Montgomery County Redistricting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now I’m sure you’re wrong since you didn’t come back and defend your knee-jerk response to what is a pretty good map. Clarksburg wanted their own district and got it. Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac didn’t want to be lumped in with the Ag Reserve (which was done 30 years ago to combine the districts of the two Republicans who were on the Council at the time into one - one of the ended up moving. 😀) East County wanted their own district and got it. The North Bethesda to Takoma Park district makes sense because they are all inner ring densely populated suburbs with similar goals/issues etc. Regarding the two majority Black and Hispanic districts, that’s something that has always been encouraged by the Voting Rights Act. I don’t think the VRA applies to councilmanic districts within states but obviously the majority of the panel thought it was a good philosophy to follow.

It wasn't done 30 years ago. It was done 10 years ago when Berliner was in office.

Nope, 30 years ago when Betty Ann Krahnke and Nancy Dacek were the only Republicans were on the Council. One was in Chevy Chase and one was in Potomac. Dacek moved further out so she could run in #2 because they put both of them in one district.

[Anonymous]

Hi, commissioner Jason Makstein here hoping to help with some more information and answer questions if they arise.

First, yes the darker areas are municipalities. All districts are contiguous though this map gets close in the SS district.

Here is more information about why it was a 6-5 vote. The comments above about Clarksburg/ Germantown together being the key sticking point.

6-5 vote sends new MoCo County Council district map to County Council for the Redistricting Commission

Images of the 3 maps can be found on this post here:
https://www.facebook.com/107538971590651/posts/151254730552408/?d=n

At yesterday’s meeting we looked at final versions of maps, discussed and then voted on which map to approve to send to the County Council. The map is for where County Councilmember’s can live and who votes for them.

Map 1 was approved by the commission with a 6-5 majority vote.

A motion to unanimously approve the map was made but I refused to approve the map.

It is a solid and well thought out map in the down county areas but in my opinion under represents the up county to a degree that I could not approve.

Here is the link to the video:
https://www.facebook.com/MontgomeryCountyMdCouncil/videos/579956139953939/

In particular in the video, I talk about what I don't like about this map 1 at 22:00 and present my map along with comparisons between the 3 maps at 30:50.

If you're looking for something shorter here is a live tweet of the meeting:
https://twitter.com/steve_bohnel/status/1450928906513551364?s=21

And here is an article as well written by the same man:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/politics/commission-selects-its-final-map-proposing-new-county-council-districts/

Here is a Washington Post article on the meeting that includes some good quotes about why I had to vote no:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/10/21/montgomery-county-redistricting-election/

The maps are below. The map I submitted that was not approved is labeled Map 2.

I strongly encourage you to reach out to county council members with your comments/concerns with the map as currently proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bigger impact is having 11 council members rather than 9. That was the alternative Evan Glass proposed rather than lose any at-large representation. The council doesn't want to lose its at-large seats because those ensure a very progressive majority on the council.

They will claim a desire for racial and ethnic representation in the districts, but it's really about ensuring a progressive majority.

Whatever Evan Glass's motivation may or may not have been:

-the motivation for abolishing the at-large seats was reducing the representation from the more populous, more-likely-to-vote downcounty areas on the county council
-my motivation for voting to retain the at-large seats was so that I will still have county council members to contact if my district county council rep is terrible

Please trust me on this -- if they don't agree with whatever you want, they just refer you right to your district councilmember. They are only there to further their own agendas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bigger impact is having 11 council members rather than 9. That was the alternative Evan Glass proposed rather than lose any at-large representation. The council doesn't want to lose its at-large seats because those ensure a very progressive majority on the council.

They will claim a desire for racial and ethnic representation in the districts, but it's really about ensuring a progressive majority.

Whatever Evan Glass's motivation may or may not have been:

-the motivation for abolishing the at-large seats was reducing the representation from the more populous, more-likely-to-vote downcounty areas on the county council
-my motivation for voting to retain the at-large seats was so that I will still have county council members to contact if my district county council rep is terrible

Please trust me on this -- if they don't agree with whatever you want, they just refer you right to your district councilmember. They are only there to further their own agendas.

Why would I trust you on this? I have my own experience, which I rely on more than the advice of anonymous posters on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

You didn't have to vote no, Mr. Makstein. You chose to vote no.

Also, your map split Olney and lumped Clarksburg in with the Patuxent watershed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You didn't have to vote no, Mr. Makstein. You chose to vote no.

Also, your map split Olney and lumped Clarksburg in with the Patuxent watershed.

I agree it was a choice I made.

Did you see my map Wednesday? I fixed the Olney split. It is on the link above

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?

Are you asking why proposed district [something] runs primarily east-west, parallel to the district proposed for Bethesda/Potomac and the district proposed for Gaithersburg/Rockville? My guess is that it's primarily geometry. That's the space left between those proposed districts and the proposed east county district.

Incidentally, it would be really great to have a map that wasn't a screenshot/photo...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?

Are you asking why proposed district [something] runs primarily east-west, parallel to the district proposed for Bethesda/Potomac and the district proposed for Gaithersburg/Rockville? My guess is that it's primarily geometry. That's the space left between those proposed districts and the proposed east county district.

Incidentally, it would be really great to have a map that wasn't a screenshot/photo...

^^^I am not the guy on the redistricting commission who was posting on this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?

