|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Urban Development |
|
At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Kotheimer
Email: herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (verified) |
18 Aug 2004
|
|
This November, citizens of Urbana will be asked to vote on the addition of two "at-large" seats to the City Council. This IMC reporter proposes that we do some research together. |
This November, citizens of Urbana will be asked to vote on the addition of two "at-large" seats to the City Council. Proponents of this change in government claim that the "at-large" representatives will give fairer and more accurate representation to outlying areas of Urbana, where population is growing due to development. Those who oppose the addition of "at-large" seats claim that the two "at-large" votes would distort the representation of the citizens in a way which would be not only innacurate, but even unconstitutional.
With this debate in full force, at least one IMC volunteer (namely, myself) is calling for the collection of INDEPENDENT RESEARCH on the topic. I invite readers of ucimc.org (especially those living in Urbana) to help collect statistics and primary source material on a number of SPECIFIC questions:
1. What other towns and cities include "at-large" seats on their municipal governments?
2. Under what circumstances were "at-large" seats added to other city councils?
3. Are there noticable changes in legislative trends after "at-large" seats are added to a municipal government? Is there a pattern of bills which do not pass before the addition of "at-large" seats which then succeed under the "at-large" system?
Please add hyperlinks or quotes from published source material on any of these topics. Add them as comments to this parent article. IMC volunteers will collate and publish the resulting body of research as a future feature on this site.
Please note, however, that if you have a PERSONAL statement to make on this issue (i.e., one that does NOT address the specific research questions above, using quotes from published documents or links to text available on the Internet), please feel free to publish such statements IN A SEPERATE ARTICLE ON THE IMC NEWSWIRE. Please DO NOT attach your personal position statement to THIS article! Thanks. |
Related stories on this site:
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: People For the American Way Foundation and NAACP Release Report on Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America
| 
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
Comments
|
Re: At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Aug 2004
|
|
Champaign, Illinois has 5 ward-based seats and 3 seats elected at-large. Progressives in Champaign-Urbana campaigned for at least one of the at-large minority candidates last spring, Geraldo Rosales. He won a seat on the council. It is unlikely that he would have been elected from an individual ward in Champaign. |
|
A Single Case Does Not Make A Trend |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Aug 2004
|
The Champaign City Council used to be all at-large. Then they added some ward-based seats. However, in the more than thirty years since they added the ward-based seats, EVERY person who has won an at-large seat on the Champaign City Council has been a non-Hispanic Caucasian with the single exception of Giraldo Rosales (finally!) in 2003. Mr. Rosales is a great council member, by all accounts, but his election is unlikely to represent a long-term change in a disturbing overall trend.
Also, despite the supposedly "non-partisan" nature of Champaign's city elections, all at-large members of the Champaign City Council in the last thirty years, except for four, have been Republicans. |
|
Independent Research on At-Large Elections: |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2004
|
Here's a few quick (and hopefully useful) resources:
1. Robinson, England & Meier (1985). "Black Resources and Black School Board Representation" -- discusses how at-large elections lessen minority representation.
2. Melissa Marshall's (2003) "Minority Representation and Local School Boards" (available online at: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/pdf/SBConfPDF/papers/PEPG_03-10Marschall.pdf ) provides lots of useful information and meta-analysis of earlier research -- from the research article "For the most part, the findings consistently indicate that selections methods matter for Black representation and that next to appointment, district or ward-based electoral arrangements provide the greatest advantage to Black office-seekers." The same result was found for Latino office-seekers in Meier, Martinez-Ebers, & Leal's (2002), "The Politics of Latino Education: the Biases of Latino At-Large Elections."
