Women Strike Against Tod
>>>EVEN IF YOU LIVE IN CHAMPAIGN<<< |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Demoncrat (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 30 Oct 2004
|
I assume this was the GEO executive committee and not the rank in file. I'd be interested to hear how many of those committee members live in Urbana. You should point out that the counter-endorsement by the Student Dems was also their executive committee and not a full membership action. Given the poison language that the No At-Large has been feeding students over the past several weeks, it's no surpise that these groups are asking their members to drink the koolaid. Nevermind that the council won't give the students their own wards, but prefers to use student apathy in municipal elections to pad population and protect incumbents. During the League of Women Voters debate on +2, the no at-large rep even said that students shouldn't have their own ward(s) because they wouldn't be qualified to sit on council.
Many democrats believe that the county organization had no place to recommend pro or con on what is a city issue. In fact, the County Dems' executive committee, the leadership team if you will, recommended they not take a stand on +2. The vote came down to a few precinct committeepeople whose validity with the Democratic Party is questionable, i.e. they should come clean that their party affiliation is with the Green Party rather than the Democratic Party, and one member who requested appointment only to vote on this issue. [Disclaimer: there isn't anything wrong with being a Green but to mascarade as one party affiliate when you belong to another has shades of the LaRouche "revolution" a few years back.]
Read the literature from both pro and con, get the facts and decide for yourself. Don't be sheep. BAAAAA. |
GEO Remembers Who It's Friends Are |
by ML (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 30 Oct 2004
|
The GEO has a relatively open political endorsement process. If there was any significant opposition to the the GEO's endorsing Vote No At-Large, it could have been heard. I wasn't at the meetings, but it takes at least two meetings and (I think) a two-thirds vote to endorse something or someone.
In discussions with fellow GEO members, it's clear that everyone knows why we are against adding at-large seats. Those on the council that are opposed to at-large are strong political allies of GEO. On the other hand, the mayor, who is one of the main forces behind this ill-advised proposition, has been a weak-kneed, fair-weather friend to labor in general in Urbana.
Also, it is a dumb, politically backwards and bald-faced powergrab by a minority in Urbana that is uncomfortable with the fact that Urbana's citizens don't need the mayor to tell our elected representatives what to do. Many GEO members, including myself, live in Urbana and we don't want to see this regressive and anti-deluvian system replace the legal and fair ward system. Those of us who are historians know well the history of at-large voting systems in facilitating white supremacy, a heritage that cannot be explained away as merely coincidental since it was the first choice of a number of potential solutions for the problems disgruntled conservatives perceive.
Another significant fact is that the News-Gazette and local Republicans, who are outright enemies of labor in Champaign County, are also giving strong support to Tod's plan to add at-large seats. This a rather significant clue that 'Ol Demoncrat (is that like an anti-Democrat, i.e. a Republican?) has missed in this equation that has seemingly so befuddled him or her. Of course, Demoncrat's sheep metaphor is easily recognized as right out of management's play book, so we shouldn't be too surprised s/he is trying to get us to think a fair election system is one that can be rigged to let a couple of wolves vote on what the best interests of the sheep are.
C'mon, Demoncrat, being that we are GEO members, we're all college graduates by definition -- and even a high school grad can figure out where the union is going to be on at-large.
Voting No At-Large supports labor's friends and keeps labor's enemies at bay in Urbana. As a GEO member, I fully support the GEO's decision to oppose at-large. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by cpov (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 30 Oct 2004
|
Demoncrat said:
"...the no at-large rep even said that students shouldn't have their own ward(s) because they wouldn't be qualified to sit on council."
That is absolutely not what Esther Patt said. Watch the reruns and see for yourself.
"Many democrats believe that the county organization had no place to recommend pro or con on what is a city issue."
Those Democrats haven't been paying much attention to the local party, then. The county party has many times acted on city issues. For example, just a few months earlier they passed a resolution in support of employees seeking unionization at the CUPHD--an issue that affects a subset of the county.
"The vote came down to a few precinct committeepeople whose validity with the Democratic Party is questionable..."
Again, wrong. The central committee endorsed voting "no" on at-large by nearly 2/3rds. Hardly a close vote. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by An actual laborer (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 30 Oct 2004
|
As a union plumber (UA Local 149), I find it insulting that the students of the GEO have the gall to compare themselves to actual labor unions. Teach your classes and get over it.
In the real world, real laborers are seeing that the Urbana City Council's actions are driving good jobs out of the city. Construction in Champaign is booming thanks to the willingness of that city council to partner with businesses willing to locate in that community.
