City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[muon2]

This is my proposed 5-ward equal population map.



The objectives were to retain Warren as boundary line, and attempt to retain the core of the existing wards.

Hudson has a prison-adjusted population of 6403, resulting in an ideal population of 1281 (1280.6).

Ward 2 has a population of 1309, 2.1% over the ideal.  It is not changed.

Ward 1 has a population of 755 and is underpopulated by 41%.  With Ward 2 fixed, there is no place to go but east.  Ward 3 used to be in two precincts, with 3-1 extending from 3rd to 6th, with 3-2 the area further east.   The population of Ward 3 is strung out for quite a distance and doesn't really form a single core.  The gridded portion (formerly 3-1) is added to Ward 1, giving a total population of 1300, 1.5% over the ideal.  Ward 1 includes the corrections institution, but not the prisoners.

The remnant of Ward 3 has 597 or 46.6%.  We extend Ward 3 to the north.   I split the large block with 325 persons.  The areas along 6th Street and Glenwood Boulevard is quite distinct from the area to the south which appears to be a mix (hodge podge) of residential, commercial, and (former?) industrial.  I have imputed a population of 702 persons in the area moved from Ward 5 to Ward 3, for a total of 1299, 1,4% over the ideal.

The core of Wards 4 and Wards 5 are in the gridded portion of the city along Warren.  Ward 4 is almost entirely in the core area.  With a population of 712 it is 44.4% underpolpulated.

The core area of Ward 5 is only about 40% of the total population of the Ward, but I would expect that those who live in the area are more likely to think of it as their neighborhood vs. simply a political district.  To keep the cores of Wards 4 and 5 intact, an area to the east of Harry Howard is added to Ward 5.  With 566 persons it brings the total of Ward 4 to 1278, 0.2% below the ideal.  Two blocks are split along Underhill Pond and an associated stream.  Most of the population in the block with 200 persons is in an apartment complex along Harry Howard.  Part of the complex with 5 buildings is within a driveway loop which forms a census block with 59 persons.  The remaining 8 building are within the much larger census block.  The remnant of the block is in a few residences along Clinton.  A downside of this division is that the area along Harry Howard and the core area are somewhat disparate.

This leaves the remainder of Ward 5, including the core area in the gridded portion of the city, along with an extension along 6th Street and Glenwood.  Persons in this area would have a mental picture of "going to town" as traveling down 6th into the core area of Ward 5.  The much trimmed down Ward 5 has 1217 persons, 4.97% of the ideal.

In general, the visualization of the city is of the gridded area of the old city along both sides of Warren, and 3 spines to the east (Columbia and Green); east-northnortheast (6th and Glenwood); and northeast (Harry Howard).

An alternative would be combine the gridded core areas of Wards 4 and 5, and have the other ward being a suburban area to the east and northeast.  This does a poorer job of preserving the cores of existing wards (4 and 5) but may make the two resulting wards more demographically and politically homogeneous.

Your split block between Wards 3 and 5 follows the natural boundary of the railroad tracks. I'm surprised the tracks weren't used as census block boundaries as they so often are in other areas of the US. That would have helped separate the prison from the houses as well.

The split of Wards 4 and 5 seems too artificial since there is not a well-identified geographic feature to describe it. You could leave 4 with its current boundaries and add the blocks between Warren and Prospect to Ward 4.

[muon2]

Here's a 6 ward split with minimal changes from the current wards. I started with the pairs I identified and made minimal population shifts consistent with keeping the districts within range and avoiding excess erosity. The two chopped blocks were kept, but no additional one were added. All shifts avoided splits of blocks defined by regular blocks and alleys were not used.



Ward 1 (pink) 1016
Ward 2 (blue) 1048
Ward 3 (lilac) 1076
Ward 4 (green) 1082
Ward 5 (cream) 1097
Ward 6 (gold) 1084

[jimrtex]

Your split block between Wards 3 and 5 follows the natural boundary of the railroad tracks. I'm surprised the tracks weren't used as census block boundaries as they so often are in other areas of the US. That would have helped separate the prison from the houses as well.

The railroad was a block boundary in 2000, separating the prison from the residential area.  The prison block had 697 persons in 200.  For 2000, the railroad tracks were removed, and the blocks defined by prison roads were added.  Even though there are apparent prison buildings in Block 2004, no population was returned for it.  I was going to suggest that it may have been abandoned, but Google Maps captured a train crossing E Court north of the prison.

The tracks must go down 7th Street between Union and Warren.

The split of Wards 4 and 5 seems too artificial since there is not a well-identified geographic feature to describe it. You could leave 4 with its current boundaries and add the blocks between Warren and Prospect to Ward 4.

The stream is certainly better defined than the  boundary between 1012 and 1017, or that between 1016 and 1017 which goes through the school building.

I doubled down and also split 1009.