3. Meier & Juenke's (2003), "Electoral Structure and the Quality of Representation" (available online at: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/pdf/SBConfPDF/papers/PEPG_03-09Meier.pdf ) provides further empirical research that at-large elections descriminate against minorities versus ward-based structures. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2004
|
The two largest minority groups in Urbana are Asians and African-Americans, each comprising a little over 15% of the total population. Ward 3, in north Urbana, has been represented by an African-American in the last few decades. No other ward has elected an African-American to the council. No ward has ever sent an Asian to the council (not sure if any Asian has ever run for the council, either)
There is no guarantee that Ward 3 will continue to elect a minority to the council. The demographics of that ward are changing with the construction of more student apartments and condos. And, as the university has expanded northward to University Ave, more students, staff, and faculty may be attracted to the much more affordable houses in the neighborhoods north of University Avenue. In short, Ward 3 may eventually look more like the campus Wards 1, 2, and 4, which haven't elected a minority to the council in the past few decades, if ever.
So, if one is looking specifically at the city of Urbana and city council elections (not school board elections in other cities and states), you could make a case that a minority candidate (Asian, African-American, Hispanic) may very well have as good, or better chance of being elected at-large than from a particular ward. With the exception of Ward 3, the other wards have a dismal record of electing minorities to the council IN URBANA.
Voters in Urbana have already elected Phyllis Clark, an African-American, as City Clerk. This was in a city-wide, at-large election. Progressives keep saying that adding at-large seats to the council will "dilute minority representation." It assumes that Urbana voters across the city would never vote for a minority candidate and it assumes that all the minorities live in one ward and therefore have a base of support only in one ward. This is not the case IN URBANA.
It also doesn't make sense to compare the city council situation with the former at-large school board elections in Urbana. With the latter, the majority of the school board members were elected from West Urbana. That wasn't really fair or representative,, so sub-districts were voted in. With the city council ward system, the majority of the council members live in West Urbana . It's legal but is it the fairest or most representative system or best system FOR URBANA? |
|
Re: At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2004
|
|
And, yes, Dose of Reality, I agree with you: A single case does not make a trend. But trends can start with a single case :) |
|
How About Some Facts, Instead of Overly Optimistic Predictions and Baseless Hand-Wringing? |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2004
|
Julia,
Thanks for pointing out that students are hardly confined to the wards closest to campus. Jim Hayes' Ward 3 has a significant and growing population. In fact, it actually has experienced the growth that at-large proponents claim, but have failed to demonstrate, is occuring in south and east Urbana. But the facts you mention only demonstrate that at-large voting is targetted at diluting the political influence of both students and minorities.
If you're really concerned about minority representation on the city council, as some of your comments indicate, you would NOT be supporting at-large voting. The assumption is NOT that Urbana voters would not vote for a minority candidate, but rather that it makes a successful candidacy that much more difficult. Read the empirical evidence that Sascha supplied, but please don't continue to insist that at-large voting is anything except a cynical political ploy to benefit certain districts of the city at the expense of others.
Your point that the current system is, in fact, legal is one that should receive far more emphasis in the incredibly biased coverage of this issue in the News-Gazette. Whether the at-large voting proposal is legally supportable remains to be seen. I don't dispute that it is legal to petition to place it on the ballot. The question comes if it wins.
There are substantive issues raised by this proposal that may be violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The only way to resolve whether they are violations is to bring suit in court. This will likely cost Urbana taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and the end result may be that at-large voting, for all the smoke and mirrors that has been used to promote it, will be found to be an illegal, unfair, and chimerical solution to a non-existent problem.
Finally, I do not see why a majority of the city council living in West Urbana is an issue. Nobody cares or has presented the first bit of substantive evidence of any favoritism by these councilmembers. The real issue is that the mayor doesn't like their politics, so he put Milton Otto up to presenting at-large voting as an attempt to get a veto-proof majority of candidates beholden to him on the council. This is an unmitigated power grab by the person in city government that already holds more power than is really good for the city.
As was mentioned by the citizen opponents of at-large voting who appeared on WDWS last week, what was the biggest issue to affect east Urbana in recent memory, yet has been strangely abesent in discussuions about the dissatisfaction that supposedly propels the at-large proposal? Well, it's the Wal-Mart deal. Are people supporting at-large voting because they got stuck with a Wal-Mart and all the sprawl issues that comes with it and are blaming the so-called "gang of four" for voting for it? Big mistake, because Joe Whelan also supported it.