In Urbana, its always a fight with the city council before anything can be accomplished, especially when it comes to new growth, new business, and big development. There is so much potential in Urbana, but those who can tap that potential are running far and fast from town.
I also find it interesting that in the community with the "pro-labor" city council, the new Wal-Mart will be built with non-union labor, while the new Champaign Wal-Mart is being constructed with union labor. Where's the Leal School gang when we need them?
I won't disguise why I support at-large. It's time to take back the Urbana City Council from four out of touch members who have hijacked council business for the better part of the last decade.
And if at-large doesn't pass, it will be time for Democratic primaries in every ward of the city.
Real laborers are tired of this crap. After a GEO member stands knee deep in a trench, in the heat of the July sun, installing a sewer line, then he/she can call themselves labor and start giving political advise on behalf of laborers. Unitl then, don't call yourselves labor, you are embarassing those of us who really work. |
workers unite? |
by scott (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 31 Oct 2004
|
actual laborer:
Organized labor is the only vehicle to ensure a fair shake for those of us who do not own the means of production. Whether what is being produced is municipal sewage systems, or higher education.
Do not attack your fellow organized workers. It is an affront to the entire endeavor of collective action in the face of crushing economic forces. Do not disdain your fellow laborers because you do not like their mode of production. I doubt anyone in the GEO, the Teachers Unions, SEIU, or like unions would degrade plumbers because they are plumbers. Your willingness to attack your fellow laborers who don't work "in the heat of the July sun" demonstrates your standing in the fight for economic justice. |
Stereotypical Satterthwaite Supporter's "Solidarity" |
by ML (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 31 Oct 2004
|
I think Scott pretty much hit the nail on the head with his critique of "laborer" and his support of divide and conquer tactics which are the Satterthwaite camp's stock in trade.
GEO members are workers. As workers, they often have a great deal of experience at jobs other than in academia, since they often have to resort to part-time and summer employment to make ends meet for themselves and their families. I know may GEO members who have returned to school from factories, other workplaces and a variety of jobs in previous careers, both related and unrelated to their field of study.
Speaking just for myself, I have farmed, done carpentry, concrete work, electrical work, picked groceries in a warehouse, loaded semi-trailers, managed inventories and ordered truck parts. I've worked more than my share of overtime and nightshifts. I've spent plenty of time in the July (and other months of the year, too) sun, including digging ditches.
I won't say that what I'm doing now is any more noble than what "laborer" does, but I damn sure won't try to put him down for his work -- only for his stupid and implicitly sexist commentary on politics, as if they had fallen from the lips of Mayor Tod himself. Those kinds of divide and conquer tactics, which a few like "laborer" fall into, only helps the bosses. I have to wonder -- which side he is on? I sure as hell wouldn't want a union brother or sister like him working beside me, waiting to stab his fellow workers in the back when the chips are down.
Finally, if there is anyone to be blamed for the situation with WalMart in Urbana, it is the mayor himself. As others have noted here before, he secretly stage-managed WalMart's coming to town, giving them the keys to the city while demanding nothing in return, not even union jobs. It is the mayor who is in charge of the city staff who handle such projects. If you want to blame someone about what WalMart is doing in Urbana, the buck stops at the mayor's desk and no one else's.
Anyone who questions how WalMart was let into Urbana's back door and thinks they should also support at-large has been bamboozled by the Satterthwaite Spin Machine. But since "laborer" is so fond of backstabbing, I guess that is why he is still a Satterthwaite supporter, because the mayor is the High Priest of Backstabbing in Urbana.
When all is said and done, it is "actual laborer" who is the actual embarrassment to his union brothers and sisters. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by washburn strawman (nospam) thisdarkqualm.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0 31 Oct 2004
|
As a GEO alum, I'm pleased to see the organization taking an active role in local politics. Then again, one could hardly expect the GEO to remain silent about a measure that would effectively disenfranchise many of its members. Here's hoping the GEO continutes to be both a voice and an organizing force for issues beyond just those that can negotiated in a contract with the university. |
What was said |
by Demoncrat (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 31 Oct 2004
|
for cpov:
Here's the question directed to Alderwoman Patt (lest I be accused of taking things out of context):
“You and the No At-Large campaign have repeatedly accused those who support At-Large of trying deny students a voice in city government. Why then did the ward map that you drew divide the student dorms among the three wards instead of drawing a majority student ward so their voice could be truly heard.”
