Augusta (mostly), ME census block/ward/house district boundary issues

[Kevinstat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kevinstat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kevinstat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kevinstat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kevinstat]

I'd be curious as to what fellow Atlas redistricting nuts (particularly people like jimrtex who get into the nitty gritty of census blocks) think about all this.

After the first mammoth e-mail I reposted in this thread, it occurred to me that it might be more feasible to have a line separating the east side of North Street in Augusta from the Boothby Street neighborhood that just ends on Bridge Street rather than State Street.  Ideally the line would be east of homes on the north side of Bridge Street between North Street and State Street (hitting Bridge Street say just west of the largest parking lot on that street).  Another option (less good in my opinion and probably no more tenable) would be but the eastern edge of the park on the corner of Bridge and North Streets, which would keep those aforementioned homes in the same block as the Boothby Street neighborhood.  But I didn't think to mention that in my last e-mail to Amanda, and I'm not sure adding more suggestions or amending suggestions I've already made would be helpful to my cause.

[Kevinstat]

Copying some relevant discussion from the "Legal description of Hudson's city boundaries" thread:

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.

[jimrtex]

Copied from Hudson thread.

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.

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).

I had not. If you look at a satellite view without any annotation, there is a definite change in character at the city limits. I think that 2nd Street was extended northward from the core of Hollowell, perhaps as a country lane, perhaps initially paved without foundation or shoulders, and a few small dead-end residential streets off to the side. If you needed to go to Augusta, you could take Water Street and State Street.

Incidentally, I came across block counts for Augusta for 1970, which are organized by Census Tract but no map.

Some possible locations:

Census Depository Library

Mcarthur Public Library
270 Main St
Biddeford, ME 04005

Federal Depository Libraries in Maine

I'd try University of Maine in Orono.

State Data Center for Maine This might be more current data, or at least that is what they have online.

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.  Winslow had 1+ district 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.

I did some more checking.

Tracts 101 to 110 were introduced in 1970 in the Augusta-Gardiner area, and have not changed since, other than the split of Tract 108 for the 2000 census.

The remainder of the tracts were added for the 1980 census. The numbering pattern is interesting, incrementing by ten, starting with 120 in Litchfield and snaking north. But there are 145, 155, and 205, all quite small and with multiple towns, as if they were combined with other towns in an initial layout, and then it was modified.

Instead of 240, Waterville was assigned 241 and 242. Tract 241 was quite large (10826 persons) in 1980, and was split into 241.01 and 241.02 for the 1990 census. So it was growth, but they initially created a tract that was too large.

I think that the ideal population for Census Tracts has decreased because of decreased household sizes. Since the data is based on a sample of households, X% of households have less population than they did in decades past.

Winslow was a similar situation to Waterville, but was not split until 2000.

It is interesting that the most growth has occurred in smaller towns, with the largest increase in Monmouth, Litchfield, and Sidney (probably due to access to I-95). Is this suburban growth, or people buying old farmhouses, and then commuting?

[jimrtex]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Waddington does exist at least on paper (see August tax maps,  Map 25) - it is a long URL, but it is easy to find. And you will probably want to also find the search window the Augusta assessor.

The buildings on the north side of "Waddington" are both 8-plex condos. That is why they have 8 owner names listed on the tax maps, and such large parking lots. They have Murdock and Fairbanks street addresses. I suspect that the Census Bureau considers them to live on the side of those streets. There are also two single family residences, one with a Murdock address and one with a Baldwin address.

Go to the west end of Murdock, and see where the sidewalks end, and there is immediately, driveways to the houses on either side of Murdock. And then there is some lawn. If you live on the corner of Murdock and Waddington, and mow the grass growing on Waddington, your children may play in Waddington in their bare feet.

The driveway to the Murdock condo begins at Waddington and Murdock and deflects somewhat south as it narrows. The Census Bureau includes that deflection as part of its definition of Murdock, and the driveway to the house on the north side of "Murdock" comes off of it.

Baldwin the next street north is shown as its actual length, with the driveway to the Baldwin house angling off to the southwest.

The Census Bureau connects Baldwin and Fairbanks with "Waddington" as it it were connecting string to the ends of different length poles.

The next street north on the tax map is Mayhew, but it doesn't exist. In the satellite view you can see the field on the north side of "Mayhew", south of the apartments of Littlefield.

In 2010, "Mayhew" was a statistical line, but it was removed for 2015. So it may have been indicated in the past as a street, and then 2009 it was discovered that there was nothing there. So the census bureau made it a statistical line, and then since it wasn't used for 2010, deleted it (this is one reason to download the 2010 "all lines" shapefile, since you can overlay them on a map.