Even bigger mistake because the one person who was most responsible for keeping Wal-Mart's plans secret, for directing city staff to work behind the backs of council members, and present the Wal-Mart proposal in such a fashion as councilmembers had no legal choice but to vote in favor of letting Wal-Mart do it's thing is none other than Tod Satterthwaite, the very person who is behind the push for at-large voting.
The city's comprehensive plan has been in the works for years and was coming to a conclusion that very well might have precluded Wal-Mart locating on the east side of Urbana. Suddenly and mysteriously, just about the time when we now know that Wal-Mart approached the city, the comprehensive plan was put on ice. Basically Wal-Mart was allowed to rewrite the comprehensive plan, designed with extensive input from Urbana's citizens, to suit Wal-mart's plans. Instead of Wal-Mart going in the logical place, up north on Route 45 where the city has alrerady spent an enormous sum to improve infrastructure, relocating Farm and Fleet and, soon, the University/O'Brien auto dealerships, it will go on the east side of town, depressing property values of nearby residential property and requiring another enormous investment by Urbana's taxpayers for the infrastructure, like four-lane roads, needed by Wal-Mart.
There is a deep and sad irony that the person who should be blamed most for what is arguably the most controversial decision in Urbana's recent history to trying shift the blame to others and exploit it for his own cynical political purposes. Tod stands to gain the most with at-large voting. If there is anyone in this town who has too much illegitimately misused power, it is the very person who is promoting at-large voting as his personal crusade. Anyone thinking that at-large voting will solve the problems that can be solved simply be electing different people is sadly mistaken and being taken for a ride by a small cabal centered on the mayor's tiny coterie of supporters, assisted by a campaign of misinformation that originates on a couch in the editorial boardroom of the News-Gazette. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2004
|
I don't think the Wal-Mart decision has anything to do with the at-large proposal but I guess we all live in our own realities, Dose. The people who live in my version of Urbana reality have been hit hard by the loss of K-mart, Pay-less Shoes, and other stores in Urbana where they could buy basic goods and supplies for their homes and families, close to their homes and apartments, at affordable prices. There are lots of people in Urbana who can't afford to shop at the wonderful but pricey stores in downtown Urbana. Most people in Urbana don't have the extra time, money, or desire to hang out at beer gardens and outdoor cafes in downtown Urbana. These are people who find it difficult to buy any necessities in Urbana...sheets, towels, pots, pans, children's clothing, etc. In my Urbana reality, I haven't heard many complaints about Wal-Mart coming to Urbana, so I don't think that's the motivation behind the at-large proposal.
I have heard people wonder why the council doesn't seem concerned about the flight of businesses from the Philo Road Corridor and why they spend time passing resolutions against the war in Iraq when our sales tax revenues are one-fifth those of Champaign. In my Urbana reality, the reaction to Wal-mart is more like, "Well, I'd rather have a K-mart or a Target on Philo Road because it's closer to home but I want my sales tax go to Urbana rather than to Champaign. And, I really need a place to buy my kids clothes."
And, I hate to break the news, but a lot of people in my Urbana reality think the mayor is doing a pretty good job. I encourage you to travel (bus, car, bike) through east Urbana to see for yourself the homes and apartments that have been built in the last 4 years since that census was taken. The fact is there are hundreds of people living in east Urbana today who weren't there when the census was taken in 2000 and this has been documented. You should go look for yourself if you don't trust the city's record-keeping. You'll see that most of those "uncounted people" live in relatively inexpensive homes and apartments. Those people appreciate the mayor standing up for their right to be represented equally. There is a basis for their concerns and they would like the majority on that council to acknowledge it instead of calling them names and reading definitions from the dictionary. The majority has written letters to the newpaper and called these Urbana residents reactionaries, implied they were racists, and accused them of being a front for rich businessmen.
Sorry, I'm not supplying a link to research; I'm supplying a link to the other Urbana. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2004
|
Disclaimer: I am actively involved in supporting the initiative to add two at-large seats to the Urbana City Council.
I put together the following document as a "fact sheet" to illustrate the wide variation in systems across the state. If anyone doing the kind of independent resarch that Mr. Kotheimer has suggested finds this useful as a starting point, have at it.
