Legal description of Hudson's city boundaries

[jimrtex]

Here is a composite of the previous maps (right click to see at original size)

[jimrtex]

I realized that Torie might not understand what I have been doing.

2020 Census Program Phases

Under "Phase 1 - Block Boundary Suggestion Project"

there are links to two user guides:

BBSP Geographic Update Partnership Software Participant Guide [PDF] 9.7MB

BBSP Using Your Own Software Participant Guide [PDF] 2.6MB

The first is the BBSP Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) guide. GUPS is the special program that the Census Bureau has developed, and which Colleen told Torie about. GUPS is built on top of QGIS.

QGIS is a wonderful GIS program that everyone participating in this board should have. It is free, but those with the resources should make a contribution.

Welcome to the QGIS project!
Download QGIS

I saw that GUPS was built on top of QGIS, which I have, so I started looking at the second manual - Using Your Own Software.

In effect, I am play-acting that the Redistricting Liaison for New York State had contacted me to prepare the suggestions for that portion of Columbia County in the City of Hudson (or alternatively, that the Redistricting Liaison has farmed out the work to someone in Columbia County, who then requested my assistance), or maybe the Redistricting Liaison realized the best methodology would be to use crowd sourcing.

In any event, I am using QGIS to prepare the suggestions in the format that the Census Bureau wants.

The Redistricting Liaison would double check my suggestions and ship them off to the Census Bureau. Presumably both would limit themselves to technical checks, realizing that my content knowledge of Hudson is far greater than theirs.

QGIS permits use of Google Maps as a layer. In addition, the representation of features can be based on characteristics of the feature. So I can display features that I have added in green, features that I have deleted in red (with thinner lines), and features that are unchanged in blue.

Here "have added" means "am suggesting be added", and "have deleted" means "am suggesting be deleted".

QGIS permits generation of raster images (.png files) of the display area which is what I have been displaying in the forum. I am using these to consult with someone who lives in Hudson.

Because of the Google Maps layers, I can digitize the location of the new features by clicking on the Google Map. It is then saved as latitude-longitude pairs.

[jimrtex]

Hudson 2020 Hydrographic Features and Shoreline



The MTFCC for linear hydrographic features such as streams is 'Hnnnn'
The MTFCC for perennial shorelines is 'P0002'

In Hudson, P0002 is used for the shoreline of the Hudson River, including open water estuaries in North Bay, Underhill Pond, Oakdale Pond, a remnant of South Bay west of 3rd Street, and three no longer existing reservoirs on Reservoir Hill (they have been replaced by closed storage).

H3010 (stream) is used for the stream eastward from South Bay to Underhill Pond and Oakdale Pond, and beyond, the centerline for a portion of the open water in North Bay immediately east of the railroad tracks, and a stream in South Bay just inside the city limits.

Water features to be deleted (red)

(A) Open reservoirs that have been replaced with closed storage on Reservoir Hill.
(B) Misplaced stream location southeast of Mill Street and 2nd Street to 3rd Street (this gives the impression that the source of the stream is street runoff from 3rd Street).

Water features to be added, and used as census block boundaries (spring green)

(A) Stream from 2nd and Mill Street to Underhill Pond - provides northern boundary for census block for houses on (a) east side of 3rd Street, north of State Street; (b) north side of State Street, between 3rd Street and 4th Street; (c) north side of Carroll Street; (d) west side of Short Street, between Carrol Street and Washington Street; and (e) west side of Harry Howard Avenue between Washington Street and Underhill Pond. Currently, these residents are conflated in a census "block" that includes the Firemen's Home and extends to the northern city limits past the High School.

(B) Stream between Underhill Pond and Oakdale Pond, in conjuction with Underhill Pond - provides separation between (I) (a) houses on south side of Harry Howard Avenue, north of Underhill Pond, and (b) Crosswind Apartment buildings outside the loop of streets off Harry Howard Avenue (Edmonds Lane, Hoysradt Lane, and Rogers Lane); and (II) (a) houses on north side of Clinton from Harry Howard Avenue to 6th Street; and (b) west side of 6th Street, between Clinton Street and Oakdale Pond.

(C) Stream between Underhill Pond and Paddock Place - provides separation (I) (a) houses on south side of Harry Howard Avenue, north of Underhill Pond, and (b) Crosswind Apartment buildings outside the loop of streets off Harry Howard Avenue (Edmonds Lane, Hoysradt Lane, and Rogers Lane); and (II) (a) houses on north side of Glenwood Boulevard west of Parkwood Boulevard; (b) houses on west and north side of Parkwood Boulevard between Glenwood Boulevard and Oakwood Boulevard; (c) houses on west side of Oakwood Boulevard between Parkwood Boulevard and Paddock Place; and (d) houses on west side of Paddock Place north of Oakwood Boulevard

(D) Oakdale Pond to Railroad Tracks near west end of Spring String, in conjunction with Oakdale Pond - provides separation between (I) houses on (a) east side of 7th Street north of State Street; and (b) on Railroad Avenue; and (II) houses on (a) south side of Glenwood Boulevard between 6th Street and Fairview Avenue; and (b) Spring Street west of Fairview Avenue.

Water features to be upgraded, and used as census block boundaries (blue green)

These are used in conjunction with the the streams to form east-west boundaries. They are currently delineated by the census, but not used as block boundaries. They could either (a) form unpopulated water blocks; (b) combined with land area on one of the ponds; or (c) have statistical lines connecting the stream outlets and inlets to the pond.

(A) Underhill Pond
(B) Oakdale Pond

No suggestions for any of the following are being made. This is simply to indicate that the following have been reviewed, and that there is no disagreement with the census plans.

Water features to be continue to be used as census block boundaries (green)

These are currently used as census block boundaries and planned to continue to be so for 2020. No changes are being suggested.

(A) Shoreline of Hudson River, including open area in North Bay.
(B) Stream from North Bay to 2nd Street and Mill Street. This does not have particular fidelity with the actual channel (it looks like a westward extension of Mill Street), but this has no census impact.