And here is Alderwoman Patt's answer:
“First, I’m not accusing anyone of being against students. A number of spokespeople for the at large campaign have articulated that students do not deserve a voice equal to other people and I’m critical of that. If we drew all the students into one ward we would still end up with a lot of students in residence halls that’s how many people live in…its just that are…a ward is about 5,200 people and there are 7,200 people living west of Lincoln Avenue south of University. We could…if I thought that a majority of people would like to see one of the seven council members where only 30 people are even eligible to run for office because the rest would not meet the residency requirement, and where the person might be elected with 50 people. If that were something that most Urbana residents wanted, that would be something that I would do. But that is the problem with…in the resident halls we have this huge population of people who have not lived in the city for one year so they can not…they’re not eligible to run for office."
Simply summarized, because most students don't qualify (i.e. meet residency) and don't vote, they don't get their own ward(s). |
Distortion revealed |
by cpov (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 31 Oct 2004
|
Demoncrat said:
"Simply summarized, because most students don't qualify (i.e. meet residency) and don't vote, they don't get their own ward(s)."
Ah, thanks so much for transcribing the language, and in the process proving my point. Clearly, when you wrote your first post your choice of the word 'qualified' was meant to imply that Ms. Patt had said students weren't 'good enough.' to run. Now that we have her actual language its clear that she meant what she said--"ineligible." That's a far cry from 'qualified.'
Thanks for verifying and correcting your distortion of the facts. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Urbana resident (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 31 Oct 2004
|
Can anyone tell me why the "Vote No" postcard I received on Saturday (the one with the names of 'East Urbana Neighbors' opposed to the question) has the names of persons who do not even live in Urbana (and therefore cannot vote on the proposition). One name of a person I know, Gene Vandeport with an address on High Cross Road, sticks out in my mind.
Is the vote no contingent that desperate for votes that it will take out of towners? |
Demonrat Swims with the Red Herrings |
by citizen X (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 31 Oct 2004
|
There is nothing at all unusual about someone who may not be a registered voter in Urbana endorsing a political campaign here on one side or the other. For a variety of reasons, people have legitimate interests in expressing their opinion on Urbana government. And it is a free country, mostly.
In the case of the asinine at-large proposal, the many students living in Urbana that Mayor Tod and his at-large minions feel should not be represented have an legitimate interest in how Urbana government works. They live here a majority of the year and many eventually register to vote here after they become eligible.
The little exchange just above this between Demonrat and cpov proves once again that the at-large proponents fully intend to disenfranchse students, many of whom may not vote here, but who are nonetheless entitled to full, legal representation by their council represenattives, undiluted by at-large silliness -- to the exactly equal extent that wealthy homeowners in southeast Urbana do -- and as they currently all do under the present fully legal and fair ward system.
I just happen to know who Gene Vanderport is and can speculate on why he may have wanted to express his opinion about at-large:
1. He works in Urbana.
2. While the endorsement is probably just his personally, the fact that his opinion is widely respected by many people in Urbana is significant -- he is an official with the Illinois Education Association, i.e. organizational indentification implies no endorsement by the IEA.
Now if Demonrat was making a legitimate point, instead of engaging in ludicrous petty politics, he would be also be denouncing in the same breath the interference of John Foreman and the News-Gazette, whose cheerleading and endorsement in favor of at-large has been quite apparent all along. Last time I checked, most of those people aren't registered to vote in Urbana, either.
And interestingly enough, some of the loudest supporters of at-large are, in fact Champaign County Republicans, a very few of which admittedly do live in Urbana, but a large number of which do not. At-large supporters do their best to downplay the Pavlovian salivations of Republicans over the prospect that its passage in Urbana would give them the chance they have been looking for to begin retaking Urbana. It is a stone cold fact that at-large needs the support of every Republcian to have even a chance of passing. Tod's politics of encouraging division among Democrats is certainly something which Republicans see as a major weakness and no doubt seek to exploit. Why put ammo in their hands?
As they say on TV, the weakest link, Tod, needs to go, not the people who have served their constituents honorably on the city council and which Tod is attacking with his poison pen and the at-large proposal. Democrats should beware Tod's siren song, lest they end up in the Republican rocks on the lee shore. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Julia (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
"The[Democratic] central committee endorsed voting "no" on at-large by nearly 2/3rds. Hardly a close vote. " (cpov)
Just curious. How many people were eligible to vote on this issue? How many people actually voted? How many votes did the resolution get? Were representatives from both sides invited to provide information to the group before the vote? |
Student Power |
by Dem for at-large (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
I don't understand why the no-at-large brigade insists students are disadvantaged by at-large. The last city elections show 3222 registered voters west of Lincoln and South of University I'm sure there are more now, and that doesn't count all the students and grad students living east of Lincoln. In the last Urbana Mayor election, only 4300 ballots were cast in all Urbana. It seems with any effort, a student candidate could inspire enough voters to win at-large.