The original is a PDF, but hopefully will be legible here as plain text. Please feel free to e-mail errors, corrections, or additions. I suspect that there may be additional hybrid-Council cities that I missed, and some CIty Clerks have better memories than others. Good luck!
--------------
The following is a survey of methods of Council election and form of government of the ten largest Cities in Illinois, as well as a noninclusive list of other Illinois Cities with hybrid Councils (Councils consisting of both members elected by ward or by district, and members elected at large). Information was collected in July and August, 2004 based on census data, City web sites, and telephone conversations with City Clerks.
Key:
City (2000 Population, Rank, % Growth 1990-2000)[ 1]
Council Composition excluding mayor (for hybrid Councils, year adopted)
W or D members elected by ward or district
AL members elected at-large
Form of Government[2]
Ten Largest Cites in Illinois
Of the ten largest Cities in Illinois, 4 elect a City Council entirely by ward or district, 3 elect the Council entirely at large, and 3 elect a hybrid Council. Cities are evenly split between Mayor-Council and Council-Manager systems.
Chicago (2,896,016; 1st; 4.0%)
50W
Mayor-Council system
Rockford (150,115; 2nd; 7.7%)
4W
Mayor-Council system
Aurora (142,990; 3rd; 43.6%)
10W + 2AL (1977)
Mayor-Council system
Naperville (128,358; 4th; 50.4%)
8AL
Council-Manager system
Peoria (112,936; 5th; -0.5%)
5D + 5AL (1953)
Council-Manager System
Springfield (111,445; 6th; 5.9%)
10W
Mayor-Council system
Joliet (106,221; 7th; 38.2%)
5D + 3AL (exact year unknown, prior to 1973)
Council-Manager System
Elgin (94,487; 8th; 22.7%)
5AL
Council-Manager system
Waukegan (87,901; 9th; 26.7%)
9W
Mayor-Council system
Decatur (81,860; 11th; -2.4%)[ 3]
6AL
Council-Manager system
Other Illinois Cities known to have Hybrid Councils
Champaign (67,518; 15th; 6.3%)
5D + 3AL (1972; previously 6 at-large)
Council-Manager system
Wheaton (55,416; 22nd; 7.7%)
4D + 2AL (1993; previously 5 at-large)
Council-Manager system
Moline (43,768; 21st; 1.3%)
7W + 1AL (1995)
Council-Administrator system (similar to Council-Manager)
Freeport (26,443; 76th; 2.3%)
7W + 1AL (2003; was 2 elected from each of 7 wards for a total of 14)
Mayor-Council system
Macomb (18,558; 122nd; -7.0%)[ 4]
5W + 2AL (2003)
Mayor-Council System
Sterling (15,451; 144th; 2.1%)
4W + 2AL (1979)
Council-Manager System
Notes
1: Based on 2000 census. Rank is among all municipalities (Cities, Towns and Villages).
2: Mayor-Council systems are “strong mayor” systems in which the Mayor holds executive authority. Department heads are hired by the Mayor, usually with Council confirmation. The Mayor does not vote on Council matters and has an overridable veto power. Council-Manager systems are “weak mayor” systems in which executive authority is vested in a professional City Manager hired by the Council. Department heads are hired by the City Manager. The mayor typically participates in Council business on a equal footing with other Council members (in some cases with special restrictions related to making and breaking ties) and has no veto power. These are general systems and specific laws and by-laws vary from City to City.
3: Cicero is the 10th largest muncipality in Illinois, but it is not a City. It is organized under state law as a Township run by a Town President and a Board of Trustees in lieu of a Mayor and a City Council.
4: A significant undercount of Western Illinois University students in the 2000 census triggered a statutory loss of two wards in the City of Macomb. Two at-large seats were added by referendum in order to maintain a 7-member council. One seat was won by an alderman from one of the old wards and the other by a new candidate. A special census in 2003 corrected the population to 20,004. (Source: Macomb City Clerk, 8/2004).