I could also give a physical description of the addresses:

Ward 3 includes residences on north side of Clinton, north and west side of 6th Street, north and west side of Glenwood, north and west side of Oakwood, and southwest side of Paddock Place.

The boundary splitting the apartments within 1011 and outside 1011 is reminiscent of what almost happened in Texas.  The census bureau split some apartment complexes into blocks using driveways/parking lots.  They then managed to place some of the blocks in different block groups.  During redistricting a little more population was needed/wanted, and the block group was clicked on, which put parts of the apartment complex in different House districts.  This was caught and amended but it was actually placed in the bill definition.

[muon2]

The boundary splitting the apartments within 1011 and outside 1011 is reminiscent of what almost happened in Texas.  The census bureau split some apartment complexes into blocks using driveways/parking lots.  They then managed to place some of the blocks in different block groups.  During redistricting a little more population was needed/wanted, and the block group was clicked on, which put parts of the apartment complex in different House districts.  This was caught and amended but it was actually placed in the bill definition.

The issue with split apts is not uncommon in my experience. In the 2000 Census the splitting of the apartments by the roads and parking lots led to the placement of 200 people outside the municipal line in my town. I caught the error and got a correction by the Census. Since some state funds are tied to population, this was not an insignificant error.

Even with the correction there were some buildings that backed up to a large residential subdivision. In creating wards for the city there was no good way to separate the subdivision from those buildings.

[Sol]

Why does Hudson's population appear to be so strongly concentrated in that center line?

[jimrtex]

Why does Hudson's population appear to be so strongly concentrated in that center line?

Hudson is on a point of land.   Front Street which is parallel to Hudson River is about 40 feet above the river.  On the north edge of the developed area, this headland turns east, forming North Bay, which is now largely land-filled, but once upon a time served as the harbor for a whaling port.   North Bay is more a widening of the valley that then takes a sharp turn westward at Hudson.

Dock Street runs easterly-westerly along the southern edge of North Bay and roughly parallel to the street grids.  That is, the east-west streets are roughly parallel to the southern edge of North Bay, and north-south streets are roughly parallel to the Hudson.

If you look at areal photos or Google Maps, the northern edge of the developed strip is actually quite irregular as it follows the contours of a 50-foot dropoff down to the level of the river.

On the south edge of town there is a somewhat smaller area known as South Bay, also largely land-filled.  This could have conceivably been developed, but by the time it would have been, the main street grid was well established, and it would be undesirable to live below the rest of the city.

Further inland the contours are less severe, and it was developed in an age of the automobile and modern earthmovers and is more spread out.

[jimrtex]

Getting back to the initial blog post, Hudson weights the votes of its aldermen, as well as the president of the council.  This is based on population but it is not strictly so.

The prison-adjusted populations of the wards are:

1  755  11.8%
2 1309  20.4%
3 1142  17.8%
4  712  11.1%
5 2485  38.8%
T 6403

The voting strength in simple majority decisions is:

1  95 10.3%
2 185 20.1%
3 180 19.6%
4  95 10.3%
5 364 39.6%

If voting strength were proportional to the (prison-adjusted) population:

1 108 11.8%
2 188 20.5%
3 164 17.8%
4 101 11.1%
5 357 38.8%

That is, Wards 3, and 5 are given additional weight, while 1, 2 and 4 have a diminished weight.  This may be particularly noticeable since in this instance, Wards 1 and 4 are the smallest.  Ward 2 is 14.6% larger than Ward 3, but only has 2.8% larger voting strength.

The weights are different for votes requiring 2/3 and 3/4 majorities:

    2/3        3/4
1 108 11.8%  100 11.0%
2 187 20.5%  157 17.2%
3 161 17.6%  153 16.8%
4 105 11.5%   98 10.7%
5 352 38.6%  405 44.4%

In 2000, the population was not prison-adjusted, and the weights were:

1  883 11.7%   94 10.3%
2 1483 19.8%  184 20.2%
3 1957 26.0%  266 29.2%
4  829 11.0%   94 10.3%
5 2372 31.5%  278 30.5%

Because of the prison adjustment's profound effect on Ward 3, all the other wards saw an increase in their proportion of the population.  Yet Ward 2 saw a loss in voting strength (population 19.8% to 20.4% for population, 20.2% to 20.1% for voting strength).

Ward 5's population share increased from 31.5% to 38.8%, but its voting strength increased from 30.5% to 39.6%, as it went from an apparent penalty to a small bonus.

[jimrtex]

This is my proposed 5-ward equal population map.



I calculated the racial composition for my map.  I assumed that the split blocks were demographically homogeneous - which is not a particularly good assumption given that the splits were chosen to maintain distinct residential areas.