Water features to be continue to not be used as census block boundaries (peacock green)

These are currently delineated, but not used as census block boundaries. They are visual features only.
No changes are being suggested.

(A) Stream in South Bay near southern city limits.
(B) Centerline of open water in North Bay immediately east of railroad tracks.

Water features to be deprecated to not be used as census block boundaries (orange)

These were suggested as block boundaries for 2010, but the census plans to not use them for 2020. They will continue to be visual features. No changes are being suggested.

(A) Island in North Bay estuary. Was a block boundary in 2010, so will be eliminated as a block for 2020.
(B) Remnant of South Bay east of 3rd Street. This was suggested as a block boundary in 2010, but was not used as such, and will not be a block boundary in 2020.

[jimrtex]

Conceptual separation of Hudson residential areas.



Current Census 2020 plans for Hudson are to use streets, along with the railroad, for census tabulation blocks. The brown lines show their current planning:

(I) City limits; Harry Howard Avenue, Short Street; Carroll Street; State Street; 3rd Street; Robinson Street; Strawberry Alley; and 2nd Street (along road towards former brickworks) to city limits.

(2) Inner buildings at Crosswind Apartments (bounded by Edmonds Lane; Hoysradt Lane; Rogers Lane; and Harry Howard Avenue.

(3) Washington Street (at Harry Howard Avenue), 5th Street, Clinton Street, 6th Street, Glenwood Boulevard, Parkwood Boulevard, Oakwood Boulevard, Paddock Place, Harry Howard Avenue, around the loop at Crosswind Apartments (excluding (2) above), and Harry Howard Avenue back to Washington Street.

(4) Washington Street (at 6th Street), 7th Street, State Street, RR Tracks, Fairview Avenue, Glenwood Boulevard and 6th Street back to Washington Street.

I would use the stream(s) from North Bay to Underhill and Oakdale ponds; extensions of 3rd Street to Mill Street, and Clinton Street to Harry Howard; and the bike route up the Dugway between Mill Street and Harry Howard Avenue to divide into areas that better fit a more common sense notion of "block".

The gridded-street portion of Hudson is built on a plateau. The streams provide a visible marker for the blocks on the northern edge of the plateau.

Clinton Street west from 5th Street, plus an extension to Harry Howard Avenue provide definition for a nearly square block that is bounded on the other three sides by Harry Howard, Washington Street, and 5th Street. This was a census block in 1990. The portion of Clinton Street west of 5th Street and the extension is currently in the census data base. The right of way for Clinton Street exists, so in a sense this is a street that is not paved. Because of this right of way, there is no risk of houses being sliced by the extension.

3rd Street north from Robinson Street, along with the extension to Mill Street provides a clearly visible path. This is also within the right of way for 3rd Street. The parcel at the southwest corner of Mill Street and 3rd Street is referred to at that intersection, even though 3rd Street is not paved. 3rd Street has been a ward boundary since 1815, when Hudson was initially divided into two wards.

If adopted, this will provide for separate enumeration of:

(A) Houses on east side of 2nd Street north of Strawberry Alley to Mill Street.

(B) East side of 3rd Street north of State Street, north side of State Street between 3rd Street and Carroll Street; north side of Carroll Street; and west side Short Street and Harry Howard Avenue between Carroll Street and Underhill Pond. The portion of Washington Street west of Harry Howard Avenue is included.

(C) North side of Clinton Street; and west side of 6th Street north of Clinton Street.

(D) East side of 7th Street between Washington Street and State Street; and Railroad Avenue.

(E) North side of Mill Street west of 2nd Street, both sides of Lucille Drive west of Harry Howard Avenue; and Firemen's Home.

(F) Houses on west side of Harry Howard Avenue between Underhill Pond and Lucille Drive.

(G) Houses on south side of Harry Howard Avenue north of Underhill Pond; and outer buildings at Crosswind Apartments.

(H) North side of Glenwood Boulevard west of Parkwood Boulevard; west and north side of Parkwood Boulevard between Glenwood Boulevard and Oakwood Boulevard; west side of Oakwood Boulevard between Parkwood Boulevard and Paddock Place; and west side of Paddock Place.

(I) South side of Glenwood Boulevard and both sides of Spring Street.

(J) Block bounded by Harry Howard Avenue, Washington Street, 6th Street, Clinton Street, and Clinton  Street extension.

(K) Inner buildings at Crosswind Apartments.

[Kevinstat]

Would the building on the northern corner (or perhaps "northwest corner in Hudson-speak) of 3rd Street and Robinson Street (southeast of where Strawberry Alley curves to hit Robinson Street) be in your (A)?  Or is it already in its own (planned by the Census Bureau) census block, separated from the bureau's planned (I) by the entrance from the end of 3rd Street to the cleared area on the north(-northeast) side of Strawberry Alley?  Your description of the Census Bureau's planned (I) made it seem like it would include that building.  It looks like it might be a residence (Google Maps lacks street views for a surprising amount of Hudson).  My guess is that building on the north side of Strawberry Alley is just a storage shack, with no residents.  If so, than the building on the corner of 3rd and Robinson is separate enough from your (A) that using that northern entrance as a block boundary if possible might be worthwhile.

[jimrtex]

Would the building on the northern corner (or perhaps "northwest corner in Hudson-speak) of 3rd Street and Robinson Street (southeast of where Strawberry Alley curves to hit Robinson Street) be in your (A)?  Or is it already in its own (planned by the Census Bureau) census block, separated from the bureau's planned (I) by the entrance from the end of 3rd Street to the cleared area on the north(-northeast) side of Strawberry Alley?  Your description of the Census Bureau's planned (I) made it seem like it would include that building.  It looks like it might be a residence (Google Maps lacks street views for a surprising amount of Hudson).  My guess is that building on the north side of Strawberry Alley is just a storage shack, with no residents.  If so, than the building on the corner of 3rd and Robinson is separate enough from your (A) that using that northern entrance as a block boundary if possible might be worthwhile.

You may want to try Bing Maps for some better views of Hudson.

This is the property map (based on Google Maps)



The building is the former Charles Williams School. According to a local informant it has been converted into studios and the like, rather than residential. It is on the tax rolls as office space.