Comments
By way of comparison, Urbana had a 2000 population of 36,395, ranking it 47th among municipalities in Illinois, and grew 0.1% from 1990 to 2000. If the 2000 populations of Urbana, Champaign and Savoy were combined, the resulting “City” would have ranked 7th in population among all muncipalities in Illinois. |
|
The Facts You Cite Are Irrelevant to the Presumed Justifications for At-Large Voting |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2004
|
Julia wrote:
"I don't think the Wal-Mart decision has anything to do with the at-large proposal but I guess we all live in our own realities, Dose. The people who live in my version of Urbana reality have been hit hard by the loss of K-mart, Pay-less Shoes, and other stores in Urbana where they could buy basic goods and supplies for their homes and families, close to their homes and apartments, at affordable prices."
I'm sorry, but the demographic realities of mass-market merchandising that largely determine store locations are irrelevant to the push for at-large council members. This is a problem which predates the current council and is to a large part beyond anything they can do something about. I realize the News-Gazette has been beating the drum of "Urbana's anti-business climate" ever since Democrats started taking over Urbana government (a coincidence -- not hardly), but there has never been any substance to their vicuous rumor-mongering which has the practical effect of only making things seem worse than they are. If there's a business morale problem in Urbana, it's only among business people that can't read between the lines in the News-Gazette's misplaced fanaticism. You have to remember that Wright Street replaced the Berlin Wall when it came to separating Champaign from the Evil Empire at the end of the Cold War. If I was as paranoid and delusional as the News-Gazette, I'd be trying to get my hands on at-large voting or at least a small tactical nuclear weapon, too.
The present council has given the mayor everything that he's asked for in economic development initiatives, as well as proposing some of their own. The problems you cite existed before a number of the current council members were even on it. Most of all, the mayor is the one responsible for supervising city staff, setting city agendas and priorities, and providing leadership for such things as economic development. Like Bush during Vietnam, he's been apparently AWOL.
Tod Satterthwaite's responsibility for these areas is at variance with the results achieved and is precisely why I made my previous point about his involvement with the freeze of the comprehensive plan amidst great secrecy, including the issuing of misleading information about the status of the Wal-Mart project, as he was involved in closed door negotiations with Wal-Mart.
What is even more to the point, Wal-Mart's plans effectively sealed the fate of Philo Road for the near-term. Did the mayor include this in his calculus? Undoubtedly, but you should be asking him why, rather than barking up the wrong tree at certain council members with this at-large boondiggle. Furthermore, I ask once again: Why are you carrying water for the man who is most personally responsible for the problems you cite as the reasons for your seemingly mindless (and certainly unjustified by your evidence) support for the idea that at-large voting will solve anything, except the mayor's coming up short on certain votes, all of them having nothing to do with economic development?
"There are lots of people in Urbana who can't afford to shop at the wonderful but pricey stores in downtown Urbana. Most people in Urbana don't have the extra time, money, or desire to hang out at beer gardens and outdoor cafes in downtown Urbana. These are people who find it difficult to buy any necessities in Urbana...sheets, towels, pots, pans, children's clothing, etc. In my Urbana reality, I haven't heard many complaints about Wal-Mart coming to Urbana, so I don't think that's the motivation behind the at-large proposal."
Obviously, the reality of shopping for certain items in Champaign has you so traumatized that you are disoriented enough to think that your shopping at new Urbana Wal-Mart will ever do ANYTHING to revive the small business district you claim to care so much about on South Philo Road. Your not too subtle swipe at students, who have a large economic impact on Urbana through their spending, betrays a certain nose-in-the-air attitude of your own. Large numbers of Urbana citizens, no matter where they live, rely on the University and its students to make a living. Your (ironically enough) anti-business attitude strikes right at the heart of those people. Thanks a lot for caring.
And it's simply ridiculous to think that you care about small business (as opposed to facilitating big-box stores in Urbana so you no longer have to shop at the Wal-Mart in Champaign) when you diss the efforts of entrepeneurs working hard to revive downtown Urbana. Sure, the city has helped there, but they've offered the same incentives in one form or another to businesses in the rest of the city. Are you suggesting that you're upset because Urbana didn't offer these so that Wal-Mart could've qualified and thus come to town sooner to satisfy your need for close-by, ethically questionable shopping experiences?