The city is not particularly segregated, likely because the multi-family housing is spread out, with the newer building in the east.  The whitest ward, Ward 3, is only 10.6% whiter than the city as a whole.  Ward 2 does have a higher concentration of blacks, but the other wards are all around 1/5 black.  The block along Front Street that is split between Wards and 2, is 48% black, but it it hard to push a district over 50% by adding 48% black areas, unless you can remove some very non-black areas.  A 5-block area just north of Warren, Blocks 2003-2006 and 3006 is only 25.7% black, but exchanging that area still leaves us short of a 50% black district, with the VAP trailing by a few percentage points.  But Ward 2 does have the highest concentration of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

Ward Hisp  NHWh   NHBl   NHAs
1    5.8%  61.4%  22.5%  9.1%
2    8.9%  36.4%  42.6% 10.7%
3    8.2%  67.3%  17.9%  4.5%
4    7.0%  60.8%  24.1%  5.7%
5    8.7%  57.9%  21.9%  9.1%
Tot  7.7%  56.7%  25.9%  7.8%

The VAP numbers

Ward Hisp  NHWh   NHBl   NHAs
1    3.8%  70.1%  17.9%  7.1%
2    6.9%  42.8%  39.4%  9.7%
3    6.9%  72.5%  15.0%  3.6%
4    6.2%  66.8%  20.4%  4.7%
5    7.2%  65.0%  18.2%  6.9%
Tot  6.2%  63.7%  22.0%  6.4%

[jimrtex]

I tried e-mailing the Hofstra law professor, but so far no response.

I've been googling on Banzhaf and Banzhaf Power Index.  What I've read so far indicates that it is a way to determine the effective weight of a vote.

If there are 3 council members with weights of 5:5:1, then the member with only one
vote is just as effective of the other two when forming a majority.   But if a vote requires a 2/3 majority, the member with one vote could be replaced with an empty chair.

Of course 3 members is not a very good number, since even with no weighting, a majority and 2/3 supermajority are identical; as are 3/4 supermajority and unanimous.

A legislature with dozens of members might be more workable, particularly if there were limits,  both minimum and maximum, to the size of districts.

For example, consider a legislature with 100 members, each with a voting strength between 2/3 and 4/3, and a total voting strength of 100.  Conceivably you could have a legislature comprised of 50 members with 4/3 voting strength, and 50 with 2/3 voting strength, and 38 members could have a voting majority.  But if they were from particular area of the state, the population that they represent would be entitled to 50 equal-population districts.

[Torie]

This is based on data from New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, which was charged with adjusting the census population for prisoners.   It includes not only data (see 2010 Data) but an explanation of methodology.



Block 1002, Tract 13 (, Columbia County, NY) had 3 additional persons allocated to it.  I divided them 2:1 between Wards 1 and 2, similar to the division of the original census population.  The two blocks split by ward boundaries are shown with a block population in parentheses, and then the portions allocated to the two wards that comprise parts of the block.

Some curiousities.

There were 7 prisoners allocated to the block containing the public housing tower (population 421 in Ward 2).  The block immediately to the north with one person, is totally an allocated prisoner - that is the census population is 0.

The census population for the 4 blocks containing the prison population (southern edge of Ward 3) does not completely disappear:

Block 2007: Census 77, Adjusted 20. 
Block 2009: Census 51, Adjusted 13.

The above two are totally surrounded by internal roads.

Block 2008: Census 126, Adjusted 33.

This block extends outside the prison, but there are only a couple of houses.

Block 2009: Census 232, Adjusted 60.

This block contains houses along the northern edge.

It is pretty inexplicable.  Did some prisoners give the Hudson prison as their previous address?  Are they halfway type facilities, with live-in counselors?   Non-felons?

Where is the file that shows the population split for block 1002 (365 total population)?  The next task is to get the racial composition of each block. I think I have the data putting aside the prisoner allocations (can't find that either), but not for the block splits, and that is a big block.

[Torie]

This is based on data from New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, which was charged with adjusting the census population for prisoners.   It includes not only data (see 2010 Data) but an explanation of methodology.

Block 1002, Tract 13 (, Columbia County, NY) had 3 additional persons allocated to it.  I divided them 2:1 between Wards 1 and 2, similar to the division of the original census population.  The two blocks split by ward boundaries are shown with a block population in parentheses, and then the portions allocated to the two wards that comprise parts of the block.

Some curiousities.

There were 7 prisoners allocated to the block containing the public housing tower (population 421 in Ward 2).  The block immediately to the north with one person, is totally an allocated prisoner - that is the census population is 0.

The census population for the 4 blocks containing the prison population (southern edge of Ward 3) does not completely disappear:

Block 2007: Census 77, Adjusted 20.  
Block 2009: Census 51, Adjusted 13.

The above two are totally surrounded by internal roads.

Block 2008: Census 126, Adjusted 33.

This block extends outside the prison, but there are only a couple of houses.

Block 2009: Census 232, Adjusted 60.

This block contains houses along the northern edge.