You can see that the area on the north side of Strawberry Lane is part of the school property, possibly a parking lot. Rick Scalera, mayor and alderman for many terms, and now a county supervisor from Hudson, recalls when he was in first grade at the school that they would go down the hill to the playground. The playground is the parcel to the north, and is listed in the tax records as being at 3rd Street and Mill Street. Charles Williams Park is north across Mill Street. I don't think there is an explicit connection other than proximity.

The shed is owned by the City of Hudson, and listed as storage. The parcels further west are owned by Columbia County and listed as parking.

I think there is a power line down 3rd Street, that keeps some of the trees trimmed. The Dugway bike trail begins at the corner of 3rd Street and Mill Street. A "dugway" is a road built on a slope, where the dirt on the top of the hill is shifted to the bottom to lessen the grade. It can also refer to a road perpendicular to a slope where the shifted dirt helps widen the more level area.

The Dugway road may predate the British, but if not, it might have been there when the farmers were Dutch, and the area was known as Claverack Landing.

Third Street, the Dugway, and then out what is now known as Harry Howard Avenue was part of Hudson's original ward boundary in 1815.

Anyhow, it appears that the dirt at the north side of the school is just a shortcut to the parking lot. The connection of Strawberry Alley to Robinson Street is kind of unusual, and may have something to do with the school. Perhaps prior to the school being built Strawberry Alley went through to 3rd Street. In fact it did as shown on this map from 1873.



If the school board acquired the Bradley and O'Shay properties, they may have been required to maintain through access on Strawberry Lane. The cut to Robinson was present in the 1930s. It is actually a quirk, that the houses on the north side of Robinson are a separate census block.

There appear to have been past efforts to carve out census blocks in the area. For example, earlier maps show a cut from Rope Alley to State Street at about 4th Street, which would make a block of houses on the north side of State Street, and there are some other lines that only make sense if someone was trying to bring things back into the city.

[Kevinstat]

It is actually a quirk, that the houses on the north side of Robinson are a separate census block.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here.  The alleys in Hudson (and of course the streets) seem to usually be census block boundaries, as they are in this case.

There appear to have been past efforts to carve out census blocks in the area. For example, earlier maps show a cut from Rope Alley to State Street at about 4th Street, which would make a block of houses on the north side of State Street, and there are some other lines that only make sense if someone was trying to bring things back into the city.

I don't see such a block boundary looking at the 1990 (the Columbia county block map covering the less built-up areas of all but the southernmost part of Hudson; if you're interested, you could see the county block maps covering "inner city" (inset) and southernmost Hudson), 2000 and 2010 census block maps for Hudson.  You might be looking at earlier maps not available online, however.

[Kevinstat]

Looking at the 1990 census block map covering southernmost Hudson (where the boundary between Hudson and Greenport follows Ten Broeck Lane) and comparing that to the 2000 and 2010 census block maps, I can see that the Census Bureau has been willing to adjust its census tract boundaries in the past, and changing block group boundaries (I know both the census tract and block group boundaries have been mentioned on this thread, like in the map you made with your A, B and C that you colored by block group).  Adjusting the census tract boundary to follow the (at least rough) extension of Warren Street to the railroad tracks (or the city/county line in the Hudson River) as some might wish might be a different story, however.

[jimrtex]

It is actually a quirk, that the houses on the north side of Robinson are a separate census block.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here.  The alleys in Hudson (and of course the streets) seem to usually be census block boundaries, as they are in this case.

There appear to have been past efforts to carve out census blocks in the area. For example, earlier maps show a cut from Rope Alley to State Street at about 4th Street, which would make a block of houses on the north side of State Street, and there are some other lines that only make sense if someone was trying to bring things back into the city.

I don't see such a block boundary looking at the 1990 (the Columbia county block map covering the less built-up areas of all but the southernmost part of Hudson; if you're interested, you could see the county block maps covering "inner city" (inset) and southernmost Hudson), 2000 and 2010 census block maps for Hudson.  You might be looking at earlier maps not available online, however.

The quirk is that Strawberry Lane connects to a parallel street. That appears to be because they built the school on two parcels of land across the old path. Elsewhere in Hudson, the alleys just dead-end (see Rope Alley from 3rd east, north of State Street). You just get a long black line, and no census block closure.

You have to look at the TIGER shapefiles. There are lines that don't show up in the reference maps. For example, there used to be a connection between the tip of Rope Alley and State Street. It wasn't used in previous censuses, and disappeared between 2010 and 2015.

In 2009, the Census Bureau did a lot of work conforming the locations in their TIGER/MAF data to reality. Paper maps may or may not conform to reality on the ground. And they may have used different projections. When the Census Bureau digitized the maps they might not have had the right match of projections. In addition they might have imperfect knowledge of street addresses.

Some of the location information can be corrected using satellite images. I'm not sure whether they can automate the relocation of streets or not. Perhaps it is computer assisted. A computer could detect a linear feature in a satellite image and perhaps compare it to a line in the TIGER/MAF dataset., and see that they are parallel. At that point, it could ask a human operator whether or not to move the line in their dataset.

Or it might work in reverse, where the TIGER/MAF dataset is overlaid over a satellite image and an operator clicks to move the lines. In Hudson, where the 2010 digital lines were used as block boundaries for blocks with actual population, they match up very well. Where a street is not really relevant for census purposes, they could be wildly off. They just didn't bother.

In 2009, they also had people walk the blocks with hand-held GPS units. Some of that is too locate street addresses, and also check for missing housing units, and also check for possible residential units in commercial areas. They had mailing lists from commercial sources, etc. So anyhow if you were standing in front of 220 Maple Street and pointed a GPS device, your location can be determined, and 220 Maple Street can be tied to the correct census block. The public census data has address ranges, but there are confidentiality concerns, and so they may not release exceptional addresses. From the public data, you might be able to see that 200-298 Maple Street is along one side of a block, but you won't be able to determine whether there is a 224 Maple Street is there, or even 220 Maple Street.

