City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[Torie]

If there were a unit count for Tradewinds inside and Tradewinds outside the loop, we could estimate the Tradewinds population outside the loop, and subtract that from the 200 persons in 12-1012.   Then the Ward 4/Ward 5 split of the remainder could be estimated based on number of houses.

Is the 70 units for Tradewinds in the newspaper article gospel?

If so, there are 27 units in 12-1011 (per census), and 43 in 12-1012.   We can project from 59 persons in 12-1011 to get a population outside the loop.  27:43 :: 59:94.

This would give 200 - 94 = 106 persons elsewhere in 12-1011.

The housing split between Wards 4 and 5 is 25.5:12.5, which would put about 70 persons in Ward 4.

The 4th ward part of 12-1012 has about 27 units, and if the number of Crosswinds units in 12-1012 is 43 units, that totals to 70 units. How many units are in 12-1012 per the census, and could you link to me that data?

Anyway, 27/70 = 38.57%, and 38.57% of 106 = 41 persons in Ward 4's portion of 12-1012.

89 in 12-1012.   If we subtract the 43 units in Crosswinds, that leaves 46.   I count about 38.   I would think that the most likely to be multi-family would be some in the pseudo-block.   The houses on the south side of Harry Howard are fairly small, and those along Clinton aren't particularly large.

46/89 = 51.69%. 51.69% x 106 = 54.78.  So is that the number we are back to?

[Torie]

Oh, as the Firemens' Home, sure a couple of bedrooms might be split. Flip a coin.

I understand that the weights can be fixed as best they can (probably still not legal for complex issues but yes, as best they can, hiring a consultant at some expense to do it all). But that just affects Council Vote weights, not voters voting. So unless the wrong weights affect a Council vote outcome, they are irrelevant. I doubt that they will ever be relevant in the next year given the local politics. Sure if the referendum fails (yes, not necessary for changing the weights, but apparently necessary for changing the lines, and therein is the rub), the weights will need to be corrected ASAP. If not, the system will become even more legally vulnerable, and the city would be risking that the court will not bother with just ordering a narrow fix, and not interested given the attitude in struggling to find the system, and the assumption that aldermen from the same ward vote randomly vis a vis each other is tolerable, or otherwise not caring about the Banzhaf issue, considering it legally dead (it isn't, it just isn't a panacea anymore); rather the court would just throw up its hands,  just toss the whole thing out. So it may become potentially relevant, but not now in my view. The city can't afford to spend money on this, and should not.

[Torie]

Yes, if someone files a lawsuit, the weights would have to be changed pending the next election (which will take a lot of time and some money (they won't just accept your numbers), resulting very probably in no change in any council vote outcome. That won't happen. It's all sound and fury signifying nothing. And if the Firemens' Home is not split, and there is a close election, because the nursing home folks (some of them), voted in the wrong ward, then there will be a lawsuit. Yes, if the lines could be changed without referendum, they should be, but alas the Council on its own cannot change them. Again, on this matter, the city is trapped. What needs to be done is get all of this on the ballot for the next election, probably via the petition route. Then everything can be fixed.  Stay tuned.

[Torie]

In the 4th ward's portion of block 12-1012 (that is the block number on the spreadsheet that you sent me), there are 29 units. 29/46 x 103 = 64.93.  29/89 x 200 = 65.17.  65 is the number. We are done. It's been fun.

[Torie]

The red roof structure isn't a house.

[Torie]

Yes, if someone files a lawsuit, the weights would have to be changed pending the next election (which will take a lot of time and some money (they won't just accept your numbers), resulting very probably in no change in any council vote outcome. That won't happen. It's all sound and fury signifying nothing. And if the Firemens' Home is not split, and there is a close election, because the nursing home folks (some of them), voted in the wrong ward, then there will be a lawsuit. Yes, if the lines could be changed without referendum, they should be, but alas the Council on its own cannot change them. Again, on this matter, the city is trapped. What needs to be done is get all of this on the ballot for the next election, probably via the petition route. Then everything can be fixed.  Stay tuned.

The Common Council has an affirmative obligation to follow the city charter, state law, and US Constitution.

The current plan violates the New York Municipal Home Law.

"i.)  The  plan  shall  provide substantially equal weight for all the voters of that local government in the allocation of  representation  in  the local legislative body."