It is pretty inexplicable.  Did some prisoners give the Hudson prison as their previous address?  Are they halfway type facilities, with live-in counselors?   Non-felons?

Thanks so much jimtex for your efforts here, and finding the data, and your superb little mappie. You are indeed indefatigable.

My preference if weighted voting is dumped, is to go for 4 wards, with the common council president elected at large having the tie breaker fifth vote. It is a thing of beauty to my mind really. The existing lines are hewed to quite well, the lines are drawn to reflect the demographics, and geographic barriers, the "grid" is united, we get one alderman who will be sensitive to minority interests, one that is sensitive to relative low SES folks that are a mixed bag, but majority non Hispanic white (barely), a higher income very socially liberal ward, and one ward representing the more traditional white middle class. So on some issues, it will be 3-1, and on some, it may well be 2-2 (on fiscal issues maybe), and then the common council president elected at large breaks the tie. And it would take the common council president and one ward alderman, or two ward alderman, to uphold a veto by the mayor, as opposed to the present situation, where the 5th ward by itself has the power to do that.

It is amazing just how much heterogeneity can be packed into such a small area isn't it? Welcome to Hudson! 
 

[jimrtex]

This is based on data from New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, which was charged with adjusting the census population for prisoners.   It includes not only data (see 2010 Data) but an explanation of methodology.

Where is the file that shows the population split for block 1002 (365 total population)?  The next task is to get the racial composition of each block. I think I have the data putting aside the prisoner allocations (can't find that either), but not for the block splits, and that is a big block.

You had posted this spread sheet.



The census population of the block along Front Street is 362, so someone in Hudson divided it between Ward 1: 290 and Ward 2: 72.  This would have had to been done after the census was reported in 2001.  They likely paid a law firm a few thousand $$$ to make this adjustment along with calculate the voting weights.  Similarly they divided the population of the large census block on the north side with the population of 289.

I doubt that these splits are based on an actual head count.  They were probably based on the number of housing units, with perhaps some adjustment for number of bedrooms, etc.  Ward 1 has fewer buildings, but 3/4 of the allocated population.

LATFOR is the agency that adjusted New York population for prisoners.  A state law passed in 2010 required that legislative and local redistricting be based on adjusted population, with prisoners removed from the location where they are incarcerated, and located at their last address before imprisonment.  Inmates of federal prisons, and some inmates of state prisons could not relocated - either they were from out of state, or no address could be ascertained.  Those persons simply disappeared from the count.

LATFOR produced files that showed the adjusted population for all census-reported entities, including census blocks.  That is where the data for my map came from.  The LATFOR data showed a population for the block along Front Street of 365, three more than the census.  I simply assumed that it would split in roughly the same proportions as the census population.  So I added two to the Ward 1 population, and one to Ward 2 population.

[jimrtex]

Thanks so much jimtex for your efforts here, and finding the data, and your superb little mappie. You are indeed indefatigable.

I think I'm getting close to understanding the legal issues related to weighted voting.  It may demonstrate that hard cases make bad law

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Columbia County board of supervisors uses power-weighted voting, with each ward in Hudson electing one supervisor, and each other town electing one supervisor.  It may be illegal under New York law to do mid-decade redistricting of the board of supervisors, which a change in the number of Hudson wards would require (unless the existing wards would be maintained as county supervisor districts until 2020).  The town of Kinderhook now has a larger population than Hudson, so the idea of 5 supervisors for the county seat may now be outdated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you found the LATFOR numbers.  If you go further right it has the VAP numbers, which might be preferred for a racial breakdown.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

Here's a 6 ward split with minimal changes from the current wards. I started with the pairs I identified and made minimal population shifts consistent with keeping the districts within range and avoiding excess erosity. The two chopped blocks were kept, but no additional one were added. All shifts avoided splits of blocks defined by regular blocks and alleys were not used.

I used the LATFOR DOJ groupings to get the following VAPs:

Ward 1 (pink) 1017; WVAP 64.2%   BVAP 24.0%   HVAP 4.3%   AVAP 6.2%
Ward 2 (blue) 1047; WVAP 35.7%   BVAP 43.1%   HVAP 7.6%   AVAP 12.8%
Ward 3 (lilac) 1076; WVAP 73.0%   BVAP 14.7%   HVAP 6.5%   AVAP 4.1%
Ward 4 (green) 1082; WVAP 59.4%   BVAP 24.0%   HVAP 8.1%   AVAP 6.3%
Ward 5 (cream) 1097; WVAP 70.7%   BVAP 17.9%   HVAP 4.9%   AVAP 4.0%
Ward 6 (gold) 1084; WVAP 73.7%   BVAP 12.6%   HVAP 5.9%   AVAP 6.0%

Ward 2 is a solid majority-minority district, though not quite majority BVAP. If all of block 13-1002 along the river went into ward 2 and some blocks are swapped into ward 1 to compensate I get a little higher but it takes more serious gerrymandering to break 50% BVAP.

