City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[Torie]

The blog comment is here, with my comment appearing below. I think I have the legal analysis right (weighted voting power based on population will be upheld, and the current system based on voting turnout, would be bounced), but feel free to comment. Hudson is so unique in so many ways, and this is one of them. The ward district lines have been in place for close to 100 years, and have not changed much since the 19th century in fact. And everybody in town knows about the so called 5th ward issue (which has two precincts, one marginal, the other pretty heavily pub, so that one precinct (out of six), effectively has 46% of the voting power, as opposed to 16.6%, on the common council.

[Torie]

Fascinating analysis Jimtex. First, the prisoners are not counted I don't think for census purposes. They are assigned to where they lived before. That is NY State law, and a change from the past, when they were counted.

While you have a point about giving one man too much power in a legislative body, I really don't see a Constitutional issue with weighted voting based on population, absent some evidence of a discriminatory purpose, which would not obtain with Hudson. And only one ward, the second, the one I will be living in, which has within it the public housing high rise, Bliss Towers, would have close to a majority minority population (substantial Bengali population, along with blacks, a fair number of whom are West Indian). The third ward on the "right" side of town south of Warren Street is more of a limosine liberal ward (that is where my cousin lives), and oddly the first is close to that, given the differential vote turnouts, where the chic blocks have much higher voting turnouts. The 4th ward is the most heterodox, with a bit of everything. The prosperous lower middle and working class tends to live in the 5th ward, by far the most Pub, and where the "old Hudson" folks, who grew up there still control matters in Hudson, but perhaps for not much longer, holding the power and most of the very much sought after government jobs.

[Torie]

I sent an email to the blog host asking for the figures. The DRA as noted does not have the data (in 2008 there were only 3 precincts (local elections where the six precincts would be used are held in off years, the last being in Nov 2013). So we have the population which she published for the two wards at the extremes, but not the other three wards.

[Torie]

The blog host came through for me, and emailed to me the chart from the Hofstra report, in all its impenetrable glory (except for Jimtex and Muon2 of course!). The 3rd ward lost a bunch of folks between 2000-2010, due to the change in NY law, that bounced prison populations from being counted where the prisoners sit, rather than where they are from. The population numbers it turns out needed to be inferred (at least for the 2010 census), since the historically venerable ward lines, don't match the current census block lines.

[Torie]

I'm looking at the mapquest satellite image to tery to discern how one might guess at the split census blocks.

One block is west of front between ferry and dock. it appears to be dominted by apartments with 5 large buildings south of warren and 8 such buildings north of warren. ideally this should all be in one ward.

the other block is the large area generally bounded by 2nd st, strawberry aly, robinson st, 3rd st, state st, carroll st, and harry howard ave. the great majority of the houses would seem to be in ward 4, with a few homes on mill st being the exception.

if i were to place all the apts west of front in ward 1 and all the other split block in ward 4, then subtract the 363 prisoners from ward 3 i get the following populations:

ward 1: 824
ward 2: 1183
ward 3: 1498 - 363 = 1135
ward 4: 736
ward 5: 2472
total: 6713 - 363 = 6350.

if the total is divided into 5 even wards there would be a quota of 1270 and a permissible range of 1207 to 1333 per ward. none of the current wards complies with the equal population requirement even with the 5% variance for local districts. quite a bit of block shifting is needed to get compliant wards.

the hofstra suggestion of 6 wards would create a quota of 1058 and a permissible range of 1005 to 1111 per ward. none of the current wards meets this range either, so it doesnt provide a very useful alternative. it wwould require less block swapping to make compliant wards assuming the split of the 5th that was part of the suggestion.

The problem is that with but 5 districts, there would be six  votes on the common council, with the common council president elected at large being the sixth vote (his extra power is that he gets to appoint the chairman of common council committees), so that would entail the possibility of 3-3 deadlock votes.

[Torie]

I got the numbers below using this utility.
 

[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! 
 

[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.

[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."

[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.

[Torie]

I just came across this entry (from 2011), in the blog that started this thread.

Some History of the Weighted Vote

I haven't come across the specifics of how the weights are calculated in Hudson.  My assumption was that the President should have a voting strength based on 1/10 of the city's population, and each alderman 1/2 of the population of his ward.  This would give a total represented population of 1.1 times the actual population, with the president representing 0.1/1.1 or 1/11 of the total - the same as he would if there were equal population districts with no weighting.