"(c.)  As  used  in  this subparagraph the term "population" shall mean
  residents, citizens, or registered voters. A population base for such  a
  plan  of  apportionment shall utilize the latest statistical information
  obtainable from an official enumeration done at the same  time  for  all
  the  residents,  citizens, or registered voters of the local government.
  Such a plan may allocate, by extrapolation or any other rational method,
  such latest statistical information to representation areas or units  of
  local  government, provided that any plan containing such an allocation
  shall have annexed thereto as an appendix, a detailed explanation of the
  allocation."

The Common Council will avoid any lawsuit about the Firemen's Home by declaring that for electoral purposes that it is entirely west of the projected ward boundary.

Do any current registrations for the residents of the Firemen's Home contain a room number?

You have studiously avoided the issue of the two houses on Clinton, that are north of the end of 5th Street.  Or are you still trying to determine which point in these houses that the inhabitants reside in?  Remember, that you have to provide both a current location, and a location on April 1, 2010.   If a resident of a split house were to be elected alderman, would he have to resign whenever he eats in the kitchen.   Are you going to dock his salary whenever he goes to the bathroom in another ward within his house?

Torie's standard is arbitrary and capricious and denies equal protection to the residents of the Firemen's Home and the two houses on Clinton.  It also is in violation of the 26th Amendment.

The City of Hudson may resolve ambiguity in the charter by passing a resolution.   It does not change the ward boundaries by declaring that the Firemen's Home is west of the boundary.

Should I send my spreadsheet with the revised voting weights to you or to the city directly?

The two houses for addresses in the 400's on the north side of Clinton St were counted by me.

I don't understand how the Council can waive a wand and declare that all for the Fireman's home is in one ward or the other without changing the boundary itself, which it cannot except by referendum. Sometimes a line will split a home or here, we have a room or two or three perhaps so split. The court will be fine with putting its denizens therein assigned to vote, and be counted, in one zone or the other. The effect is de minimus. Stuff happens.

[Torie]

Thanks Jim. Again, I, and all of the citizens of Hudson,  are very much in your debt.

[Torie]

Here is a little Hudson update. The smell of litigation is in the air. Of course this is but the tip of the iceberg, but this one is well, an exemplar of upstate politics in New York. It's a contact sport.   Mr. Nastke is the Pub Elections Board member by the way, and Virginia Martin is the Dem member. It's one of the reasons I changed party registration. The Dems around my hood tend to be - well - more law abiding. Who knew?

My comment generated some interesting emails from one of the power players, but whatever.

[Torie]

Are those the only two election board members? What official role do they have in NY?

As I understand it, in Columbia County, there is a Pub Commissioner and a Dem one, and they set policy, and must agree to do anything. One of their responsibilities, is to register voters and maintain the voter rolls. So they review the Ward lines, and maintain a set or range of addresses within each ward, and when folks register, they cross check those addresses against the voter's address, and passing the voter to a ward (and within the 5th ward, to one of the two "voting districts."

In Hudson, we had ward maps that were wrong, so the population counts were wrong, but the population count does not involve the Board of Elections. However, for the reasons stated, and for unknown reasons, it turns out that while a map error caused the mis-assignment of voters in the Columbia triangle, as well as a population error, voters along Harry Howard Way while counted correctly, were in the wrong ward on the voting rolls. Other voters in the area were both counted correctly, and are voting in the right ward, even though the map shows the voters in the wrong ward, as if the map was ignored. And then still other voters who are in the right ward on the voting rolls, but were counted incorrectly. Anyway, what the Board of Elections needs to do is get the voting rolls right, with voters assigned to the correct ward.

[Torie]

It sounds like the map errors occurred at different times, and the boards at those separate times reacted differently to the errors.

Does the board have a staff, or do they actually maintain the voter lists themselves?

Yes, they have staff. Other than the Columbia triangle, most of the errors occurred with respect to the 2010 census. At about that time, the city clerk used the erroneous BOE map rather than the city charter to count ward populations (and did some block allocation errors), which map the BOE said was just an approximate guide and not exact (somebody is hiding something),  and Crosswinds was built, nobody is explaining why the voters were put in the wrong ward, other than three houses on that side of the street were in the wrong ward, and apparently had been for years for unknown reasons, and nobody bothered to check either the city charter or the erroneous map.  So either the BOE are sort of incompetent drones, or somebody was playing ball with what certain politicians wanted (and still want). We will never know probably.