The problem with residency requirements of 1 year would be eliminated because more student housing east of Lincoln, rather than just the dorms in the student precincts, could put forth candidates.
So I have to question whether the no-at-large organizers' student concern is genuine. |
apologies |
by Dem for at-large (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
Sorry about the double-post. I hit refresh, not realizing it would post twice. No offense intended. |
How Ironic |
by Dose of Reality (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
It looks like the pro-at-large crowd is again grasping at straws, based on Julia's typically off-tangent comment.
I can't answer all her questions on the subject of at-large's overwhelming defeat by the Dem Centeral Committee -- I wasn't there. However, she asks, "How many people were eligible to vote on this issue? How many people actually voted?"
For this vote, she seems to be saying that it is unfair that a fairly apportioned political body took a vote resulted in an unfair outcome because only a minority of those eligible showed up to vote. It is almost unbelieveably ironic that she should complain about what she implies is a small voter turnout that unfairly stole the election for the side of the issue she opposes.
Yet this is exactly the kind of result that at-large supporters seek to impose on the citizens of Urbana, an election system that rewards those with a high voter turnout and takes away rights to representation from those who do not turn out to vote, even though they are just as entitled to representation as those precincts with a high voter turnout.
Obviously, if there really were a number of eligible voters absent in the Dem CC, all the losing side would have had to do to correct what she objects to is show up to vote the next time such an issue comes up. However, if you were to take her solution for Urbana, at-large voting, and _if_ the DEM CC had voted to impose at-large voting on their own processes by way of this vote, then Julia would never in the future be able effectively contest such a vote by simply getting all her supporters to show up for an elelction. Her side would effectively be permanently disenfranchised by at-large voting in such cases.
Thank goodness the Dem CC opposes at-large voting and the way it skews elections in favor of wards that have a high voter turnout. So her side will get another chance sometime to vote on this and have their votes count just as much as those in wards with high voter turnout. And she will probably still lose, but at least the process won't be rigged in favor of those with a high voter turnout -- she'll just have to accept the result.
It does demonstrate how at-large supporters are hoping to suppress the rights of voters who vote in ways that they do not approve of, but they sure as hell don't want to get in a position where the tables are turned so it will affect the causes that they support. They only want to rig elections so that it is always in their favor, not so that they will be fairly decided by those who show up to vote in any particular election.
Vote No At-Large
http://www.noatlarge.org |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by ben grosser (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
'Urbana resident' said: "Can anyone tell me why the "Vote No" postcard I received on Saturday ... (the one with the names of 'East Urbana Neighbors' opposed to the question) has the names of persons who do not even live in Urbana (and therefore cannot vote on the proposition). One name of a person I know, Gene Vandeport with an address on High Cross Road, sticks out in my mind."
Looks like an honest mistake--thanks for pointing it out. Best I can tell, if his house isn't in city limits, it must be across the street. We have certainly endeavored to list only Urbana residents, and I have removed his name from the website. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Julia (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
Well, Dose of Reality, for someone who wasn't at the Democratic Central Committee meeting and who doesn't have any answers to my questions, you sure have a lot to say.
I'm asking again and maybe someone with some facts can answer the questions.
How many precintmen or women were eligible to vote on this issue? How many people actually voted? How many votes did the resolution receive? Were representatives from both sides invited to provide information to the committee before the vote was taken? |
city limits |
by ben grosser (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
I said: " it must be across the street."
not sure what map I was looking at, but I guess the city limit doesn't extend that far north. does anyone know of a highly detailed map of Urbana online that shows the city boundaries? |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by ben grosser (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
Julia said: "Just curious. How many people were eligible to vote on this issue? How many people actually voted? How many votes did the resolution get? Were representatives from both sides invited to provide information to the group before the vote?"
Everyone on the Central Committee was eligible to vote. I don't recall the exact number of people that voted, but it was certainly the highest attendance of any committee meeting I've ever been to, and many others remarked similarly.
Both sides were given equal time and presented their viewpoints. Then anyone who wanted to speak to the issue was given that opportunity.
The vote total was 2448 to 1340. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Julia (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 01 Nov 2004
|
Ben Grosser writes:
"The vote total was 2448 to 1340. "
You'll have to explain this one. Did 3,788 people cast a vote in the Central Committee.?
Did 6 people representing 3,788 people cast a vote?