[Torie]

I suppose that there could be wards to elect supervisors, and wards to elect alderman if need be. The excuse for the redrawing now of course is that the current system is illegal most probably because there is a 16% variance from population in voting power for the 5th ward from its population share, well over the 10% max that New York courts have embraced. I guess it is possible a court would insist that just the voting weights be adjusted given the proscription against mid decade redistricting in New York that Jimtex thinks may obtain, and overturn a new single member system for the wards if the city choose that fix in a referendum (it takes a referendum to make any change is what has been asserted out there), but I would tend to doubt that would happen is my guess.

Out of the 10 alderpersons, two are black, one from the 4th ward, and one from the 2nd (Tiffany Garriga), the latter of whom attended my variance hearing, along with the guy who ran for mayor (he also lives in the 2nd ward) and lost. I very much enjoyed meeting both, and then saw them both again when I went to celebrate with my cousin at the Red Dot restaurant and bar (very gay friendly to say the least, with the bar tender I think a Lesbian who owns a house on Robinson Street, and loves doing construction work herself) . Tiffany lives in Bliss Towers. The other alderman from the second ward is I believe Bangledeshi or Bengali. His father I believe is on the Board of Supervisors, or was. So anyway, I don't think the VRA is in play here.

Having personally eyeballed the structures in that split river block,  to me from the exterior at least, they look identical in design, and I have great difficulty believing that the south of Warren Street portion thereof has the lion's share of either the population or the bedrooms. But maybe exterior appearances are deceiving.

[jimrtex]

I suppose that there could be wards to elect supervisors, and wards to elect alderman if need be. The excuse for the redrawing now of course is that the current system is illegal most probably because there is a 16% variance from population in voting power for the 5th ward from its population share, well over the 10% max that New York courts have embraced. I guess it is possible a court would insist that just the voting weights be adjusted given the proscription against mid decade redistricting in New York that Jimtex thinks may obtain, and overturn a new single member system for the wards if the city choose that fix in a referendum (it takes a referendum to make any change is what has been asserted out there), but I would tend to doubt that would happen is my guess.

The mid-decade redistricting would be for Columbia County board of supervisors.  I don't see how Columbia County could be forced to match changes in Hudson.  The four smallest entities represented on the board of supervisors are now Hudson wards 1, 2, 3, and 4.  Hudson Ward 5 is mid-table, smaller than 8 towns, larger than 10 towns.  Hudson has 10.2% of the county population, so the rest of the county might prefer that Hudson have a single supervisor - unless there is a political advantage to having a split Hudson delegation.

Columbia County uses voting weights which appear to be calculated such that the voting power (Banzhaf power index) of each entity (town or ward) is proportional to its population.  The maximum error is less than 1%.

Having personally eyeballed the structures in that split river block,  to me from the exterior at least, they look identical in design, and I have great difficulty believing that the south of Warren Street portion thereof has the lion's share of either the population or the bedrooms. But maybe exterior appearances are deceiving.

Quite inexplicable, particularly if you take into account the amount of parking.  I kept getting Ward 1 and Ward 2 reversed because it was obvious that the larger share of the population is in the northern part.  The buildings were there by 1994, the roofs have been changed and solar panels added.  It is interesting how much new construction is on the west end of town.  There are the apartments (or townhouses) just west of the public housing tower, with the parking lot inside, and the strip center at Warren and Front.

What is the large building on the north end of the block west of Front?   Until about 10 years ago there were three buildings.  Possibly an old school where they tore down the old building and kept a newer addition.

Incidentally, Columbia County has a different split of Wards 1, 2, and 4.  They appear to have shifted 15 persons from Ward 1 and 13 persons from Ward 4 into Ward 2.   This makes the split of the Front Street block even more lopsided.

[muon2]

Having personally eyeballed the structures in that split river block,  to me from the exterior at least, they look identical in design, and I have great difficulty believing that the south of Warren Street portion thereof has the lion's share of either the population or the bedrooms. But maybe exterior appearances are deceiving.

Quite inexplicable, particularly if you take into account the amount of parking.  I kept getting Ward 1 and Ward 2 reversed because it was obvious that the larger share of the population is in the northern part.  The buildings were there by 1994, the roofs have been changed and solar panels added.  It is interesting how much new construction is on the west end of town.  There are the apartments (or townhouses) just west of the public housing tower, with the parking lot inside, and the strip center at Warren and Front.

What is the large building on the north end of the block west of Front?   Until about 10 years ago there were three buildings.  Possibly an old school where they tore down the old building and kept a newer addition.

So does this mean that the split populations on your map for block 13-1002 should be reversed?