[Torie]

It sounds like the map errors occurred at different times, and the boards at those separate times reacted differently to the errors.

Does the board have a staff, or do they actually maintain the voter lists themselves?

Yes, they have staff. Other than the Columbia triangle, most of the errors occurred with respect to the 2010 census. At about that time, the city clerk used the erroneous BOE map rather than the city charter to count ward populations (and did some block allocation errors), which map the BOE said was just an approximate guide and not exact (somebody is hiding something),  and Crosswinds was built, nobody is explaining why the voters were put in the wrong ward, other than three houses on that side of the street were in the wrong ward, and apparently had been for years for unknown reasons, and nobody bothered to check either the city charter or the erroneous map.  So either the BOE are sort of incompetent drones, or somebody was playing ball with what certain politicians wanted (and still want). We will never know probably.

The 1940 Census has the correct ward boundaries.  Union Turnpike had been renamed to Columbia Street by 1932, the date of the map prepared by the Department of Public Works, City Engineer J. McClure Harold (last name is fuzzy).  The map has a stamp from 1938, and the ward boundaries and enumeration districts were added with colored pencils for the 1940 Census.

The property tax records have the correct wards.

Benjamin Murell was a Ward 4 alderman from 1962-1974, and Ward 4 supervisor from 1974-2003 when he died.

There are two (or three) issues which may be getting conflated here.

(1) Voters voting in the wrong ward.
(1a) Voters on the east side of Harry Howard with Harry Howard addresses (2 or 3 houses) voting in Ward 4.
(1b) Voters in the Crosswinds Apartments voting in Ward 4.
(1c) Voters in the Columbia Triangle voting in Ward 3.

(2) Errors in calculating the base populations used in calculating voting weights.
(2a) Area between Prospect St. and Harry Howard betwen Short/Harry Howard and 5th St 5th Street Extended, which are in the "Ward 5" VTD, but are actually in Ward 4, and apparently vote in Ward 4.
(2b) Possible small errors in allocating population between Wards 2 and 4.
(2c) Misallocation of Front Street block.

(3) Relocation of the Firemen's Home.

Matt Murell could not have campaigned with his father at Westwind Apartments (1b) since it was built after his father died.  It is possible that he campaigned at the two or 3 houses on the east side of Harry Howard (1a).  If so, they were erroneously voting in the wrong precinct.  But there must have been only a handful of voters, and it plain weird to be in a different ward than all of your nearest neighbors.

Matt Murrell might have campaigned with his father along the houses along the Harry Howard just north of Underhill Pond, or in the area bounded by Harry Howard/Short-Prospect-5th St-Clinton(extended) to the south of Underhill Pond (2a).  But these areas are not subject to correction on the voter rolls.

Matt Murrell might have campaigned with his father at the Firemen's Home, but never in the current building, since it was also built after his father died.

Does the Board of Elections have any old registration rolls?

They are bootstrapping over those two or there houses, to claim that the Crosswinds is really in the 4th ward. I know this because of the key players behind the curtain, Rick Scalera, referenced that when making his case to me that their must have been some law passed not included in the City Charter defining the Ward lines, taking in the east side of Harry Howard Avenue. Needless to say, I was not impressed with "his case."

With reference to Muon2's question, if a house lot is split, the BOE can assign to either district. If it is a congregate living structure, or one apartment building that is spit, one is to assign the residents of the entire structure to the district where a majority of the residents live. I guess if where the majority of the residents live turns on where just a few residents live, because their apartment or room is split, than the BOE can assign all of the residents of the structure to either district. The Dem Commissioner explained all of this to me, and as to structures with multiple units, she has a written opinion from the State BOE I believe up in Albany.

[Torie]

Hey, Jimtex, that 1891 map you found actually erroneously marks the Columbia triangle in the 3rd ward. Virginia Martin pointed that out. Can you post that 1938 map to which you allude?

[Torie]

This is the 1940 Census map.  Note the alignment between 11-33 and 11-35 (North 5th Street extended), and 11-37 and 11-39 along Columbia Turnpike.



The original is quite large, 3000x3000 pixels, and can be found at National Archives1940 Census website.