Apparently this effort was quite expensive. It is cheaper than having an enumerator knock on doors, for sure, but still expensive, when you have to have someone stand outside each door. For 2020, they are trying to figure out how to do this on a scaled-down basis. For example they may be able to compare satellite images and detect where buildings have changed.

Ultimately, the census bureau wants to be sure that the data from the census form that was returned from 220 Maple Street is accumulated in the right census block, and that census block is attributed to correct city, etc.

Have you downloaded a copy of QGIS?

[jimrtex]

Looking at the 1990 census block map covering southernmost Hudson (where the boundary between Hudson and Greenport follows Ten Broeck Lane) and comparing that to the 2000 and 2010 census block maps, I can see that the Census Bureau has been willing to adjust its census tract boundaries in the past, and changing block group boundaries (I know both the census tract and block group boundaries have been mentioned on this thread, like in the map you made with your A, B and C that you colored by block group).  Adjusting the census tract boundary to follow the (at least rough) extension of Warren Street to the railroad tracks (or the city/county line in the Hudson River) as some might wish might be a different story, however.

I think they consider that a location correction. In Columbia County, the census tracts correspond to the town boundaries, except that Hudson and Kinderhook have two tracts each.

The description of the city limits cites Ten Broeck Lane as being an "old road" in the 1820s. Either Ten Broeck has shifted over time - quite possible. Or they messed up in locating the road - also possible. If the road was misplaced, then the city limits were also misplaced.

In the shapefiles, the location of Ten Broeck Lane is a series of lat/long (-73.776810, 42.240449), (-73.776643, 42.240537), ... relative to a particular datum.

The census bureau also likes boundaries of legal entities to match visible features, since both are used as block boundaries. If you have a couple of block boundaries 20 feet apart, you have a tiny block in between. In 1990, the first census the entire country was divided into census blocks, there were two types of blocks. There were blocks that corresponded to visible features, and then census tabulation blocks, that were sub blocks that corresponded to different legal entities.

From 2000 the two concepts were merged, with things like city limits becoming block boundaries.

The census bureau prefers that city limits follow streets to avoid sliver blocks. They are treating cities as statistical entities. They just want to make sure they have the correct population for the city, which depends on their being able to convert street addresses to census blocks to cites.

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

Block groups are somewhat ambiguous. They were originally called Block Numbering Groups and were intended to help organize the numbering of blocks. A lot of blocks were renumbered between 2000 and 2010, and Block Groups may have changed.  But they are reported as part of the ACS, and the sample is large enough to get statistically significant values over 5-years.

Augusta has 5 census tracts, three west of the river, divided by Western Avenue and Bond Brook; and two east of the river divided by Cony Street and South Belfast Avenue.

August has 17 block groups, and a census tract will typically have a couple in the built-up areas, and one or two in the outlying area.

Census tract numbers are six digits, with two implied decimal places. Conventionally, leading zeros are supressed on maps, as are the trailing two digits.

Thus Kennebec County Census Tract 010100, in southwest Augusta is displayed as "100".

Kennebec County Census Tract 010801, which is Manchester, is displayed as "108.01". The fraction indicates that this is a modified version of "108". Tract 108.02 is Farmingdale and West Gardiner. So at some time, all three towns were in tract 108. They keep the 108, to identify that they shared a common predecessor. If Farmingdale and West Gardiner were split, then 108.02 would be retired, and the new tracts would likely be 108.03 and 108.04.

Incidentally, the split of 108 was asymmetric, since Manchester is the smallest of the three. But it probably makes the most sense from a compactness sense, and direction from Augusta, with Manchester to the west, and the other two to the south.

There have been two other splits in Kennebect County. Waterville has gone from two to three tracts: 241.01, 241.02, and 242; and Winslow has been split 230.01 and 230.02.

Is the northern part of the county around Waterville more dynamic?

[Kevinstat]

Have you downloaded a copy of QGIS?

Not yet.  I probably will tonight or some evening this coming week.  I've been using the free PC version of ArcGIS.  A lot of the shapefiles the census bureau provides may not be that useful for me, like school districts.  After Maine's penalized if you don't do it consolidation under Baldacci, some districts were formed with old districts far enough away from each other that they wouldn't lose their high schools.  I could get more accurate information about school ties between towns from information other than the Census Bureau.

The replies I've received so far from Maine's Redistricting Data Program liaison (Amanda Rector, also the State Economist), have been fairly pro forma.  Maybe that's not the right word, but you know, nothing like "I've looked into your suggestions about the block covering Boothby Street and...".  If I were to see a current Tiger line (not currently planned as a block boundary) that matched a division I wanted I'd definitely mention that, but overall I feel rather insignificant to the process right now.

Does the presence of an old Tiger line (like if you wanted that area between Rope Alley and State Street (north)west of roughly 4th Street to be in a separate block from the rest of it's visual block) make things any easier as far as adding new lines?  If not, then I'll probably just use the 2016 shapefiles (or really fall 2015 (V2), but in one page the Census Bureau calls it 2016).

Augusta has 5 census tracts, three west of the river, divided by Western Avenue and Bond Brook; and two east of the river divided by Cony Street and South Belfast Avenue.

Augusta has 17 block groups, and a census tract will typically have a couple in the built-up areas, and one or two in the outlying area.

Have you noticed the odd jog in the block group boundary in the southeast of the west side of Augusta between Sewell and State Streets along South Street?  I think at one point Sewell Street may have ended on South Street, which extended a bit further to the west, rather than continue into Hallowell.  I saw a map in an online news article about some "warmed cold case" homicide from (the homicide) 1979 IIRC (around 1980 at least).

Kennebec County Census Tract 010801, which is Manchester, is displayed as "108.01". The fraction indicates that this is a modified version of "108". Tract 108.02 is Farmingdale and West Gardiner. So at some time, all three towns were in tract 108. They keep the 108, to identify that they shared a common predecessor. If Farmingdale and West Gardiner were split, then 108.02 would be retired, and the new tracts would likely be 108.03 and 108.04.

Incidentally, the split of 108 was asymmetric, since Manchester is the smallest of the three. But it probably makes the most sense from a compactness sense, and direction from Augusta, with Manchester to the west, and the other two to the south.