[muon2]

I suppose that there could be wards to elect supervisors, and wards to elect alderman if need be. The excuse for the redrawing now of course is that the current system is illegal most probably because there is a 16% variance from population in voting power for the 5th ward from its population share, well over the 10% max that New York courts have embraced. I guess it is possible a court would insist that just the voting weights be adjusted given the proscription against mid decade redistricting in New York that Jimtex thinks may obtain, and overturn a new single member system for the wards if the city choose that fix in a referendum (it takes a referendum to make any change is what has been asserted out there), but I would tend to doubt that would happen is my guess.

When the Hofstra group recommended 6 wards for the Common Council, did they take into consideration the impact of the Board of Supervisors? It sounds like they did not. If the BoS uses weighted votes anyway and Kinderhook is larger than Hudson, then it is hard to see any rationale to have more than one supervisor from Hudson. If a referendum is needed to change the number of aldermen on the the council, is a county-wide one also required to change the representation on the BoS?

[Torie]

I suppose that there could be wards to elect supervisors, and wards to elect alderman if need be. The excuse for the redrawing now of course is that the current system is illegal most probably because there is a 16% variance from population in voting power for the 5th ward from its population share, well over the 10% max that New York courts have embraced. I guess it is possible a court would insist that just the voting weights be adjusted given the proscription against mid decade redistricting in New York that Jimtex thinks may obtain, and overturn a new single member system for the wards if the city choose that fix in a referendum (it takes a referendum to make any change is what has been asserted out there), but I would tend to doubt that would happen is my guess.

When the Hofstra group recommended 6 wards for the Common Council, did they take into consideration the impact of the Board of Supervisors? It sounds like they did not. If the BoS uses weighted votes anyway and Kinderhook is larger than Hudson, then it is hard to see any rationale to have more than one supervisor from Hudson. If a referendum is needed to change the number of aldermen on the the council, is a county-wide one also required to change the representation on the BoS?

I have no idea. That would take some research.  Maybe it will come up in my New York Bar Review course. One oddity is that allegedly weighted voting for County Boards of Supervisors is common in New York, while Hudson is the only city in the state to have the system. I actually like weighted voting in the sense you don't need to keep moving lines every 10 years, but it really should be weighted based on population, and to my mind there is no need with weighted voting to have any variation in the weights from population at all; it surprises me that the courts have upheld such variations in the context of weighted voting system (a court upheld a 7% variation for Nassau County I think it was). I can see having variations if lines have to be moved, but not with a weighted system.

I don't know jimtex what that white roofed building is at the north end of the census block (I strongly doubt it is housing), but have emailed my real estate agent with whom I am speaking anyway in an hour inquiring as its use, and will append this post when I get the answer. And the answer is, is that that white roofed building is not housing, and is "slated to be a school for music."

[jimrtex]

Having personally eyeballed the structures in that split river block,  to me from the exterior at least, they look identical in design, and I have great difficulty believing that the south of Warren Street portion thereof has the lion's share of either the population or the bedrooms. But maybe exterior appearances are deceiving.

Quite inexplicable, particularly if you take into account the amount of parking.  I kept getting Ward 1 and Ward 2 reversed because it was obvious that the larger share of the population is in the northern part.  The buildings were there by 1994, the roofs have been changed and solar panels added.  It is interesting how much new construction is on the west end of town.  There are the apartments (or townhouses) just west of the public housing tower, with the parking lot inside, and the strip center at Warren and Front.

What is the large building on the north end of the block west of Front?   Until about 10 years ago there were three buildings.  Possibly an old school where they tore down the old building and kept a newer addition.

So does this mean that the split populations on your map for block 13-1002 should be reversed?

We both concluded from the spreadsheet that Torie posted that a population of 362 had been split between Wards 1 and 2, and a population of 289 between Wards 2 and 4.  Since these numbers corresponded to the populations of 13-1002 (the block along Front Street, separated by the walkway of Warren extended; and 12-1000 (the large northern block, divided by 3rd Street extended) we concluded those were the divisions.

Missing from the spreadsheet are the prison adjustments, which I am fairly certain, based on the LATFOR site that Hudson is required to comply with.

I had put the 290 on the larger part of 13-1002, which is to the north and has 8 buildings, 2 of which are larger; and 72 on the southern part of 13-1002, which is smaller and has 5 buildings.   And since 290 was shown in the spreadsheet as being Ward 1, I kept thinking of the northwest ward as being Ward 1.  I also tend to expect numbering to be north to south (top to bottom).  Only after I began to recognize that Ward 2 has about the correct population, and that this was the northwest ward, have I started to associate this with Ward 2.

Looking at Bing maps, which have aerial views rather than satellite views, the buildings appear quite similar.  I would conclude that there were 112 units, 8 per building, but 12 in two of the northern cluster.   359/72 = 3.21 seems reasonable for family housing.  But that would make the split South 231: North 128.

Unless the 5 southern buildings are apartments on separate floors, and the northern are two-story townhomes.   But then the southern buildings lack adequate windows and parking.