The next street north is Hancock and it is normal. The next is Littlefield. It appears to have been replatted, because it is one parcel, and it looks like townhomes. Notice the stubs on the west end on the tax map. So Littlefield is a bit shorter than the other streets, and "Waddington" deflects east.

Bartlett is the next street on the tax map, but it doesn't exist. The census removed a statistical line between 2010 and 2015 (and it was in the wrong place anyway. It should be about midway between King and Vaughan (on the east side of Sewell). Even though it didn't exist, it forced Waddington to deflect west (rebound from Littlefield).

Fairbanks is shown on census maps as matching the platted Waddington. This makes the Fairbanks condo appear as being way outside the block. A difference between the Murdock and Fairbanks condos is that the Fairbanks condo is at the end of Fairbanks, while the Murdock condo is a bit south of the Murdock alignment. You can imagine the driveway between the condo and the house as being part of Murdock. At Fairbanks you are into the parking lot. The two condos are identical in appearance (see photo on tax office site).

My guess is that the census bureau enumerated everything to be east of the Waddington line.

The next street north is Howland, but it does not exist, and the Census Bureau dropped it between 2010 and 2015. The line on the Waddington alignment between Fairbanks and Blaisdell is not a block boundary, and is a statistical line rather than a street.

There is an explicable jog in Sewell north of Fairbanks. On State, the census bureau has made a few alignment tweaks.

Now drop down to Osgood, which is the last street before entering Hollowell. It doesn't exist, but notice how it is shown on the tax map. The large building facing "Osgood" west of the house facing Sewall is a condo, which has unified several lots westward on Osgood. It has a Sewall address using a driveway on the alignment  of Osgood.

The block to the west of "Waddington" stretches to I-95 and Western Avenue.

I think that the Census Bureau will require holding "Waddington" where it is the legislative district boundary. Presumably Maine would want to know how many people live in each legislative district.

From a good government point of view, I'd want to keep the entire area south of the capitol, west of the River in a single city council district or house district (10,000 persons). Could this be used as a boundary:

Augusta’s Howard Hill quiet getaway in heart of city

See map in middle of article.

[Kevinstat]

It is interesting that the most growth has occurred in smaller towns, with the largest increase in Monmouth, Litchfield, and Sidney (probably due to access to I-95). Is this suburban growth, or people buying old farmhouses, and then commuting?

My first impulse was to say the former, but you know, the latter actually seems more compelling when I think about it.  If it was suburban growth one would think Manchester would be growing more than it is.

I enjoyed your musings in this same post about the different nature of Second Street (it is a less "easy" drive once you cross into Hallowell) and the census tract numbering pattern.  I'm not interested in library hunting for old census data at the present time but it was kind of you to mention some places I could look.

[jimrtex]

I downloaded a new version of QGIS.

I don't know why you got two security warnings, maybe you clicked on the installer twice. Mine said it was an unknown source also. I went ahead and did it.

You will be asked if you want to load three data sets. I would go ahead and load them. They are used with tutorials. One nice thing about QGIS is that there is an active user community. You can Google for almost anything: "QGIS how do I ..." and usually find something useful, including Youtube videos."
The North Carolina data set will take quite a while, and you can probably add it later, but it may easier to get it now. Spearfish and Alaska are much smaller.

The installer doesn't put shortcuts in, so go to the Start menu and under All Apps, under the Q's find QGIS find "QGIS Desktop 14.1", that is the one you want to use. Drag it to the desktop and also to the start menu.

Click on it. The first time may take a while after the splash screen comes up. In my case it was reconfiguring from my old version. Eventually, you will start getting hints, which you can cancel. You should have a big display area. Drag a shapefile (.shp) into it.

[Kevinstat]

Waddington does exist at least on paper (see August tax maps,  Map 25) - it is a long URL, but it is easy to find. And you will probably want to also find the search window the Augusta assessor.

Thanks.  Not sure what you mean by the search window though.  I was able to get to this page (long URL is right) which had all the tax maps but nothing about a search window.

Another very informative map.  You rock!

Fairbanks is shown on census maps as matching the platted Waddington. This makes the Fairbanks condo appear as being way outside the block. A difference between the Murdock and Fairbanks condos is that the Fairbanks condo is at the end of Fairbanks, while the Murdock condo is a bit south of the Murdock alignment. You can imagine the driveway between the condo and the house as being part of Murdock. At Fairbanks you are into the parking lot. The two condos are identical in appearance (see photo on tax office site).