In the 2000s plan, there was one instance where the two aldermen from a single ward had voting weights that differed by one.  Aldermen have different voting weights, depending on whether the vote is a simple majority; 2/3 supermajority; or 3/4 supermajority.  That the weight of a member varies slightly on the type of vote is likely to be viewed with incredulity.  That two members have different weights also would be treated skeptically.  In the 2000s, one alderman had one additional vote on a 2/3 vote (the alderman with the greater popular vote when elected, received the bonus vote).

There was an alternative to the current plan that would have applied a similar split, but would be used on simple majority votes.  There were some small adjustments to other voting weights.  These weights were said to produce results slightly more comparable to population. I think the votes opposed to the current plan were based on a preference for the alternative.

I then searched the blog for "weighted" and came across some interesting entries.

Forty Years of Weighted Votes

Note the pictures.  These demonstrate that a picture is worth a 1000 words

"where the "old Hudson" folks, who grew up there still control matters in Hudson, but perhaps for not much longer, holding the power and most of the very much sought after government jobs.

Or alternatively, that the Appalachians do extend through New York.

The State of the Weighted Vote

Eureka!

This entry has a link to Lee Papayanopoulos's study of voting weights.

He cites a number of court cases from around 1970 upholding weighted voting schemes in several New York counties.

I think that the blogger might not understand the term 'egality' which is the number of wards where the two alderman have the same weight.  An egality of 5, means the weights are identical for all 5 wards.

The Papanopoulos study has different ward populations than we have assumed:

Ward 1  770  v 828
Ward 2  1,281 v 1204
Ward 3  1,142 v 1142
Ward 4   725 v 744
Ward 5   2,485 v 2,485

He says: "Populations based on the decennial census, adjusted to exclude institutional inmates and to reconcile overlapping election districts."

These would require a change in the block splits:

Front Street block: Ward 1:2  131:234 v 73:292
Great Northern block: Ward 2:4  51:238 v 32:257

If we use Ward 2: 6 buildings x 8 units + 2 buildings x 12 units = 72 units; and Ward 1: 5 buildings x 8 units = 40.

365 x 72/(72 + 40) = 234.6

The block split was reversed.   Someone from Ward 2 should sue.

The flip seems to be the census numbers, not the numbers used for voting weights, if I follow your mathematics. Can you walk through this more carefully for me?

It does seem that the weighted voting system is legal, since the variations between population and voting power are far less than the 10% variance max that NY courts allow. I don't know where that 46% voting power number came from for the 5th ward that was bandied about.

[Torie]

The issue of weighted voting was discussed by the Legal Committee of the Common Council of Hudson. Yours truly had a cameo role. Jimtex's incredible spadework on this, is going to have the effect of changing the system, and consigning it to history I think. Kudos to him.

[Torie]

Tbe law, unfortunately, is far more complex than the above. The memo I will write, may be the most complex one I have ever written about the law. The courts have great difficultly understanding math, and are inconsistent in applying it (mostly when it comes to calculating deviations from effective population, decisive combination equality). The deeper I dig into the cases, the more I realize this. And one assumption is that if a Ward or Town has two alderman, or supervisors, vis a vis each other, they will vote randomly, and that is assumed in the the Monte Carlo voting power calculations. That is subject to attack. There is probably a path for a municipal weighted voting system to survive legal attack, but a very narrow one, with a lot of constraints to meet to get there. 

[Torie]

By independently check the populations for Ward 1, you mean just go over the census block numbers that you entered? Would you post those please? Carole Osterlink who lives in the most depopulated census block in the First Ward tells me a lot of triplexes (and more) on her block were converted into single family homes between 2000 and 2010. It was one of the most premier Hudson "hubs" of gentrification, and is now a very desirable hood. It seems also some residences were torn down to make a parking area across the tracks from the train station as well.

Where did you get the 292-73 split for the Front Street census block, and the 257-32 split for the Howard-Mill Street census block in your prior map, that you are now varying slightly?  Papayonopoulos seemed to have also had a different figure for the Mill-Howard Street as well. In any event, my analysis of the numbers is reflected below, based off of yours. If you see an error somewhere, please let me know.

Oh, and how does the City Charter map description vary from what the map shows, as to the ward boundaries, to which you allude above?

[Torie]

Carole Osterlink who lives in the most depopulated census block in the First Ward tells me a lot of triplexes (and more) on her block were converted into single family homes between 2000 and 2010. It was one of the most premier Hudson "hubs" of gentrification, and is now a very desirable hood. It seems also some residences were torn down to make a parking area across the tracks from the train station as well.