Maybe the city messed up.  Maybe the Hofstra students messed up.  Did they take into account the prison adjustment?

I have just found the minutes for the Common Council.  I've started perusing from 2011.  There was a question about the voting method.  The city attorney said that the council could simply pass a law - but that since it modified the powers of elected officials, it had to be put to a referendum.  They were also aware of the need for the prison adjustment, but were waiting for the state.   This was at the May 2011 meeting, so they were probably just getting any sort of numbers.

[jimrtex]

When the Hofstra group recommended 6 wards for the Common Council, did they take into consideration the impact of the Board of Supervisors? It sounds like they did not. If the BoS uses weighted votes anyway and Kinderhook is larger than Hudson, then it is hard to see any rationale to have more than one supervisor from Hudson. If a referendum is needed to change the number of aldermen on the the council, is a county-wide one also required to change the representation on the BoS?

The Gossips blog said:

"Friedman and Barbieri suggested a goal: six election districts of equal population, each represented by only one alderman, with boundaries that would be redrawn after every decennial census. (Reducing the number of aldermen from ten to six would save roughly $25,000, a saving which would be reduced if there had to be a sixth representative from Hudson to the Board of Supervisors.)"

Friedman and Barbieri are the Hofstra students who studied the election system.  Presumably, the estimate of the cost savings was made by them, as was the cost of an additional supervisor - though because it is parenthetical it could be a conclusion by the blogger.  I vote for the students recognizing the problem of representation on the board of supervisors, where currently each of 5 wards is represented.

[jimrtex]

I don't know jimtex what that white roofed building is at the north end of the census block (I strongly doubt it is housing), but have emailed my real estate agent with whom I am speaking anyway in an hour inquiring as its use, and will append this post when I get the answer. And the answer is, is that that white roofed building is not housing, and is "slated to be a school for music."

I wasn't wondering whether it was housing.  Looking at Bing Maps, it appears to be early 19th century industrial (two story brick).  The roof of the main building had collapsed in the Bing aerial shots, and it and another building are now empty space on Google maps.

It is the type of building that historical preservationists anywhere would want to restore and repurpose, and might doubly so in Hudson.

But a brick-wall shell with no support would take bazillions of dollars to build a structurally sound interior and roof; and a wall collapsing on some children exploring would take bazillions to settle the lawsuit.  The history of Hudson was that in the early 20th century when it had twice the population it does now, it had low-value manufacturing such as textiles and match manufacturing that did not survive the depression and World War II.

[Torie]

No doubt it was an industrial building, and is to be converted to the music school use. Converted uses are where the action is at in Hudson. There is a church on second street to the north of Bliss Towers that I went into when last there a couple of weeks ago. The basement was being used as a candy factory (plus a kitchen), and the owner and his partner lived upstairs in what was the main sanctuary. They were moving out, and to Vancouver, and offered me some samples of the last of their candy, which was delicious. The church from upstairs has a magnificent view of the Hudson River.

The new owner I was told is a famous Chinese photographer from Peking, who plans to display his work there. His boyfriend apparently lives across the river and turned him on to Hudson. Friends of my cousin whom she married as the "minister" bought the church in which they were married, and plan to rent it out for special events. Churches go cheap in Hudson, since there is an oversupply.

[jimrtex]

I've been reading over the minutes of the Common Council but haven't found a whole lot.

When the weights were modified in 2004, there was a public hearing, which nobody attended and was adjourned 10 minutes later.  Otherwise, the proposed weights were presented to the alderman at one meeting, and approved at a later meeting.  Going back a little bit more there was a mention that the city attorney was awaiting an opinion for the New York Attorney General.  If the charter is annotated correctly, this was the first re-weighting since 1975 when weighted voting was first adopted. 

A curiosity was that in 2004, the two alderman from Ward 3 had different weights for 2/3 supermajority votes.  In 2013, there was mention of an alternative that would have given different weights to aldermen from Ward 4, which was said to provide better match to the population.

The 2013 public hearing was concurrent with another related to police staffing.  It appears that the city had failed to hold a referendum some years earlier, which put the permitted size of the police force in legal jeopardy.  The police officers were quite concerned, and there were no comments on the weighting change.

Approval of the weighting by the common council was more controversial, with passage om a 1300:700 weighted vote, with Wards 2, 4, and 5, and the President voting aye, and Wards 1 and 3 voting no.  An alderman from Ward 1 declared, "One man, one vote, votes no".

It is possible that the No votes were expressing a preference for the weighting alternative that would have given the Ward 4 aldermen different weights.  The chair of Legal Committee, who is  from Ward 3 seemed to prefer that option.

Earlier discussion appears in the Legal Committee.  In one case it says they were just waiting the report from the city's apportionment expert to stick the numbers in the law.  At the August 22, 2012 committee meeting, their was a discussion about the strength of Ward 5's vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't found anything for 2010 that expressly gives the ward populations, or the manner in which the weights were calculated.  These might be in the report Lee Papayanopoulos prepared for the city.