True, but the building is on the south side of the parking lot, the southern edge of which is a continuation, albeit one curved to the north, of the southern edge of Fairbanks Street.  The building has an even address, like homes on the south side of Fairbanks Street, and my DNC Votebuilder has people who live in that building being in the trans-river House District 86 (my district, not that I represent it or anything) even though its on the other side of the district line if you go by the census block boundaries and the House District definitions that use those boundaries.  Homes on the north side of Fairbanks Street (odd addresses) are in House District 86 (the main west Augusta district), according to law and practice.  See the City of Augusta's list of ward and house districts by address.

I also just checked homes as the end of Murdock, Baldwin, Hancock and Littlefield streets (or the closest that showed registered voters) on my Votebuilder and they're all in House District 85 as well (including the single-residence at the end of Murdock Street that is west of the line and the Murdock condo which the line bypasses (I checked two even and two odd units)).  That all matches the city's street list.

My guess is that the census bureau enumerated everything to be east of the Waddington line.

One could argue that (perhaps not legally) as justification for why all those people (including those in the Fairbanks condo) are in a House district as if they were east of Waddington Street (unless they're north of Fairbanks Street).

[Kevinstat]

The block to the west of "Waddington" stretches to I-95 and Western Avenue.

I know.  Before the 2013 redistricting (the last regular redistricting that will be done in a year ending in "3", barring some unforeseen future change), that block was in the trans-river district (since the 1993 redistricting, Augusta has had a House district entirely west of the Kennebec River, a trans-river district and a remainder in the northeast that was in with at least Vassalboro; in the 80s (well, 1984 through 1992 elections) Augusta had an even three districts, one entirely on each side of the river and one crossing, and for the 10 years before that there was a partial forth district on the east side (or before the 1978 primary and general elections a partial second district with most of the city being in a 3-member House district)).  Commission members probably wanted to move the area behind the Maine State Credit Union into the main west Augusta district but didn't like the opposite sides of Sewell Street (which definite thru-way nowadays but one with a residential feel) being in different districts.  When they saw there were some blocks between dead-end streets to the east of Sewell that could be kept in the trans-river district, so that part of Sewell wouldn't be on a line, they likely jumped at the chance without considering the ambiguous line that would result.

The Representative (in 2013 and still) for the main west Augusta district was on the Apportionment Commission, so perhaps his desires played an important role, although I remember the Kennebec County Democratic Committee Chair saying in 2014 that new map helped our chances of knocking him off (he won overwhelmingly).

I think that the Census Bureau will require holding "Waddington" where it is the legislative district boundary. Presumably Maine would want to know how many people live in each legislative district.

Even if the state is interpreting the line (never mind what the statute defining the districts says) as if the line is Fairbanks Street (the centerline of which even before the curve around the parking lot seems to pass just north of the northern side of the Fairbanks condo building) to the back of the parcels on the west side of "Waddington Street" on the tax map for that area?

From a good government point of view, I'd want to keep the entire area south of the capitol, west of the River in a single city council district or house district (10,000 persons).

Not that this conflicts with what I'm quoting from you here, but back before Route 3 crossed the river (early 2000s (the decade)) any crossing of the Kennebec River would have logically been to be in the center or south of the city (although Republicans proposed connecting Sand Hill and Vassalboro in 1993 and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, then stacked with McKernan appointees, actually adopted that in their preliminary plan (the Legislature couldn't come up with a 2/3 plan for anything except I think county commissioner district that year) (the Democrats proposing a plan with, I've heard much higher population deviations and other oddities probably also played a roll) before the Democrats were able to get that and other very negative parts of the plan (for them) lessened, although not entirely eliminated, when the Court made it's final plan following a public hearing).

I think State Street would be a decent boundary, and if Augusta falls below 2.1/151 of Maine's population and population trends within Augusta continue you could perhaps have the line be the Kennebec River-Memorial Bridge-State Street.  One issue though is the ramifications for the wards, the largest of which can't exceed the smallest by more than 10% in population per state law (a tighter standard than the federal judiciary's "slidable" 10% of the ideal district population range), which seems to except cities with charters saying otherwise but Augusta's charter has that same requirement.  Ward 4 (the northeast Augusta ward, currently the same as the northeast Augusta Census Tract) is larger than average but within range.  A largish Ward 4 and a smallish eastern House District could mean a too-small Ward 2 if you wanted to have two wards in each House districts (the wards have to be redrawn within a year of the legislative redistricting or else everyone has to be elected at large).  The 2-4 boundary is a very neat line now, so it would be nice if it didn't have to be changed to allow for no wards to be split.