The split of Tract 108 happened between the 1990 and 2000 censuses.  Maybe the other two in Kennebec as well, but I don't have time to check right now.

There have been two other splits in Kennebect County. Waterville has gone from two to three tracts: 241.01, 241.02, and 242; and Winslow has been split 230.01 and 230.02.

Is the northern part of the county around Waterville more dynamic?

Hmmm.  Waterville had 2+ State House districts after the 1990 census, but now has 2-, although census estimates projected out to 2020 (using absolute Arp. '10 to Jul. '15 gains multiplied by 10/4.25) has the city gaining relative to the state now and passing the 1.90/151 mark that would allow it to have two whole districts (when you have 151 districts to draw, +/- 5% is a good rule of thumb as you don't know what other districts' populations will be when you start drawing them.  Winslow had 1+ districts in the 1980s apportionment, then 1, then needed a bit of Benton, and now more of Benton (the two-phase gains in Benton have also been the only changes (losses in this case) of the China-Albion-Unity Township-(majority of) Benton district.

[Kevinstat]

You may want to download QGIS:

QGIS download

In the "Latest release (eg. for New Users)" section alone there are four options, 32 bit or 64 bit and for each of those a .exe and a .exe.md5sum .  What should I download?  I have an HP Split 13x2 Detachable PC with Windows 10 (it came with Windows 8.1 but I took advantage of the free upgrade, although in some ways I liked the 8.1 better).

I copied our discussion regarding Maine to my Augusta (mostly), ME census block/ward/house district boundary issues thread, btw.

[Kevinstat]

Looking at the 1990 census block map covering southernmost Hudson (where the boundary between Hudson and Greenport follows Ten Broeck Lane) and comparing that to the 2000 and 2010 census block maps, I can see that the Census Bureau has been willing to adjust its census tract boundaries in the past, and changing block group boundaries (I know both the census tract and block group boundaries have been mentioned on this thread, like in the map you made with your A, B and C that you colored by block group).  Adjusting the census tract boundary to follow the (at least rough) extension of Warren Street to the railroad tracks (or the city/county line in the Hudson River) as some might wish might be a different story, however.

I think they consider that a location correction. ...

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

So I take it my idea of the extension of Warren Street to the Hudson River (what Torie is proposing for a ward boundary in the other Hudson thread) as a census tract boundary (as opposed to a set of block boundaries) would be a no go.  Correct?

Do your A and B in the map below have any residences in them?  If not, then your idea of them moving between blocks (rather than having to create new ones) might be acceptable to the Census Bureau.  If either of them do, then you might have to go with your alternative of making that area its own census block in CT 13, BG 1.

Color codes are by block group.

Green is CT 12, BG 1;
Purple is CT 12, BG 2;
Pink is CT 13, BG 1;

My proposal is to eliminate Front Street north of Dock Street (non-existent); extend the delineation of Dock Street to the west to reach the RR tracks; and eliminate all of the imaginary lines except from the RR bridge over the estuary to the middle of the Hudson.

Area A would be added to 12-2000 (north of Dock Street to stream), between 2nd Street and RR tracks.
Areas B and C would be added to 12-2004 (North Bay estuary). Area C is moved to use west track of RR as the block line.

If the Census Bureau insists in maintaining the census tract boundaries, then the imaginary lines from Front Street north and west to across estuary would have to be maintained.

Area A would be a new census block in CT 13, BG 1.
Area B would be a new census block in CT 13, BG 1.
Area C would be moved from 12-1007 to 12-1004.

[muon2]

I think they consider that a location correction. ...

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

So I take it my idea of the extension of Warren Street to the Hudson River (what Torie is proposing for a ward boundary in the other Hudson thread) as a census tract boundary (as opposed to a set of block boundaries) would be a no go.  Correct?

Census tracts can be updated by local participants prior to the 2020 Census. I would think that a passed referendum to reform the wards would be a legitimate basis to realign the census tracts. If the Front street block is split, it would be reasonable to adjust the census tract boundary to shift the new northern block of the split to census tract 12 (from 2010).

[jimrtex]

Have you downloaded a copy of QGIS?

Not yet.  I probably will tonight or some evening this coming week.  I've been using the free PC version of ArcGIS.  A lot of the shapefiles the census bureau provides may not be that useful for me, like school districts.  After Maine's penalized if you don't do it consolidation under Baldacci, some districts were formed with old districts far enough away from each other that they wouldn't lose their high schools.  I could get more accurate information about school ties between towns from information other than the Census Bureau.

QGIS is very powerful. A lot of the shapefiles are for reference only. Blocks represent not only physical features, but legal entities as well, including legislative districts. It might not be possible to eliminate that boundary along "Waddington" - I have a longer note coming on that.

The census program for participants to prepare their suggestions (GUPS) is based on top of QGIS. Basically it is intended to make sure that you don't make mistakes that are hard to incorporate into Tiger or to review.

The replies I've received so far from Maine's Redistricting Data Program liaison (Amanda Rector, also the State Economist), have been fairly pro forma.  Maybe that's not the right word, but you know, nothing like "I've looked into your suggestions about the block covering Boothby Street and...".  If I were to see a current Tiger line (not currently planned as a block boundary) that matched a division I wanted I'd definitely mention that, but overall I feel rather insignificant to the process right now.

Have you read Public Law 94-171 (PDF)?

The first census delivery after the state populations used for apportionment is the PL 94-171 data sent to the states in spring of the '1' year so that they can redistrict prior to the '2' year elections.

What the law is doing is directing the census to conduct the census in a way that facilitates redistricting by the states, but doing so in a way that fits Census Bureau standards.

So a state might want to base districts on current voting precincts, so voters don't have to find a new polling place. But the census bureau might not like artificial boundaries that makes it hard to figure out who lives in which precinct (ward). So they insisted that VTD (Voting Tabulation Districts) be based on block boundaries. The census bureau uses the word "tabulation" to indicate that it was for tabulation purposes, and not necessarily the actual district. Beginning in 2010, the census bureau does permit use of artificial boundaries for VTD's, and now calls them "Voting Districts" or perhaps "VoTing Districts".