I did find the following, which I found amusing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jimrtex]

In 2002, the Common Council passed a resolution establishing the ward populations.  The resolution stated that the census boundaries did not conform to ward boundaries, and claimed that the a population of zero had been shown for the Firemen's Home.

It presented the following

Ward 1 883
Ward 2 1483
Ward 3 1957
Ward 4 829
Ward 5 2372
Total 7,524

These are the 2000 block populations.



And the 2010 block populations.



They are not dissimilar, with some additions and some deletions of block boundaries.  The 2000 census is not prisoner-adjusted, and the prison is in a single block.  The railroad tracks separated much, but not all of the residential population from the prison.  The prisoner population dropped around 300 between 2000 and 2010, even before the adjustment removed 300 more.  Population in the gridded portion was down in most blocks, but blocks with more population in 2000, typically had more population in 2010, and the same for less populous blocks.  There was likely a combination of smaller household sizes, loss of housing units, and perhaps more housing for persons with primary residences elsewhere, particularly New York City.

To get from the block populations to the 2000 ward populations some adjustments are needed.

Ward 1

If we include the long block along Front Street (13-1002 in 2010, 13-5002 in 2000) we have a population of 1108, or 225 more than the 2002 resolution.

So we split the block Ward 1: 137; Ward 2: 225.   This division is quite close to the 5:8 ratio of buildings, and maybe even closer considering that two of the northern buildings are longer.

Conclusion: the division shown on the spreadsheet Torie received for 2010 is in error.

Ward 2

The population of blocks wholly in Ward 2 is 1214,  If we add 225 from the Front Street block we get 1439.  To reach the 1483 of the 2002 resolution we add 44 more from the large northern block (12-1000 in both 2010 and 2000), making a split of Ward 2: 44; Ward 4: 251.   This is not too different than the 32:257 split in 2010.

The council made a mistake with regard to the Fireman's Home.  The loop that delineates the block (12-1001 in 2010; 12-1011 in 2000) was the entry drive for the Fireman's Home.  The buildings were at the top of the loop to the west.  There was a memorial of some sort just inside the west edge of the loop.  The block within the entrance loop has no population.  I suspect the council concluded that the loop was simply to capture the home.

A new structure has been built over where the loop used to be, with the driveways reconfigured.  A building to the west of the loop was moved, and the memorial was moved south.   The 2010 census still reports zero population for the loop block, even though the loop is no longer there.

Ward 3

The population within the "Ward 3" VTD is 2005, 48 more than the 2002 resolution.  There are 48 persons in the triangle between Columbia Street and Columbia Turnpike (blocks 13-4006,13-4008,13-4009 in 2010; 13-2005,13-2006,13-2007 in 2000).

The city charter states that the boundary of Ward 3 is

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Public Square is now a park, covering two blocks.  The VTD boundary jogs around the park rather than crossing the park diagonally.  Columbia Street is part of the regular street grid that takes a more easterly (vs southeasterly) course at that point.  It is conceivable that it has been extended further east.  Columbia Turnpike is aligned with the route of 23B to Claverack, but within Hudson the highway route has been realigned to other streets.  Now Columbia Turnpike is a minor street leading to the cemetery.

Conclusion: In 2002 the charter was respected.  At some point the voting precinct was modified, or perhaps the charter ignored or disregarded.  The VTD boundary and the voting maps on the Columbia County Board of Elections website match.  Maybe Columbia County was careless or cavalier

Ward 4

Blocks wholly within Ward 4 had a population of 792.  If we deduct the 44 persons that were shifted to Ward 2 we are left with 748 which is 81 less than the 2002 council resolution.  But the VTD map nor the Columbia County BoE maps don't conform to the city charter:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we find 81 persons?  Probably.  There were 27 persons in the block surrounded by Short-Prospect-Fifth-Washington (12-4002 in 2010, 12-4000 in 2000).  There is another residential block just to the north surrounded by Short/Harry Howard-Washington-Fifth-Clinton).  Clinton shows on Google Maps when labeled.  It appears that there is possibly a street easement and at one time a dirt road.  It would present an odd angle at Harry Howard, so that cars coming from the south would  be to the left and behind someone turning from Clinton.  With likely higher speeds on Harry Howard there an unnecessary hazard.   This "block" might have around 27 persons like its neighbor.

And there are perhaps 16 houses on the south side of Harry Howard where it bends eastward, who would be west of 5th Street extended.   The center line would likely divide a couple of living rooms.

So it appears that the 2002 resolution followed the charter, while the VTD and Columbia County BoE conform to actual practice.

Ward 5

The VTD for Ward has 2405 persons.  Add 48 persons from Ward 3 and subtract 81 persons to Ward 4 (see above) and you get 2372, matching the 2002 council resolution.