"I have heard people wonder why the council doesn't seem concerned about the flight of businesses from the Philo Road Corridor and why they spend time passing resolutions against the war in Iraq when our sales tax revenues are one-fifth those of Champaign."
I've already made my point about your lack of a point here -- ask Tod about that -- so I shall move on. But your assumptions that a majority of people in Urbana somehow think that concern about Iraq and the enormous opportunity cost it represents to every American taxpayer is an issue for every town and city in the country. The fact is that a majority of people in Urbana do oppose the war. Just ask the News-Gazette -- Urbana is a liberal bastion (they just want to rig the vote in hopes they won't win elections there.) Given that the country is now pretty much evenly divided about the wisdom of Bush's Crusade in virtually any poll you could cite, there can be little doubt that the resolution, whatever the personal dislike you have for your fellow citizens of Urbana who feel that way, represents the will of the people. Besides, If Tod had been willing to have a public discussion about Wal-Mart coming to town, I am certain that this would have been dealt with expeditiously, as the council has dealt with all economic development proposals put before them.
If you have a problem with the Iraq decision, you should be running in the next election against those who voted for it, instead of trying to play footsie with the form of government. Or is sucking it up and moving on to the next election when you lose something only Democrats (at least honest ones, unlike Tod) have to do, coming back to contest the next election fairly and squarely. We'll see how well your whiny and politically revealing complaint holds up in November at the presidential level and perhaps at the city level, too.
"In my Urbana reality, the reaction to Wal-mart is more like, "Well, I'd rather have a K-mart or a Target on Philo Road because it's closer to home but I want my sales tax go to Urbana rather than to Champaign. And, I really need a place to buy my kids clothes.""
Yeah, I think we already understand you could care less if your child's clothes are made in a sweatshop and sold by a criminally inclined corporation quick to blame its often illegal policies on out-of-control subordinates (hmmm, sounds suspiciously like a certain soon-to-be out of work president), as long as they're cheap at Wal-Mart. Target,etc aren't much better, but at least they're competition to the borg that is destroying American jobs as fast as it can send them overseas.
Still, would you mind discussing the fall in property values for many homeowners who will soon be living next to Wal-Mart? That has got to hurt more than living in a Democratic town for the Republicans there. Don't forget that it was Tod's map that would have put Beringer Commons in Laura Huth's ward -- careful dealing with him -- he's a backstabber. Apparently she felt you would probably prefer to reside in a mostly Republican ward that concentrated their voting power rather than diluting it. Which is more fair? And why would the result, in any case, have anything to do with at-large? Or are the Republicans there so crazed to get the "gang of four" that they will forget all about how Tod has screwed them and attempted to screw them before? To my mind, that would seem to be of greater concern to card-carrying Republicans (who drink the Kool-aid and sound suspiciously like yourself, Julia) than quibbling about the facts of life in Iraq, which most of our city council members seem to be able to read better than the CIA?
By the way, I often shop at Farm and Fleet. I don't have any little ones around to clothe, but I have noticed they have reasonable prices. If you would put more effort into shopping in Urbana and less into whining about irrelevancies and a play-by-play repeats of the mayor's dog-and pony show, you can still shop in Urbana. Let's hope that Wal-Mart won't further hurt the businesses we do have, like it has already done to Jerry's.
"And, I hate to break the news, but a lot of people in my Urbana reality think the mayor is doing a pretty good job."
The News-Gazette has befriended Tod, for some inexplicable reason. Dems should accordingly watch their backs around him, whatever their views on at-large. People who are close enough to know him do not paint such a pretty picture.
"I encourage you to travel (bus, car, bike) through east Urbana to see for yourself the homes and apartments that have been built in the last 4 years since that census was taken. The fact is there are hundreds of people living in east Urbana today who weren't there when the census was taken in 2000 and this has been documented."