If Augusta is still above 2.1/151 of Maine's population in 2010 2020 (the estimates were low for Augusta last time, at least in terms of it's its portion of the state's population) the current western Wards 1 and 3 (on average smaller than the average of the two eastern wards) could be one district, Augusta east of the Kennebec River (1.0200 quotas in 2010, 1.04?? quotas in 2000) could be another, and the portion of the current Ward 2 east of the Kennebec could go in with Hallowell and some other towns.  The east side of Augusta has been divided (without a whole district of it's own) long enough.

Could this be used as a boundary:

Augusta’s Howard Hill quiet getaway in heart of city

See map in middle of article.

I'm glad you led me to that map, though, as perhaps the eastern edge of Howard Hill south of an extension of Fairbanks Street to that line, coupled with said extension (which again, seems to pass north of the entire Fairbanks condo building) and Fairbanks Street itself could be designated as "must hold lines" in the current Block Boundary Suggestion Project, and in the subsequent Voting District Project, if the boundary between House districts 85 and 86 is still interpreted as at present, then that could be listed as the House district boundary.

[Kevinstat]

I downloaded a new version of QGIS.

I don't know why you got two security warnings, maybe you clicked on the installer twice. Mine said it was an unknown source also. I went ahead and did it.

You will be asked if you want to load three data sets. I would go ahead and load them. They are used with tutorials. One nice thing about QGIS is that there is an active user community. You can Google for almost anything: "QGIS how do I ..." and usually find something useful, including Youtube videos."
The North Carolina data set will take quite a while, and you can probably add it later, but it may easier to get it now. Spearfish and Alaska are much smaller.

The installer doesn't put shortcuts in, so go to the Start menu and under All Apps, under the Q's find QGIS find "QGIS Desktop 14.1", that is the one you want to use. Drag it to the desktop and also to the start menu.

Click on it. The first time may take a while after the splash screen comes up. In my case it was reconfiguring from my old version. Eventually, you will start getting hints, which you can cancel. You should have a big display area. Drag a shapefile (.shp) into it.

Maybe I'll try again with downloading that tomorrow.  I kind of exhausted myself with my last two posts (originally just one) on this thread.

[jimrtex]

(b) In Augusta, there's a current (since 2004 or earlier) ward boundary (an extension of North Street to Bond Brook) that wasn’t a block boundary as of the 2010 census, although there were some other rather odd boundaries that resulted in probably nobody living on the portion of a certain block west of that extension.  Some of those odd boundaries don’t show up as lines of prototype 2020 census blocks, so now even North Street itself (beyond Bennett Street where it becomes part of a “No Outlet” road network) wouldn’t be a block boundary.  If an extension of North Street (as shown on most maps, without looping in on itself as shown in past Census Bureau block maps) to Bond Brook were added as a linear feature (which would automatically make that extension and North Street itself (beyond North Street Place) a “must hold” line), then the ward line could be block boundary.  Otherwise homes in the Boothby Street neighborhood will be in the same census block as some homes on Winthrop Street, Granite and High Streets, Fuller Road on the other side of the airport, and even the State Armory which is the voting place for Ward 1 (the Boothby Street neighborhood is currently in Ward 3).  This situation could possibly force the Augusta City Council to put that entire area in one Ward (probably the southwestern Ward 1, which had to gain people in the 2014 ward redraw and may again after the 2020 census), unless they can come up with some estimate as to what portion of that block’s population was on each side of North Street.  I wanted the block including Boothby Street moved into Ward 1 in 2014 rather than area on the other side of State Street, as I saw it as a neater boundary and didn’t like different sides of a dead end street being in different wards, but councilors apparently felt strongly that the Boothby Street neighborhood belonged in the northwestern Ward 3, and I wouldn’t want to have to tell them in 2022 when the ward lines will probably next come up (it has to be within a year of the Legislative districts being redrawn, and that will next happen in 2021, rather than in the ‘3’ year as for the past several decades) that they have to move that they have to put Boothby Street and the Armory in the same ward.  Extensions aren’t supposed to be greater than 300 feet, but I remember reading something somewhere about exceptions perhaps being made if appropriate justification is given, and the fact that this is a current ward boundary would arguably qualify.

Do you know of a good ward map? The one I found is really low quality, like a photocopy that been scanned into a PDF.

Anyhow on the eastside it appears that the boundary between IV and II matches the census tract boundary (river on Cony to South Belfast and on out to the city limits.

On the westside it looks like the boundary of III used to be Bond Brook, but now drops through (a former dump?) to North Street, and then Bridge Street. This is the subject of your discussion I've quoted.

But it looks like II now comes across the US 201 bridge and takes some territory on the west side. One line looks like it goes down Sewall, but another has it go out further west.

I saw a resolution from 2014 about some changes, but didn't really look into them.

