US House Redistricting: New York

[Mr.Phips]

Wouldn't a compromise map necessarily mean giving Hochul a decent chance at reelection and not privileging the GOP gerrymander already in place in western NY, though?

A compromise map saves Turner, and loses a GOP seat upstate. I consider the Hochul seat a GOP seat, even though a Dem sits in it at the moment. In a compromise map, the whole state is gerrymandered actually. And the existing map is a compromise map, which both parties signed off on. A court is unlikely to give Hochul anything much better than she has now in any event. A court would likely make the Syracuse seat a Dem seat, and flush the Hinchey seat, and the rest of the upstate CD's from a partisan standpoint would not change much, except that the Buffalo seat would get much more Dem, since it was drawn to help out the Pub Quinn, now long gone, and the Rochester seat much more Pub, almost to the point where Slaughter might have some trouble, who has zero cross over appeal, and is basically an embarrassment.

Chopping up Hinchey's seat would make NY-24 and NY-19 more Dem and would probably cause Hanna and Hayworth to lose as they just barely won in a GOP wave year. 

Slaughter represented a strongly GOP district from 1987 to 1991 that split Rochester and connected it with some heavily Republican rural counties.  She will be fine in a 59% Obama district. 

[Mr.Phips]

I'm inclined to believe the rumors about McCarthy's seat being on the block because it makes so much sense, demographically and politically.

With McCarthy being retired, dismantling Hochul's seat as a Republican loss doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they just dismantle Hinchey and make Buerkle's seat into a Dem seat? At that point, the earmuffs gerrymander gets unpacked and any change helps Hochul.

Yes, that is the natural thing to do, and what I think a court would do, but no, it won't help Hochul much. In my "court drawn" map above, the partisan make-up of Hochul's seat stays about the same (51.7% McCain, 50 basis points more Dem than it is now). The earmuffs gerrymander is almost strictly a Buffalo v Rochester CD affair, involving just those two CD's. Hochul's CD just takes up the land bridge between the muffs is all along the lake, which is GOP territory. All the territory around Hochul's CD is GOP actually. If the Dems want to make it more Dem, they will have to pay for it. Nothing is for free. Or they can leave it alone, but then the odds are two incumbents will go down, one Pub (Buerkle), and Hochul, with Owens always kind of vulnerable, and the former Hinchey CD marginal, along with the CD running from Albany down to Dutchess County, now held by a Pub. Presumably in a party deal map, the latter two CD's would cease to be marginal, with the Albany to Dutchess Pub getting a better CD, and the former Hinchey CD made more Dem.

Upstate NY is not a good place for the Dems, in part because the Buffalo CD gets a lot more Dem right out of the box, sucking up Dems there, and in part because Slaughter is so weak, and in part because the Hinchey CD is so ridiculous.

Hinchey's district is not "marginal".  Obama got 59% there and even John Kerry got 54% there.  Hinchey only got 53% in 2010 because it was an epic GOP wave year and there was very low Democratic turnout and independents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes. 

NY-22 doesnt need to be made any more Dem. 

[Torie]

The new Hinchey seat that I guesstimated a court would draw is marginal. Click on my link in the post above. Sure, as long as Owen keeps his skirts clean, he should be OK, as long as he tacks moderate from time to time.

[muon2]

I decided to take a simple look at the upstate districts natural partisan leanings. To do so, I took whole counties and grouped them into areas of one or more districts such that the population was within 4K of the ideal size. Then those areas with more than one district were divided keeping counties intact as much as possible and splitting no towns, such that the districts were within 0.5% of the ideal size. This is the map I got for the upstate 9 (the tenth with Ulster, Orange and Putnam is about 66 K short).



Next I used the Atlas data to get the actual PVIs for these districts.

CD 19: D+5 (pink) Albany
CD 20: R+1 (green) Schenectady
CD 21: R+2 (blue) Utica
CD 22: D+4 (cyan) Syracuse
CD 23: D+4 (lilac) Binghampton
CD 24: R+5 (beige) Niagara Falls
CD 25: D+4 (gold) Rochester
CD 26: R+6 (purple) Elmira
CD 27: D+11 (grey) Buffalo

On paper it should be a very competitive area.

[Torie]

I don't understand why the earmuffs should be considered off-limits to Hochul. She represents suburban Buffalo. In the previous iteration, LaFalce had Niagara Falls and half of Buffalo. Why shouldn't the courts create a district based on Rochester and two districts based on Erie-Niagara? Especially when that is exactly what we had in the 1990s?

Your court-drawn map makes Hochul a dead duck by creating a 60% Obama district in Buffalo. Such and outcome is not impossible. But I don't see why it's more probable than restoring the 1990s map with allowances for population loss now that Hinchey has conveniently removed an obstacle to eastward expansion.