Once again a fact needs to be noted, as a number of people have mentioned and which supporters of at-large voting continue to hope goes away... If you want to talk about "documentation" then why in hell doesn't the mayor request an updated census? Simply because the facts it would reveal are most likely other than what you claim.
If you want to look to fast growth, then you have to include multi-family housing, much of it in Jim Hayes' Ward 3, and the Landis subdivision in Laura Huth's Ward 5. Huth's ward is likely to see further growth in the next few years and is far less student and much farther east than it is depicted in the News-Gazette. An updated census would count ALL the increases since 2000, which would make unrecorded growth count EVERYWHERE in the city, instead of the very selective and none too scientific (let alone legal) methods of rhetorical sophistry that at-large proponents have repeatedly trotted out to support their weak case.
Once again, if at-large voting arguments were anything other than polictical snake oil, a change in the form of government would be the result of extensive public hearings, rather than an ambush without even having a proposal written down. The point that was made on WDWS about ANY council member voting for an unwritten proposal being of extremely questionable judgment should be considered by any voter holding the council's vote to table Otto's vague and unrecorded to this day at-large motion against those who voted for it.
Take an updated census, then get back to the public about legal _documentation_.
"You should go look for yourself if you don't trust the city's record-keeping. You'll see that most of those "uncounted people" live in relatively inexpensive homes and apartments. Those people appreciate the mayor standing up for their right to be represented equally."
It has not been demonstrated that there is any legal basis to say that people are being represented unequally. There is substantive evidence that at-large voting will result in unequal representation for the majority of people in Urbana who live everywhere except Wards 6 and 7. You might start with reviewing your Constitution, then proceed to a number of decisions under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Essentially, your claim that you are being denied equal representation is nothing but political hogwash. It certainly isn't a fact testable in court.
"There is a basis for their concerns and they would like the majority on that council to acknowledge it instead of calling them names and reading definitions from the dictionary."
Hmmm, I watched the council meeting and heard no one call anyone names. So I guess this is just more political hookum from someone who does not have facts on her side. As for the suggestion that a dictionary definition might be helpful to clarifying what was at stake, you should consider that actually using words by their definition is important. Unless you're just slinging mud by twisting the meaning of things into something unrelated to a legal reality, the defintions of words are important. At-large proponents have gotten away with murdering words, but it's only because the News-Gazette and certain other media outlets generally give someone a pass on literacy as long as they're a conservative.
"The majority has written letters to the newpaper and called these Urbana residents reactionaries, implied they were racists, and accused them of being a front for rich businessmen."
I see no proof of a majority -- that is what elections are for. I certainly would be cautious about making any substantive claims based on counting the letters to the editor that _appear_ in a paper which has used its bully pulpit to raise this idea from a political Frankenstein's lab table -- there's no way to tell what ended up on the cutting room floor.
No one implied anyone was a racist. They were simply pointing out that at-large elections have come under repeated judicial scrutiny as being part of the structure of institutionalized practices that deny minorities the full exercice of the franchise. This is a fact.
I realize that Mr. Alix has a lengthy list of communities that use some sort of at-large elections. I will not comment further on that other than to point out he is not describing the changing nature of at-large voting, but rather how it is. The at-large proposal is suggesting a change, not a retention of the status quo, so his evidence is mostly irrelevant to the issue of making an argument for change in Urbana to at-large.
In some case, like Champaign, governments have partially moved away from at-large voting even without judicial pressure. In general, the trend is AWAY from at-large elections at every political level, in large part due to judicial pressure. Why are some in Urbana so eager to drag us back to a increasingly discredited 19th Century form of government? Mostly, I think it does not have anything to do with overt racism, in fact, I plainly think if anything that it is a prejudice against students enjoying equal representation (and if that bothers you, pull out your Constitution again -- there's no student exception to equal representation.) But given the history of Republican use of crypto-racism in many of their political efforts, it would not surprise me that at least a few behind at-large might possibly be motivated by less than pure motives in terms of the effect it will have on the African-American community.