Do many NYC people have weekend houses in Hudson?  The train schedules are such that commuting to NYC would be possible, but grueling, especially when making allowance to make sure that you don't miss a train when the next train is an hour or two later.   There is a very early southbound train and a fairly late northbound train.

But someone might have an efficiency in NYC, where they sleep during the week and a house in Hudson mainly for weekends.   Commuting on Monday morning and Friday afternoon is plausible.  Since they live most of the time in Manhattan, that is likely where they were counted for the census, even though they might have considered their house in Hudson as a main residence.  This would make the house in Hudson, unoccupied for census purposes.   They might be able to use the house in Hudson for tax and voting purposes.

Yes, many do, particularly on that side of town. The trains run just about every hour, until about 11 pm. My cousin's partner is a literary agent in NYC, and stays 3 nights a week or so down there in a hotel, other than the summers, when she repairs to Maine. The house next door to them is a second home for a radiologist in NYC who is rarely there.

[Torie]

I added the block census numbers on your map sheet and found that they tied to the numbers for the 3rd Ward and 5th Ward, and as my spreadsheet shows, close for the 4th Ward (a different split was used for what you call the great northern block). So if there is an error, it must be in the blocks for the second and first wards. Are you worried that you copied and pasted the wrong census blocks or something? Is there a way that you could email to me the applicable portion of the spreadsheets that you downloaded for those two wards? swdunn1@gmail.com

[Torie]

Census Tract 12, Block Group 4

Jimtex, unless I am missing something, exclusive of the Front St block misallocation and perhaps what you call the Great Northern block allocation (not sure where you got the 32 number in that block that goes in Ward 2 (which is what I used in my chart), per you map earlier on in the thread), pursuant to the ward map being different than what the charter specifies, based on your chart in Reply # 107 above, the only population errors arising from that error appear to be that the 20 persons in block 4000, plus whatever number of persons lived in the houses depicted in the aerial below in block 1012 along Harry Howard Ave., need to be deducted from the 2,485 population of Ward 5 and added to Ward 4. Do you agree?



I am confused by your discussion about the Columbia Turnpike bit, since the map you drew seems to comport with what the charter specifies, so there is no population error involved given that the map is accurate. What am I missing there?

In other news, I am told that the  folks in block 1011 (the Crosswinds Apartments, population 59), vote in Ward 4 rather than Ward 5 for some reason, which would be yet another error. Fun stuff isn't it?

[Torie]

How exactly does the confusion about the boundary between 3 and 5 generate a population error?

Oh, is it the issue that I marked out below with respect to the Columbia Turnpike versus Columbia St. issue?



In other news, I got some press about all of this. Attached to my letter were a lot of maps. Imagine that?  

[Torie]

That is all fascinating and important, and will find its way to where it should go in due course, but as to my question?

Tonight, the legal committee of the Common Council decided to do a survey to determine the precise boundary between the 4th and 5th ward boundary vis a vis the extrapolation north of 5th St per the charter language. So there you go. You are making difference Jim, and real difference, with me as the messenger. I need to move on the 3rd-5th ward triangle thing, too, at this point, if based on fact. I think I figured out why it all happened, but that is just embroidery for this exercise.

[Torie]

Fantastic work Jim.  Thank  you so much. With your permission, I would like to attach as an exhibit to my next letter the pages of yours above starting with the old aerial of the Firemens’ Home. Is that OK? If so, should I use the screen name “Jimtex” or your real name when referencing your authorship?

That leaves us with just a few loose ends to tie up.





While the allocation of 19 persons to Ward 1 in the “Great Northern” census block used for the 2001 population calculations may have been reasonable for the 9 housing units located in the Mill Street area for the 2001 census count (the 44 figure that you derived from the ward census count in 2001 certainly would not be), it seems unlikely that the 19 figure would be a reasonable estimate for 2011, when there were 14 structures (with the 5 new ones having a fair number of children living in them (yes, they are some sort of subsidized housing).  The 32 figure which is on your map for the 2011 population count would seem more appropriate.  Where exactly did that figure come from again, along with the 292-73 split for the Front Street block (yes, I know you allocated yourself I think the 3 prisoners who were assigned to that census block)?