Are you asking why proposed district [something] runs primarily east-west, parallel to the district proposed for Bethesda/Potomac and the district proposed for Gaithersburg/Rockville? My guess is that it's primarily geometry. That's the space left between those proposed districts and the proposed east county district.

Incidentally, it would be really great to have a map that wasn't a screenshot/photo...

Here is an interactive zoomable version of the final map:
Here is interactive zoomable version of map

https://gismontgomery.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e74800c960094a05a4f88a45586fc634

The reason for this odd shape is that once you have a AA plurality east distirct, Hispanic plurality Wheaton district, the only choices for the SS/Tpk distirct is to do this or cut up parts of Chevy Chase and Bethesda.

We discussed a few reasons in meetings about why this makes a bit of sense… that distirct runs northwest along a train line, has a lot of transit focused areas, and SS / North Bethesda are the bookends in terms of population centers in this district and both have lots large buildings with lots of renters/condos.

I do feel along the middle it gets a little too thin for my taste but otherwise I had a pretty similar district on my map that didn’t get selected.

Commissioner Jason Makstein

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?

Are you asking why proposed district [something] runs primarily east-west, parallel to the district proposed for Bethesda/Potomac and the district proposed for Gaithersburg/Rockville? My guess is that it's primarily geometry. That's the space left between those proposed districts and the proposed east county district.

Incidentally, it would be really great to have a map that wasn't a screenshot/photo...

Here is an interactive zoomable version of the final map:
Here is interactive zoomable version of map

https://gismontgomery.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e74800c960094a05a4f88a45586fc634

The reason for this odd shape is that once you have a AA plurality east distirct, Hispanic plurality Wheaton district, the only choices for the SS/Tpk distirct is to do this or cut up parts of Chevy Chase and Bethesda.

We discussed a few reasons in meetings about why this makes a bit of sense… that distirct runs northwest along a train line, has a lot of transit focused areas, and SS / North Bethesda are the bookends in terms of population centers in this district and both have lots large buildings with lots of renters/condos.

I do feel along the middle it gets a little too thin for my taste but otherwise I had a pretty similar district on my map that didn’t get selected.

Commissioner Jason Makstein

Another reason is that they can create a district that basically will continue to promulgate more Hans Reiner types with two economic zones primarily driving by two major developers, FRIT and Peterson, with the third controlling the votes comprised of Takoma Park “liberals”. So a guaranteed council member that will continue the tradition of being pro-development everywhere but in Takoma Park itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Another reason is that they can create a district that basically will continue to promulgate more Hans Reiner types with two economic zones primarily driving by two major developers, FRIT and Peterson, with the third controlling the votes comprised of Takoma Park “liberals”. So a guaranteed council member that will continue the tradition of being pro-development everywhere but in Takoma Park itself.

So is development in downtown Bethesda and downtown Silver Spring bad or not? Seems like, if everyone in that district votes to further policies that favor Federal Realty and Peterson, then actually it's good? Or are you saying everyone in that district is going to vote against their own interests?

Also, it's R I E M E R. Mis-spelling his name makes you seem very uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Another reason is that they can create a district that basically will continue to promulgate more Hans Reiner types with two economic zones primarily driving by two major developers, FRIT and Peterson, with the third controlling the votes comprised of Takoma Park “liberals”. So a guaranteed council member that will continue the tradition of being pro-development everywhere but in Takoma Park itself.

So is development in downtown Bethesda and downtown Silver Spring bad or not? Seems like, if everyone in that district votes to further policies that favor Federal Realty and Peterson, then actually it's good? Or are you saying everyone in that district is going to vote against their own interests?

Also, it's R I E M E R. Mis-spelling his name makes you seem very uninformed.

It is a forum and who knows maybe they are typing from their phone. The misspelling is OK to me. Yikes. Not everyone is at their nice home office with a bluetooth keyboard and and triple screen monitors.

TP is the biggest NIMBY and Yes In Your BackYard group. No plans to build for density and just keep all the nice SFH the way they are. Oh but in your neighborhood the TP contingency want to stack development sky high. It is the reason they are incorporated to protect their self interests (that is OK) but then demanding others do as they say (not OK).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Another reason is that they can create a district that basically will continue to promulgate more Hans Reiner types with two economic zones primarily driving by two major developers, FRIT and Peterson, with the third controlling the votes comprised of Takoma Park “liberals”. So a guaranteed council member that will continue the tradition of being pro-development everywhere but in Takoma Park itself.

So is development in downtown Bethesda and downtown Silver Spring bad or not? Seems like, if everyone in that district votes to further policies that favor Federal Realty and Peterson, then actually it's good? Or are you saying everyone in that district is going to vote against their own interests?

Also, it's R I E M E R. Mis-spelling his name makes you seem very uninformed.

It is a forum and who knows maybe they are typing from their phone. The misspelling is OK to me. Yikes. Not everyone is at their nice home office with a bluetooth keyboard and and triple screen monitors.

TP is the biggest NIMBY and Yes In Your BackYard group. No plans to build for density and just keep all the nice SFH the way they are. Oh but in your neighborhood the TP contingency want to stack development sky high. It is the reason they are incorporated to protect their self interests (that is OK) but then demanding others do as they say (not OK).

??? Takoma Park incorporated in 1890.