The census used to conduct censuses based on ward boundaries. They would hire people who were locally knowledgeable, who would set up enumeration districts, and assign them to an enumerator who would go door to door and conduct the census. In 1940, in Hudson they got a detailed street map from the Hudson Department of Public Works, and marked the ward boundaries, and delineated enumeration districts. This had been done since at least 1840.

VTD's were introduced for the 1980 Census (as a result of PL 94-171), but New York did not participate until 1990. So "someone" would have submitted the 7 election districts (precincts) to the Census Bureau, and the Census Bureau would have said they couldn't split census blocks, and somehow the current VTD boundaries were negotiated.

I'd guess that the someone was somebody in Albany who told the county boards of election to send him maps of election districts, and who was not at all concerned with whether this would cause problems with calculating voting weights. As a result, there are only 3 VTDs in  Hudson, none of which correspond to the actual ward boundaries.

The Columbia CBOE uses the VTD maps for their communication with the public as to where they are supposed to vote, but uses a different map for actually administering elections, and those don't actually follow the law.

Voting Clerk (at fire station): You need to go over to the Columbia County office building on the corner of 4th and State.
Voter: But the map on your web site says to vote here.
Voting Clerk: The map is wrong.
Voter: Why is it on your web site then?
Voting Clerk: If you have a problem with our maps, take it up with the Census Bureau.

So Amanda Rector, who probably uses census data all the time in her job as State Economist, likely does not have an official interest in the details of redistricting which won't happen for another 5 years. And it may be hard to delegate the process out. County governments in Maine aren't really general administrative bodies, and the KVCOG doesn't include all the towns and cities in the area.

Does the presence of an old Tiger line (like if you wanted that area between Rope Alley and State Street (north)west of roughly 4th Street to be in a separate block from the rest of it's visual block) make things any easier as far as adding new lines?  If not, then I'll probably just use the 2016 shapefiles (or really fall 2015 (V2), but in one page the Census Bureau calls it 2016).

I had been using the 2010 Hudson block boundaries, and was using them when I started my review of the block boundaries. Only later did I switch over to the 2015 V2 boundaries. I think I had been aware of the Rope Alley to State Street connector before, and had tried to figure out if it really existed.

In 2009, the Census Bureau may have reviewed the connection, found that it didn't exist, and downgraded it to a statistical line, and not used it for a block boundary. It was then eliminated for 2015. I was comparing the 2000 and 2010 block (reference) maps, and noticed that 2010 has a long extension of Washington Street almost to 3rd Street, while the 2000 map had a more realistic version.

The 2010 line goes through a school building and it otherwise physically impossible. It is possible somebody drew "Washington Street" in an attempt to cut across, and the census bureau had rejected the extension. Perhaps in 2000, someone had chopped it into the real part and the fictional part, and the census reference map shows the real part. In 2010, the census bureau might have said that it isn't a block boundary, so its precise location is not important for conduct of the census. And then a computer saw that there were two edges end-to-end that had the same name, and merged them.

Someone had also tried to draw Clinton Street west of Harry Howard. A large scale map of the sewage system shows it as "Clinton Street", but they may have borrowed it from the Census Bureau maps. But it appears that the Census Bureau recognized that it was bogus, and converted it to a statistical line.

I don't think any of this history would help going forward.  If the Census Bureau actually looked into it, they would probably conclude that I am one of those people from Hudson who have been trying to scam them for the past 30 years. I did use the existing extension from Clinton to Harry Howard which actually does match reality and was used as a block boundary in 1990.

I did download the all lines shapefile for Kennebec County for 2010. It can be overlaid with the 2015 line and may give you some insight into Census Bureau thinking. The 2015 V2 file has a copy of the 2010 block boundaries, and 2020 prospective boundaries.

[jimrtex]

You may want to download QGIS:

QGIS download

In the "Latest release (eg. for New Users)" section alone there are four options, 32 bit or 64 bit and for each of those a .exe and a .exe.md5sum .  What should I download?  I have an HP Split 13x2 Detachable PC with Windows 10 (it came with Windows 8.1 but I took advantage of the free upgrade, although in some ways I liked the 8.1 better).

I copied our discussion regarding Maine to my Augusta (mostly), ME census block/ward/house district boundary issues thread, btw.

I'd go with the 64-bit.  I think the md5 version has a checksum that can be used to check that you have an authentic version.

I'll copy my Maine related response over to the other thread.

[jimrtex]

Looking at the 1990 census block map covering southernmost Hudson (where the boundary between Hudson and Greenport follows Ten Broeck Lane) and comparing that to the 2000 and 2010 census block maps, I can see that the Census Bureau has been willing to adjust its census tract boundaries in the past, and changing block group boundaries (I know both the census tract and block group boundaries have been mentioned on this thread, like in the map you made with your A, B and C that you colored by block group).  Adjusting the census tract boundary to follow the (at least rough) extension of Warren Street to the railroad tracks (or the city/county line in the Hudson River) as some might wish might be a different story, however.

I think they consider that a location correction. ...

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

So I take it my idea of the extension of Warren Street to the Hudson River (what Torie is proposing for a ward boundary in the other Hudson thread) as a census tract boundary (as opposed to a set of block boundaries) would be a no go.  Correct?

Do your A and B in the map below have any residences in them?  If not, then your idea of them moving between blocks (rather than having to create new ones) might be acceptable to the Census Bureau.  If either of them do, then you might have to go with your alternative of making that area its own census block in CT 13, BG 1.

Color codes are by block group.

Green is CT 12, BG 1;
Purple is CT 12, BG 2;
Pink is CT 13, BG 1;

My proposal is to eliminate Front Street north of Dock Street (non-existent); extend the delineation of Dock Street to the west to reach the RR tracks; and eliminate all of the imaginary lines except from the RR bridge over the estuary to the middle of the Hudson.

Area A would be added to 12-2000 (north of Dock Street to stream), between 2nd Street and RR tracks.
Areas B and C would be added to 12-2004 (North Bay estuary). Area C is moved to use west track of RR as the block line.

