Legal description of Hudson's city boundaries

[muon2]

I'm not sure about NY law, but if the Census made an error, Hudson may have to use that error. I IL the population of a city is what the Census says it is. If a city finds that the count is in error then there is a process to appeal and correct the error. Once the correction is certified to the state, then the city can claim that new population.

[muon2]

I'm not sure about NY law, but if the Census made an error, Hudson may have to use that error. I IL the population of a city is what the Census says it is. If a city finds that the count is in error then there is a process to appeal and correct the error. Once the correction is certified to the state, then the city can claim that new population.

It violates equal protection to include persons living outside the corporate limits of Hudson when apportioning the Common Council.

Hudson already estimates the population of census blocks that are split by ward boundaries.
Census Tract 13, Block 4015 is split by a ward boundary.

Have we forgotten the 10% fudge factor? Sure, one needs a policy reason to diverge from perfect equality, but a good faith effort based on official government data, even if wrong, is good enough.

Shouldn't your map match your legal description?

Could you check the voter rolls for Greenport and find out if they have anyone on Paul Ave?

Now that you know that the census data is in error, can it be considered to be acting in good faith to use it?

Yes, if that is what what state law requires. There's a legal process to correct the error and it is probably not lawful to claim a different population until that process is completed.

[muon2]

A lot of jimrtex's suggestions look like sound corrections for the Census. As he pointed out, the trick is to get to the state's contact with the Census during the period when they are bringing changes for the next cycle. Most communities never do that and they accumulate many small errors over time.

[muon2]

It might also be nice to get the Census to rearrange the block groups, too. In particular it would better reflect the political geography to have jimrtex's 12.2 include the north half of the river front block and extend north along 2nd.

[muon2]

Many of the features you use are not depicted on the census block map, nor appear on google map aerials. So how can they be used?

I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you give me some examples?

See:
2010 Census - Census Block Maps

On right hand side under "Place" select New York, then H, then Hudson to get PDF of census map

Nothing connects from Mill Street to Harry Howard, and yet you drew lines between the two - twice.

I added the lines.

We start with the 2010 lines (2015 actually).

The first part of the Block Boundary Suggestion Project is to propose edits to the current lines.

The census bureau is primarily interested in areas that have been newly developed, or redeveloped, since that is where there will be new streets, or changed streets. The census bureau is mainly interested in associating street addresses with census blocks, so that they can get people placed in the right area.

Second is to eliminate errata. Features that no longer exist (or never existed) or are missing or badly placed.

The third part is to suggest which lines be used as block boundaries.

I am being slightly aggressive in the second part, knowing where I will want to suggest blocks be place.

Mill Street clearly exists to 3rd Street. To change a feature, the old version is deleted, and a new one is added. So what I am really doing is telling the census bureau that their current line for Mill Street is too short.

The bike trail up the Dugway does exist, and what is shown as Mill Street at the top end does not exist. So I am telling the census bureau to eliminate that part of Mill Street and add the bike trail.

Mill Street and the bike trail are visible. Someone who lives in Hudson could verify their existence.

2020 Census Program Phases

PL 94-171

We are implementing PL 94-171, which requires the Census Bureau to consult with bodies responsible for redistricting as to what areas to enumerate. It is reasonable to assume that New York state wants a single set of data to be used for congressional, legislative, and local redistricting, even though it is unlikely that Hudson will be divided by legislative or congressional districts.

I am concerned that if the feature is not on the census map, then you don't have a closed polygon, which is what the Census bureau requires. Maybe it would be willing to add new features, but to try to go there, one would need tp see the feature on some map. You are drawing lines where there might be features (that you inferred are there, or whatever or used some topo map), but they are invisible on aerial maps.

In the case of Mill St, I see a clear path on Google Earth that links the two stubs. The creek from Underhill pond is also visible in spots on GE, so that seems like it could be a legitimate feature, too.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[muon2]

When did the maps start showing the city line to include the notch? In other words who introduced what seems to be an error?

Also, it appears that Ten Broeck lane shifted at some point. Is that shift part of the problem?

[muon2]

By include the notch I meant that the building and land in the triangular notch became part of Hudson. From your description it would seem that notch was not in Hudson as of 1940. What is the earliest map that shows the notch area included in Hudson? That narrows the window to when the change took place, which I am referring to as a error since there seems to be no legal evidence of a change.