The following schedules show the definitions of the enumeration districts (ED) for Ward 4 and Ward 5.  Note the first column is the ED number for the 1930 Census, while the second column for the 1940 Census.  The typewritten population figure is for the 1930 Census, the handwritten total is the 1940 populations.  The population of 1742 for Ward 4, and 2936 for Ward 5 match the published totals in census reports.



For ED 11-33, note the reversed order for the east and west boundaries, as the bounds are given in clockwise order from 3rd and State St.   While the Firemen's Home is enumerated separately in ED 11-34 as part of Ward 4, the houses along the south side of Harry Howard with street addresses, just north of Underhill Pond, were enumerated in 11-33.   The enumerator at a later date recorded two houses without street number on Harry Howard, and explicitly noted that they were in Ward 5.  This note was apparently ignored by those who calculated the ward populations.



For 11-36, note that the definition of the southern boundary includes Columbia St, ward line, and Warren St.  The ward boundary diagonally traverses Public Square (modern 7th Street Park), from the the corner of Warren and 7th to Columbia Street.  While the RR tracks also cross the square, they are not on the diagonal.  A careful examination of the detailed maps will show this.  Note the 1891 Hudson River Atlas fudges this boundary a bit with the green tint for the 3rd Ward, and Orange tint for the 5th Ward separating.

11-37 shows that Columbia Turnpike is the boundary of Ward 5.  Houses with odd addresses (south side of street) in the 900 block of Columbia Street are included in the enumeration of 11;37.

This is the map that I submitted to the Common Council as frosting on the cake. They vote on whether to proceed with an Article 78 action forcing the BOE to correct the ward voter rolls at the next Council meeting. The Legal Committee recommended proceeding with the lawsuit this last Wednesday. We are making a real difference out there Jimboy.

[Torie]

I see my block, Robinson St., was named "Sepe Walk" back then. Robinson was a beer brewer.

[Torie]

The infill finally happened, but not most of the development of course. A bit north of Mill Street was where the garbage dump was. Today, that is in the process of being remediated with pipes sticking out releasing gases and so forth, and is a big mound covered with grass. Ultimately it will become park land. I walk over it en route to an abandoned road that goes through the woods to the High School. I call it my secret short cut. I discovered it looking closely at google earth. Of course the old time locals know about it, and some tell me they went there from the High School to smoke pot.

In other news, a couple of days ago, a movie was being filmed on Warren Street. It's a happening place, baby. I call it the biggest little city in America, supplanting Reno which had claimed that title, since Reno is no longer "little," but rather a sprawling urban-scape waste land.

[Torie]

Below is my little mappie of what I was referring to, along with depicting some of the sights of the area. Oh, below the "t' in "bought" are the ruins of the old Evans Brewery, which was sold by the Evans brothers when prohibition hit to Legs Diamond, who kept on brewing of course, piping the beer up to Columbia Street then Diamond Street whore houses and so forth. The Evans grandson now owns the Pump Station restaurant and micro brewery up in Albany, and he sat down when we were there and chatted with us for about 30 minutes. His grandfather and grand uncle owned grand houses on Warren Street between 4th and 5th street, which are still there. There were the richest guys in Hudson back then.

Harney now rents one of my apartments on Robinson Street which he uses as a pied a terre when he is in town.

[Torie]

I assume it's a current topo map.  I have read that Warren dropped down into a gully around 4th street, and at some point, it was filled in. Columbia is indeed in the gully. One one can see why Robinson is but one block. Dan and I were interested that it was called Sepe Walk on that 1830 map of yours. Googling that came up empty as to why it was called that. We think Sepe is an Indian name, referring to a tribe and to river, so it meant river walk, but we are not sure, because it is also a surname that pops up for some in the Hudson Valley. Great map! Thanks.

[Torie]

The secret road appears to have been a road at the boundary of two farm fields. I didn't know about Lake Albany, and had to look it up on Wiki. It appears to be why there are clay mounds around that were used for brick making. Not sure how the lake ties into the secret road.

[Torie]

Yes, I see now. Yes, I knew clay was mined in that area (I was not sure exactly where) for brick making, and the guy who owned one of the brick making factories, built a fine brick house that is on the east side of 3rd street one door down from the end of the street on its north end past Robinson. Do you have any idea where the 90 brick workers were housed exactly?

[Torie]

Yes, I see now. Yes, I knew clay was mined in that area (I was not sure exactly where) for brick making, and the guy who owned one of the brick making factories, built a fine brick house that is on the east side of 3rd street one door down from the end of the street on its north end past Robinson. Do you have any idea where the 90 brick workers were housed exactly?