If the Census Bureau insists in maintaining the census tract boundaries, then the imaginary lines from Front Street north and west to across estuary would have to be maintained.

Area A would be a new census block in CT 13, BG 1.
Area B would be a new census block in CT 13, BG 1.
Area C would be moved from 12-1007 to 12-1004.

The Hudson shoreline is to the right of 12-1007 and 13-1000, but has an excursion into the open water of North Bay (it is a continuous line). The line off to the northwest is a statistical line to reach the city/county line in the middle of the river.

The RR tracks (this is the mainline between NYC and Montreal) cross over the entrance to North Bay on a short trestle bridge. It is low enough, and the river tidal enough that, it is only passable at certain times of the month. Further north the RR bed is solid which has cut off the flow of water into the bay, so it is now a combination of marshes, some open water, and potential superfund sites on areas that have been filled in.

On the area that is marked A are some boathouses, which are subject to a lot of discussion in Hudson currently.  There is something labeled Front Street, but I think it is mostly fiction. But it was probably used to create the census tract boundary since it reached the water, and could then be continued out through the mouth of the North Bay estuary and into the Hudson.

Currently, the Hudson River is divided into two census blocks, because of the tract boundary, but the southern block has a tongue 'B' that comes into North Bay. The rest of North Bay is its own census block. This annoys me.

There is a big tangle of statistical lines in the area, and I was mostly trying to clean things up.

My real preference would be to switch 'B' to CT 12, and merge it with the rest of the North Bay estuary, and make the tract boundary use the southern shoreline of the estuary between 'A' and 'B', and then use the RR bridge to reach the line out into the center of the Hudson.

Here is an 1873 map of the area.



2015 Dock Street is in yellow, incorporating what then called New Road. Front Street now reaches Dock Street. Tract 'A' is where the 'N' in "North Bay' was in 1873. The blue line marks the current North Bay estuary. The blue line towards the east is now a stream which is used for a block boundary. It is really just the flow through the North Bay marshes. It is not really on solid ground until further east.

The area in lime is where the Hudson Terrace Apartments are now. The streets used to go through west of Front Street, but were eliminated as part of an urban renewal project in the 1970s.

[jimrtex]

I think they consider that a location correction. ...

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

So I take it my idea of the extension of Warren Street to the Hudson River (what Torie is proposing for a ward boundary in the other Hudson thread) as a census tract boundary (as opposed to a set of block boundaries) would be a no go.  Correct?

Census tracts can be updated by local participants prior to the 2020 Census. I would think that a passed referendum to reform the wards would be a legitimate basis to realign the census tracts. If the Front street block is split, it would be reasonable to adjust the census tract boundary to shift the new northern block of the split to census tract 12 (from 2010).

I don't see any purpose in aligning what are intended to be long-term statistical units with temporary election  boundaries.

[muon2]

I think they consider that a location correction. ...

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

So I take it my idea of the extension of Warren Street to the Hudson River (what Torie is proposing for a ward boundary in the other Hudson thread) as a census tract boundary (as opposed to a set of block boundaries) would be a no go.  Correct?

Census tracts can be updated by local participants prior to the 2020 Census. I would think that a passed referendum to reform the wards would be a legitimate basis to realign the census tracts. If the Front street block is split, it would be reasonable to adjust the census tract boundary to shift the new northern block of the split to census tract 12 (from 2010).

I don't see any purpose in aligning what are intended to be long-term statistical units with temporary election  boundaries.

The Census believes there are reasons to make updates. The tracts are not immutable, so they have a procedure for adjusting them. They want the statistical data to be meaningful to the local residents. In this case creating a block by splitting one and shifting the split part to a different tract seems to be the sort of update anticipated. It would definitely make the statistical data more meaningful to the local residents.

[jimrtex]

I think they consider that a location correction. ...

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

So I take it my idea of the extension of Warren Street to the Hudson River (what Torie is proposing for a ward boundary in the other Hudson thread) as a census tract boundary (as opposed to a set of block boundaries) would be a no go.  Correct?

Census tracts can be updated by local participants prior to the 2020 Census. I would think that a passed referendum to reform the wards would be a legitimate basis to realign the census tracts. If the Front street block is split, it would be reasonable to adjust the census tract boundary to shift the new northern block of the split to census tract 12 (from 2010).

I don't see any purpose in aligning what are intended to be long-term statistical units with temporary election  boundaries.

The Census believes there are reasons to make updates. The tracts are not immutable, so they have a procedure for adjusting them. They want the statistical data to be meaningful to the local residents. In this case creating a block by splitting one and shifting the split part to a different tract seems to be the sort of update anticipated. It would definitely make the statistical data more meaningful to the local residents.

Mixing data from one one part of a 1970s urban renewal project with the north side of Glenwood Boulevard; and the data from the other part of that 1970s urban renewal project with the south side of Glenwood Boulevard makes the statistical data meaningless.

From a statistical point of view an east-west split would make more sense. Or use the highway through Hudson (South 3rd Street, Columbia Street, Green Street, Fairview Avenue). Or make Hudson a single census tract of 6700 people.

Give me some past examples of census tract changes that you are familiar with.

[Kevinstat]

You may want to download QGIS:

QGIS download

In the "Latest release (eg. for New Users)" section alone there are four options, 32 bit or 64 bit and for each of those a .exe and a .exe.md5sum .  What should I download?  I have an HP Split 13x2 Detachable PC with Windows 10 (it came with Windows 8.1 but I took advantage of the free upgrade, although in some ways I liked the 8.1 better).
...

I'd go with the 64-bit.  I think the md5 version has a checksum that can be used to check that you have an authentic version.
...

I clicked to download the md5 "version" of the QGIS Standalone Installer Version 2.14 ("for new users") 64-bit, which download was almost instantaneous, but I didn't have a program that seemed designed to download the resulting MD5SUM File.  So I clicked to download the regular QGIS Standalone Installer Version 2.14 64-bit, and its taking a few minutes just to download the installer.  That may be normal, or my computer may have some issues.