It is also interesting to note how the News-Gazette played the issue of race in their original editorial in support of at-large when they quoted the voted turnout figures. They lumped Jim Hayes in with Wards 6 and 7, while putting the "gang of four" wards together by themselves. This is odd, in part because Jim has voted with the four female council members on many of the disputed votes that seem to anger some people. But they are careful not to lump him in with them, in public at least. Does anyone really think the African-American community will forget the history of at-large voting? Sure, counting Jim's ward with 6 and 7 helped create the illusion that at-large could be a winning idea, but the reality is that this will spur the largest turnout that Ward 3 has seen in many years (even ignoring the influence on voter turnout among Democratic leaning wards that will strengthen every ward, EXCEPT Wards 6 and 7 -- those most likely to be in favor of at-large.) And I thought Republicans and someone who went with the Peace Corps to Grenada to teach business were supposed to be good with math.
Finally, Julia (sighs with exasperated tone):
"Sorry, I'm not supplying a link to research; I'm supplying a link to the other Urbana."
Would that be the one in Ohio? Or does the Tim Johnson inside crowd still favor the occasional snort of coke? That will give you hallucinations and delusions of grandeur if you keep at it. Julia, don't hang out with that crowd -- they're bad news and involved with terribly questionable politics. |
|
Side Note |
by cpov
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2004
|
Dose of Reality wrote: "Instead of Wal-Mart going in the logical place, up north on Route 45 where the city has alrerady spent an enormous sum to improve infrastructure, relocating Farm and Fleet and, soon, the University/O'Brien auto dealerships, it will go on the east side of town, depressing property values of nearby residential property and requiring another enormous investment by Urbana's taxpayers for the infrastructure, like four-lane roads, needed by Wal-Mart."
Just an interesting side note that this comment reminded me of. One of the primary players on the at-large push is Milton Otto. His father owned the farmland that was sold to Wal-Mart so they could build on High Cross Rd.
Of course this is a small town so things like this happen, but when you add this to all the other facts--that the mayor held up the comprehensive plan to get the Wal-Mart solidified, that he wasn't forthcoming with council members on the development plans, that the Wal-Mart would have made a lot more sense on north 45 or Philo Rd., that he was really unhappy with the council's decision to not accomodate Otto's house purchase screwup (Satterthwaite's feelings on this are documented as a primary reason for his ward map veto in his written statement), and his current teaming with Otto to push at-large...it does look a little fishy. |
|
Precisely |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2004
|
You're hitting the nail right on the head, cpov.
The assertion that the smoky back room that citizens should worry about in Urbana is the Ladies Powder Room is just wrong. If you want to find the source of the smoke, you really need to poke your head into the Good 'Ol Boys Lounge. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2004
|
Chris -- thanks for the info.
Does anyone have more information on why Springfield changed its form of government a few years ago? I know that it was in relation to an NAACP lawsuit, but I haven't been able to find the details online.
@%< |
|
Re: At-Large Seats on Urbana's City Council: A Call for Independent Research |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2004
|
David: I believe the case you are referring to, in which the district court struck down Springfield's entirely-at-large system, is Frank McNeil et. al. vs. City of Springfield et. al. (658 F. Supp. 1015, 1020 (C.D. Ill. 1987).
To substantiate a complaint under the VRA, the court must find compelling evidence of discriminatory effect. It then constructs a solution to achieve the intended result. Provided the minority on whose behalf the VRA is being invoked is geographically clustered, drawing "majority minority" wards enclosing predominantly minority neighborhoods is an easy way to ensure the participation of a candidate from a predominantly minority neighborhood. The ward system provides no assistance to (and in fact works against) minorities whose population is evenly distributed throughout the community. Those who work for racial equity in housing choice may recognize the irony that the political strength of a minority in a ward system is inversely proportional to the degree to which the members of that minority are integrated into the community as a whole. The point I am making is that the VRA doesn't say "at large voting is bad" or even "ward voting is good." It provides a mechanism for relief in cities where there is a clear pattern of voting discrimination, and allows the court to apply a variety of tools to fix the problem based on the circumstances of the case.
The following link may be useful to researchers as well; it has some good information about what the VRA actually says and how it actually works.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/index.htm |
|