Maybe you should look at a ward map to determine the boundaries of the City of Urbana. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by democracy not hypocracy (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 02 Nov 2004
|
What a joke - students thinking their divided interest on the council represents them. I'm on the West Urbana Neighborhood Association (WUNA) mailing list. This is the group that really elects the 3 coucil members that say they represent students. WUNA members regularly post anti-student sentiments and have successfully prevented the fraternity on south Lincoln from turning a vacant lot into a parking lot. Their overriding concern is with maintaining property values. To be fair, I think the current alderwomen from that area have done a remarkable job of countering the interference they get, but I have real concerns about how long that can last. Good luck. |
Bottomline: Students Lose with At-Large |
by Dose of Reality (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 02 Nov 2004
|
It is ridiculous to claim that the very divided opinions that can be seen on the WUNA list can decide much of anything, let alone an election.
It's also ridiculous to assert that somehow a fraternity represents the interests of anything other than a small minority of well-off students.
One thing is certain: If at-large wins, students will lose, because one of the things that the at-large proposal was designed expressly to do was to dilute student voting power. This was seen in nearly all the statements that its supporters made when trying to bamboozle the council into putting it on the ballot.
Since then there has been lots of denial of this fact by at-large supporters, just like the comment above, because they know that the defeat of at-large hinges largely on which way the student vote goes. But they cannot change the fact that the dilution of student voting power has always been one of the main objectives of at-large supporters.
Vote NO! At -Large
http://www.noatlarge.org |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Esther Patt estherpatt (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0 02 Nov 2004
|
Regarding putting all the students into one ward, the question at at the debate was why didn't we put all of the students in the dorms into one ward. While the majority of students ARE qualified to run for office, anyone who has not lived in the city for at least 1 years is not qualified, by law, to run for city council. Most students in undergraduate residence halls will not have lived in the city for 1 year prior to May 1 and therefore, are not qualified to run for city council. The very pro-student council members drew majority student wards with a mix of students from residence halls and students from Greek houses and apartments so that students would have the influence they do in FOUR wards instead of just one. I apologize for not being more articulate about this at the debate.
Esther Patt |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Confused by your reasoning (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 02 Nov 2004
|
so students can be representated by 4 council members in 4 wards- but families in in growing areas in South and East Urbana have one ward- one voice- you have just made the case for at-large, ward hybrid system - VOTE YES! |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Shocked! (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 02 Nov 2004
|
Esther, I think the point “The very pro-student council members drew majority student wards with a mix of students from residence halls and students from Greek houses and apartments so that students would have the influence they do in FOUR wards instead of just one.” Is the very reason I am pro at-large. These council members, at the cost of the rest of the city, control Urbana! This is not the type of representation the city needs to move forward. I think you have lost touch with what an alderperson’s responsibility is; maybe it is time you resign! |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Esther Patt estherpatt (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0 02 Nov 2004
|
In response to Shocked, three out of every 7 Urbana residents live south of University, west of Race Street. Under the 1992 ward map, 3 of 7 wards were in that area. The new ward map puts only two wards in that area and a third ward (ward 4) is partially in that area and partially east of Race Street (the new ward 4 runs all the way east to Cottage Grove).
If you support at-large because you object to 3/7 of the population having two and possibly three of 7 representatives on city council, perhaps you are the one who should re-think your ideas about democracy rather than asking for my resignation.
Why can't some people accept the fact that students are close to half the adult population of our community? No one seems to mind that they are counted in the population for the purpose of determining how much money the cities receive from federal and state governments. No one seems to mind taking students' money at their businesses. No one seems to mind all the jobs that are created directly at the U of I and indirectly at numerous businesses that would not exist were it not for students. No one seems to mind all the property tax revenue the cities, schools and parks receive from all the rental housing that students occupy.
Yet, some folks are furious that students are counted as people when the city draws a ward map. The fact that students are a significant percent of the population of 4 wards (a majority in 2 of those wards) does not take anything away from anyone else. |
Re: GEO Joins NAACP, College Democrats, and Many Other Organizations that Endorse Voting "NO" on At-Large in Urbana |
by Julia (No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0 02 Nov 2004
|
Still wondering about that Democratic Central Committe vote....
Ben Grosser writes:
"The vote total was 2448 to 1340. "
Did 3,788 people cast a vote in the Central Committee?
Did 6 or 10 or 20 or ???? people representing 3,788 people cast a vote?
How many people present at the meeting actually voted? How many people voted to support the resolution opposing the at-large referendum? How many people voted against this. |
|