The 1873 map for the 1st Ward shows two brickyards north of Mill Street.  That area which is now (or will be) Charles Williams Park was described as being hollowed out by clay mining.  The (former) school on 3rd Street was Charles S Williams Memorial School, and the area below the hill may have been the playground (since there is no space around the school).  Charles S Williams was the superintendent of schools from 1904-1921 (when he died).  The only mentions of the school that I could find were a story in 1942 about how the staff had held bridal showers for a teacher and another staff member.  Rick Scalera mentioned that when he was in kindegarten in the 1970s they would use a field below the school at recess or after school.  I think the playfield may have been south of Mill Street.  All the other articles were about other uses, and finally the sale of the school building.

The report on North Bay that I referenced noted a peninsular forest, which I thought might have referred to the rail spur.   But if you go about 2/3 of the way from Mill Street to the dump site, and head west you will see some trees pointing directly out into North Bay. The report suggests that this was a dock or wharf for a brickyard, which would likely be that of George C Byrne.   Was the brick house owned by Byrne or Bogardus?

Greenport apparently didn't have street addresses in 1900.  I don't think it has ever even had its own post office, and in 1900, even the far edges of Hudson did not have street addresses.

I don't know the name, other than that the guy was Polish. I met the two woman who now own the house at a party, who told me the story.

[Torie]

The mayor as you know vetoed the council resolution to file an article 78 lawsuit getting the voting rolls corrected on the theory that the statute moving the lines must have been lost, and well, it's tradition basically (his statement was basically incoherent). He also blamed the council president for getting the population numbers wrong with respect to crosswinds, ignoring the data that he was given by the mayor (to reflect that Crosswinds was really in the 4th ward based on the lost statute theory or something). The veto will not be overturned, because the minority alderpersons (presumably because Crosswinds being in the 4th ward suits them politically), and one of the 5th ward alderman (who takes his orders from the Scalera faction, which supports this "arrangement"), voted against the lawsuit. It's war. I'm getting emails.

I am really beginning to think deliberate mischief is involved.

[Torie]

"I find it interesting that the common council thought it could change the number of supervisors unilaterally. A town supervisor is the executive official for town; he is also the presiding officer over the town council, typically a 3-member body; and traditionally is the town's representative on the county board of supervisors.

State law authorizes a county to permit town and city elected officials to concurrently serve on county legislative bodies. It does not permit ex officio service. It appears that Columbia County violates this restriction wholesale. But perhaps not. Boards of supervisors are defined under the County statutes."

I don't understand the above.

As to your comment about the referendum blocking any other change, do you mean changing the supervisor districts? Those have to be changed anyway, because they violate the Home Rule Law, as you know. Their populations can only vary by 5%.

I tend to doubt Hallenbeck was focusing on the Columbia triangle issue. He certainly shares no blame for that situation.

[Torie]

1. I suspect the filing deadlines are fast approaching.

2. Hallenbeck's proposal has zero chance of getting put on the ballot (unless perhaps Delaney supports it, which is unlikely).  If it does somehow get passed, the historical provenance defense to the weighted voting system in Hudson will be substantially degraded beyond the degradation already in play due to ignoring in practice the historical boundaries.  In that regard, it appears that there is an apartment building there on the east side of Harry Howard in addition to Crosswinds that has been voting in the wrong ward. I wonder when it was built, and how long that has been going on for.



This came up because a voter signed a petition for a 4th ward candidate that is being challenged (192 Harry Howard Avenue, Apt 35). I think it is 192. The penmanship is a bit hard to read.

3. I am still confused as to why County law would interfere with the City either going to one supervisor, and adjusting the lines to make the Supervisor districts in Hudson have equal populations (and didn't we agree that the Home Rule Law requires the districts to be within 5% of being equal in population?).

[Torie]

Jimtex do you have any idea if there is some law in Columbia county, or the Home Rule law, that requires supervisor districts in a city to be the same as aldermanic districts?

[Torie]

I called the county attorney, and to make a long story short, as to the number of supervisors Hudson has, it's entirely up to Hudson. So that leaves what the Home Rule law says about the population of supervisor districts, and the 5% population variance rule. Other than that, under state and local law, Hudson can do what it wants.