And yes, there can indeed be a free lunch when so very, very many Dem votes are currently wasted in the earmuffs district. Pay for it that way. There's plenty in the bank!

The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda.

[Gravis Marketing]

The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda.

They may be taking incumbent protection into account.

[Torie]

The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda.

They may be taking incumbent protection into account.

If a court did that, it would be a disgrace. The NY court did not do that last time. It drew a fair map. Then the parties cut a deal, to make marginal CD's less marginal.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

[muon2]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

[muon2]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage.

Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage.

Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year.

So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting.

Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo.

[Vasall des Midas]

And the answer would depend on how well either option works out for the Erie districts.

[Devils30]

Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state.

[cinyc]

A federal judge is calling for a three judge panel to determine whether to appoint a special master to draw the congressional map (and reportedly, the legislative map, too).  The Second Circuit appointed the three judge panel today.  Time is supposedly of the essence now that a federal judge has forced New York to hold its federal primaries in June instead of September to comply with federal military absentee requirements.  I'm not sure how that applies to the legislative maps, which are already out and for which primaries need not be held until September.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state.

And why on earth would the GOP agree to that?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I hope Cuomo stands firm against both parties. Doesn't he have every incentive to kick it to the courts if the lines aren't to his liking?

How hard is it to amend the state constitution in NY?

[cinyc]

I hope Cuomo stands firm against both parties. Doesn't he have every incentive to kick it to the courts if the lines aren't to his liking?

How hard is it to amend the state constitution in NY?

It is very hard to amend the NY state constitution.  Doing so requires passage by two consecutive legislatures and voter approval.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The voter approval is the easy part. It is getting the corrupt idiots in Albany to vote away their job security insurance.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state.

And why on earth would the GOP agree to that?

Because self-preservation trumps party loyalty.

Key players’ self-interest is overriding their desire to complete a Congressional map.

The consensus among both parties’ politicos is that the state Senate, just barely controlled by the GOP, will make any deal on the new map, even one that will be a boon to Democrats, if it means saving their majority in Albany.

“They will do anything necessary to save their districts and their lines in the Senate,” one upstate New York Republican strategist said. “They’ll throw the Congressional Members under the bus if it means protecting themselves.”

[MilesC56]

Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state.

And why on earth would the GOP agree to that?

Because self-preservation trumps party loyalty.

Key players’ self-interest is overriding their desire to complete a Congressional map.

The consensus among both parties’ politicos is that the state Senate, just barely controlled by the GOP, will make any deal on the new map, even one that will be a boon to Democrats, if it means saving their majority in Albany.

“They will do anything necessary to save their districts and their lines in the Senate,” one upstate New York Republican strategist said. “They’ll throw the Congressional Members under the bus if it means protecting themselves.”

Exactly. The NY Republicans are like the LA Democrats.

[muon2]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage.

Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year.

So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting.

Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo.

The MI standards came from the special master (Bernie Apol) appointed in the 80s, so they weren't the work of a bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan agreement was to codify the standards in 1999, thinking that they would tie the hands of whichever party might control the map in 2001. They failed to anticipate how far their geographic standards could be twisted. I would have no problem handing the MI standards to an independent commission, since that is essentially how Apol did his work. I just think that independent commissions can benefit from precise standards that are set before they begin mapping.

Yes, Torie wrapped Niagara around Buffalo and I wrapped it around Rochester. I looked at the former and found a very nice combination of counties with minimal deviation, but I wasn't wild about the connector along the eastern edge of Erie. Since I could wrap Rochester with whole counties and minimal deviation I went that way, but either path is a valid solution.

Niagara county didn't even give 50% to Obama. There are plenty of other upstate counties that have a strong Dem city in otherwise GOP turf. If Niagara should be split to link NF because of its interest, why not similar connections splitting counties throughout upstate?

[Senator Napoleon]

Dems should just let the GOP draw the state map in exchange for a Dem congress map. Don't see how they can make the senate safe in a D+10 state.

And why on earth would the GOP agree to that?

Because self-preservation trumps party loyalty.

Key players’ self-interest is overriding their desire to complete a Congressional map.

The consensus among both parties’ politicos is that the state Senate, just barely controlled by the GOP, will make any deal on the new map, even one that will be a boon to Democrats, if it means saving their majority in Albany.

“They will do anything necessary to save their districts and their lines in the Senate,” one upstate New York Republican strategist said. “They’ll throw the Congressional Members under the bus if it means protecting themselves.”

Exactly. The NY Republicans are like the LA Democrats.

And every other party in any other state...

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage.

Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year.

So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting.

Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo.