[Kevinstat]

You may want to download QGIS:

QGIS download

In the "Latest release (eg. for New Users)" section alone there are four options, 32 bit or 64 bit and for each of those a .exe and a .exe.md5sum .  What should I download?  I have an HP Split 13x2 Detachable PC with Windows 10 (it came with Windows 8.1 but I took advantage of the free upgrade, although in some ways I liked the 8.1 better).
...

I'd go with the 64-bit.  I think the md5 version has a checksum that can be used to check that you have an authentic version.
...

I clicked to download the md5 "version" of the QGIS Standalone Installer Version 2.14 ("for new users") 64-bit, which download was almost instantaneous, but I didn't have a program that seemed designed to download the resulting MD5SUM File.  So I clicked to download the regular QGIS Standalone Installer Version 2.14 64-bit, and its taking a few minutes just to download the installer.  That may be normal, or my computer may have some issues.

The download of the installer finished, but I deleted it after I agreed to run it, got one security prompt, said to run anyway, and then got another.  Why is the publisher listed as unknown?

[jimrtex]

You may want to download QGIS:

QGIS download

In the "Latest release (eg. for New Users)" section alone there are four options, 32 bit or 64 bit and for each of those a .exe and a .exe.md5sum .  What should I download?  I have an HP Split 13x2 Detachable PC with Windows 10 (it came with Windows 8.1 but I took advantage of the free upgrade, although in some ways I liked the 8.1 better).
...

I'd go with the 64-bit.  I think the md5 version has a checksum that can be used to check that you have an authentic version.
...

I clicked to download the md5 "version" of the QGIS Standalone Installer Version 2.14 ("for new users") 64-bit, which download was almost instantaneous, but I didn't have a program that seemed designed to download the resulting MD5SUM File.  So I clicked to download the regular QGIS Standalone Installer Version 2.14 64-bit, and its taking a few minutes just to download the installer.  That may be normal, or my computer may have some issues.

The download of the installer finished, but I deleted it after I agreed to run it, got one security prompt, said to run anyway, and then got another.  Why is the publisher listed as unknown?

It is 350 MB. Rather than the installer downloading the software, the software is included in the exe.

[muon2]

I think they consider that a location correction. ...

Census tracts are intended to be used for statistical purposes. The first were delineated in New York City in 1910. Local groups could set the boundaries, and the census would enumerate the data based on those boundaries. So you  could get the same level of information for Tract 123 in Brooklyn, as you could for Manchester, Maine. Otherwise you would have the same level of detail for the entire borough of Brooklyn and Manchester, Maine.

Data for census tracts was previously derived from the long form, and now the ACS, and is based on a sample, and the intent is that they can be compared over time.

So I take it my idea of the extension of Warren Street to the Hudson River (what Torie is proposing for a ward boundary in the other Hudson thread) as a census tract boundary (as opposed to a set of block boundaries) would be a no go.  Correct?

Census tracts can be updated by local participants prior to the 2020 Census. I would think that a passed referendum to reform the wards would be a legitimate basis to realign the census tracts. If the Front street block is split, it would be reasonable to adjust the census tract boundary to shift the new northern block of the split to census tract 12 (from 2010).

I don't see any purpose in aligning what are intended to be long-term statistical units with temporary election  boundaries.

The Census believes there are reasons to make updates. The tracts are not immutable, so they have a procedure for adjusting them. They want the statistical data to be meaningful to the local residents. In this case creating a block by splitting one and shifting the split part to a different tract seems to be the sort of update anticipated. It would definitely make the statistical data more meaningful to the local residents.

Mixing data from one one part of a 1970s urban renewal project with the north side of Glenwood Boulevard; and the data from the other part of that 1970s urban renewal project with the south side of Glenwood Boulevard makes the statistical data meaningless.

From a statistical point of view an east-west split would make more sense. Or use the highway through Hudson (South 3rd Street, Columbia Street, Green Street, Fairview Avenue). Or make Hudson a single census tract of 6700 people.

Give me some past examples of census tract changes that you are familiar with.

The census tract is also the basis to award certain federal funds based on the statistics for the tract. In my area there were a great number of census tracts that were split between 2000 and 2010, even in old established neighborhoods with little or no growth. From a local standpoint those splits could aid the application for funds.

When the Census made tract splits they got rid of the old number and created new tract numbers. That made the 2010 tracts more useful locally and avoid any confusion with past data sets. For example in 2000 I lived in 8415.02. There was minimal new construction in the tract during the decade, but it was split into 8415.03 and 8415.04. The old number went out of service for 2010 and beyond.

If Hudson wanted a change, the Census could also assign new numbers to the revised tracts as they did in my area in the last decade.

[jimrtex]

The census tract is also the basis to award certain federal funds based on the statistics for the tract. In my area there were a great number of census tracts that were split between 2000 and 2010, even in old established neighborhoods with little or no growth. From a local standpoint those splits could aid the application for funds.

When the Census made tract splits they got rid of the old number and created new tract numbers. That made the 2010 tracts more useful locally and avoid any confusion with past data sets. For example in 2000 I lived in 8415.02. There was minimal new construction in the tract during the decade, but it was split into 8415.03 and 8415.04. The old number went out of service for 2010 and beyond.

If Hudson wanted a change, the Census could also assign new numbers to the revised tracts as they did in my area in the last decade.

That appears to have been an ordinary split. 8415.02 had 6918 persons in 2000. 8415.03 and 8415.04 had 3923 and 3294 in 2010 (at total of 7217, or 4.3% growth).

Census tracts have 1200 to 8000 residents with 4000 being the ideal. Had there not been a split the tract would have been 180% of the ideal. With the split, the smaller tract is 82% of the ideal and the other is 98% of the ideal.

The Census Bureau does not define census tracts for the purposes of garnering federal grants. Congress is free to ignore their advice. The Census Bureau will do custom ACS tabulations.

In any case, it makes no census to run a census tract boundary through a complex of rent-subsidized apartments. For statistical purposes, you would prefer less variation within census tracts, and more variation between census tracts.