I accept your estimate of 55 for the "pseudo" block-Clinton Street-“east” of Howard Way, between that street and the pond area. I count 27 structures in that area, so it is a reasonable enough figure for now to use as an estimate.  That along with the transfer of the Columbia triangle to Ward 5 and the readjustment of the population allocations to the wards involved of the Front Street and Great Northern census blocks just about wraps up the population transfers (other than that I am going to use a population allocation of the Front Street block between wards 1 and 2 based on the relative apartment count, at least until such time as I know where the slightly different figures used in 2001 came from (if based on a bedroom count, than yes that would be superior, but if based on some actual headcount at the time, then it would not be) except for one thing.



While the Firemens’ Home was not bisected in 2001 by the 4th – 5th ward boundary, it is now. One structure was torn down, and two new ones built that are bisected it appears. So a survey will need to be done to those structures, and a population transfer made from the 4th ward to the 5th ward. I am told that its current population is 72, and was about the same in 2010, so an equal split of the 72 residents, would involve a transfer of 36 residents from the 4th ward to the 5th ward, both for population purposes and as voters.

 

Finally, the residents of the Crosswinds Apartments and the residents of two houses along Howard Way need to stop voting in the 4th ward as they are currently doing, and start voting in the 5th ward, along with their fellow Hudsonians living in the Columbia Triangle who are currently voting in the 3rd ward.  

So my population chart now looks as follows.  Let me know if you have any further comments. Thanks again Jim. I very much appreciate your efforts here. You have been utterly magnificent, and without you, much of this may have never been appropriately resolved. Now I am confident that it will be.

[Torie]

OK I will use the midpoint between 28 and 38, or 33 for the 2nd ward's share of the Great Northern block. Actually I will not, but reference that in the cover letter. It is too difficult to rescan everything. 32 is close enough. The building at the corner of Robinson and 3rd is a school building, now owed by two gay lawyers, from the city, who rent it out to artists, and the auditorium for artistic and sometimes political events. (It is kind of nice for Dan and I to walk half a block to partake of it all, and invite folks we meet there over to our pad.) It is not, and never has been, residential.

The Firemens' Home has to be split, to get folks voting in the right ward in the next election. The population exercise as to it (or anything else for that matter) I doubt will happen unless 1) a referendum almost certain to be on the ballot next year doing away with all of this fails, 2) the probably ensuing lawsuit does not toss out the system (e.g., because the court rejects the idea that alderman voting randomly vis a vis each other is unreasonable to assume), but the court does order the narrower remedy of getting the populations right, along with legal weighted voting methodology,  In the event all of that happens, then the population exercise I think will become relevant from a legal standpoint. I view it as highly unlikely that all of the above described condition precedents will be met.

Oh, by the way, is the 85 number for nursing home living that you attribute to the Firemens' Home a census number from 2010? I ask, because the current population is 72. If it is from the census, where is the place that I can document that?

All the Harry Howard addresses on the east side of the street up to a bit north of the two houses that I depicted, vote in the 4th Ward, even though they should not along part of it under either the ordinance ward boundary language or even the map. It turns out that there are but two houses outside the Crosswinds Apartments to which this applies.

[Torie]

Boundary lines can only be changed by referendum. The city is "trapped" for the moment vis a vis the next election with the ward lines specified by the charter.

I am going to use the lower figure for the Mill Street area of 28 since we really don't know the vacancy rate of the Mill St. houses. I know one is red tagged and another has been vacant for some time. Most of the old houses are just within the flood plain.

I think I will attach your post which gets to 70 rather than 55 for the split block between the 4th and 5th wards.  The actual numbers are not too critical, since it really does not make much sense to jigger the weighted vote numbers before the next election, at substantial expense. The odds that re-doing them will actually change how a council vote comes out are extremely low, given the current political climate.

The city attorney has been charged with writing a legal opinion on the legality of the weighted vote, and I will be, and other legal players are in the wings. It is all happening now rather rapidly. You see how much trouble you've caused Jim? 

[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.

[Torie]

As to who knew what when, that is something I am trying to avoid exploring. I think I have an idea based on various chats.   What is important is fixing it all. Look to the future, not trawling the past. That serves no useful purpose, and in the end, none of it was done really with some evil political agenda in mind (I suspect the bisecting of the new location of the Firemens' home in particular freaked some folks out that were involved). This issue will most probably be going to referendum (I already drew what I think is a sensible map), and if that fails, litigation. There is no going back. The genie is out of the bottle, in substantial part to yes, you Jim, you trouble maker you.  

Oh, yes, Crosswinds does indeed have 70 apartments.