The MI standards came from the special master (Bernie Apol) appointed in the 80s, so they weren't the work of a bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan agreement was to codify the standards in 1999, thinking that they would tie the hands of whichever party might control the map in 2001. They failed to anticipate how far their geographic standards could be twisted. I would have no problem handing the MI standards to an independent commission, since that is essentially how Apol did his work. I just think that independent commissions can benefit from precise standards that are set before they begin mapping.

Yes, Torie wrapped Niagara around Buffalo and I wrapped it around Rochester. I looked at the former and found a very nice combination of counties with minimal deviation, but I wasn't wild about the connector along the eastern edge of Erie. Since I could wrap Rochester with whole counties and minimal deviation I went that way, but either path is a valid solution.

Niagara county didn't even give 50% to Obama. There are plenty of other upstate counties that have a strong Dem city in otherwise GOP turf. If Niagara should be split to link NF because of its interest, why not similar connections splitting counties throughout upstate?

I wasn't saying that it was the result of a bipartisan agreement. I said that it such relies on a bipartisan agreements to produce "fair" results, and even when such is the case, my point is I don't really trust say Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver in 2001 to produce a reasonably "fair" result. Certainly a commission would have strict standards, that is the only way such a commission would work. My point is, they are more likely to do a better job than a legislative body.

I merely mentioned the differences in your maps in passing. Both are essentially the same with regards to this issue.

I am not really concerned with what gave Obama 50% versus 70% or whatever here. The issue regards a CA style remap and they don't consider such variables, unless I am mistaken.

The difference between Niagara and say Utica is this. Buffalo is considerably short of a district's population, as a city. Any such remap, as I am asking about, would start the district by including all of Buffalo, since there is no reason to split it other than political considerations of yore. Niagara Falls is right there, has many similarities and if avoiding county splits isn't that big of a concern when other more pressing issues occur, it stands to reason that putting it in with Buffalo would be a logical move should the local officials and community meetings reveal such a desire as being prevalent.

[Torie]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage.

Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year.

So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting.

Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo.

The MI standards came from the special master (Bernie Apol) appointed in the 80s, so they weren't the work of a bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan agreement was to codify the standards in 1999, thinking that they would tie the hands of whichever party might control the map in 2001. They failed to anticipate how far their geographic standards could be twisted. I would have no problem handing the MI standards to an independent commission, since that is essentially how Apol did his work. I just think that independent commissions can benefit from precise standards that are set before they begin mapping.

Yes, Torie wrapped Niagara around Buffalo and I wrapped it around Rochester. I looked at the former and found a very nice combination of counties with minimal deviation, but I wasn't wild about the connector along the eastern edge of Erie. Since I could wrap Rochester with whole counties and minimal deviation I went that way, but either path is a valid solution.

Niagara county didn't even give 50% to Obama. There are plenty of other upstate counties that have a strong Dem city in otherwise GOP turf. If Niagara should be split to link NF because of its interest, why not similar connections splitting counties throughout upstate?

I wasn't saying that it was the result of a bipartisan agreement. I said that it such relies on a bipartisan agreements to produce "fair" results, and even when such is the case, my point is I don't really trust say Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver in 2001 to produce a reasonably "fair" result. Certainly a commission would have strict standards, that is the only way such a commission would work. My point is, they are more likely to do a better job than a legislative body.

I merely mentioned the differences in your maps in passing. Both are essentially the same with regards to this issue.

I am not really concerned with what gave Obama 50% versus 70% or whatever here. The issue regards a CA style remap and they don't consider such variables, unless I am mistaken.

The difference between Niagara and say Utica is this. Buffalo is considerably short of a district's population, as a city. Any such remap, as I am asking about, would start the district by including all of Buffalo, since there is no reason to split it other than political considerations of yore. Niagara Falls is right there, has many similarities and if avoiding county splits isn't that big of a concern when other more pressing issues occur, it stands to reason that putting it in with Buffalo would be a logical move should the local officials and community meetings reveal such a desire as being prevalent.

You have a point SNCY, and one can either focus on uniting inner metro areas or political jurisdictions, where they come into conflict, but I don't think Niagara Falls is in play as part of a Buffalo metro CD in any event. It's separated by an empty zone from the Buffalo metro area (empty Grand Island), and I don't the folks in Niagara Falls would want to be subsumed by a Buffalo CD in any event. If any town in Niagara County would be joined to a Buffalo metro CD, it would be North Towanada. I have depicted an all Erie County Buffalo metro CD, and one that pick up North Towanada in Niagara County as an alternative, to illustrate that in no event is the city of Niagara Falls in play really. They are closer in more densely populated places in Erie County nearer to Buffalo to pick up first.