[Kevinstat]

(b) In Augusta, there's a current (since 2004 or earlier) ward boundary (an extension of North Street to Bond Brook) that wasn’t a block boundary as of the 2010 census, although there were some other rather odd boundaries that resulted in probably nobody living on the portion of a certain block west of that extension.  Some of those odd boundaries don’t show up as lines of prototype 2020 census blocks, so now even North Street itself (beyond Bennett Street where it becomes part of a “No Outlet” road network) wouldn’t be a block boundary.  If an extension of North Street (as shown on most maps, without looping in on itself as shown in past Census Bureau block maps) to Bond Brook were added as a linear feature (which would automatically make that extension and North Street itself (beyond North Street Place) a “must hold” line), then the ward line could be block boundary.  Otherwise homes in the Boothby Street neighborhood will be in the same census block as some homes on Winthrop Street, Granite and High Streets, Fuller Road on the other side of the airport, and even the State Armory which is the voting place for Ward 1 (the Boothby Street neighborhood is currently in Ward 3).  This situation could possibly force the Augusta City Council to put that entire area in one Ward (probably the southwestern Ward 1, which had to gain people in the 2014 ward redraw and may again after the 2020 census), unless they can come up with some estimate as to what portion of that block’s population was on each side of North Street.  I wanted the block including Boothby Street moved into Ward 1 in 2014 rather than area on the other side of State Street, as I saw it as a neater boundary and didn’t like different sides of a dead end street being in different wards, but councilors apparently felt strongly that the Boothby Street neighborhood belonged in the northwestern Ward 3, and I wouldn’t want to have to tell them in 2022 when the ward lines will probably next come up (it has to be within a year of the Legislative districts being redrawn, and that will next happen in 2021, rather than in the ‘3’ year as for the past several decades) that they have to move that they have to put Boothby Street and the Armory in the same ward.  Extensions aren’t supposed to be greater than 300 feet, but I remember reading something somewhere about exceptions perhaps being made if appropriate justification is given, and the fact that this is a current ward boundary would arguably qualify.

Do you know of a good ward map? The one I found is really low quality, like a photocopy that been scanned into a PDF.

Anyhow on the eastside it appears that the boundary between IV and II matches the census tract boundary (river on Cony to South Belfast and on out to the city limits.

On the westside it looks like the boundary of III used to be Bond Brook, but now drops through (a former dump?) to North Street, and then Bridge Street. This is the subject of your discussion I've quoted.

But it looks like II now comes across the US 201 bridge and takes some territory on the west side. One line looks like it goes down Sewall, but another has it go out further west.

I saw a resolution from 2014 about some changes, but didn't really look into them.

2004-2014 wards:

Pretend the blue lines (which in actually are of the proposal at the time after the shaded areas are moved) are on the other side of the shaded areas.  Going into 2014 (including in late 2012 or early 2013 when then-acting Development Director Matt Nazar crunched some numbers and came up with this suggestion), the purple area was in Ward 3 (and it still is), the yellow wedge (where some friends of mine live) was in Ward 4 (and it still is) and the green area was in Ward 2 (going from south to north, the widest part of the green area still is, while the part north of the green area's first narrowing (the part north of Capitol Street, including the Governor's mansion), was moved to Ward 1.

You can also look at the fifth to last page of the Council Packet for March 27, 2014.  The next page (forth to last) shows the new (since 2014, first used in the November General Election and concurrent municipal election that year (people voted in their old polling place in the June primary)) ward boundaries, and the page after that (third to last) shows the changes.  The two preceding pages describe the two areas moving, but some of those streets had been renamed since 2004 and in the version in that council packet someone just assumed the street names that existed in the city code of ordinances from 2004 must have been correct or something.  A better description of the changes is on pages 1 and 2 of the May 1, 2014 Business Meeting Minutes, when the ordinance had its second reading and was passed unanimously over my objections.  You can see the legal description of the current wards at http://www.ecode360.com/28802191 .

For some entertainment by yours truly, go to http://livestream.com/accounts/1785601/augustacitycouncil , scroll way down to the video of the "Augusta City Council Informational Meeting 3/27/14", and watch from say 3:17:20 to 3:31:40 .  I also beat the dead horse (after indicating on March 27 that I wouldn't) at the Business Meeting portion of "Augusta City Council Business Meeting & Budget #3 Meeting 5/01/14" (introduction or reintroduction of that item beginning at 45:30, my part being from 47:25 to say 53:16 ("seeing none") and the vote and Mayor's comment from 56:22 to 57:25).

[Kevinstat]

Oh yeah, the "former dump" is Augusta Public Works, at the end of North Street.  It has a road (with "no unauthorized entry" sign or something to that effect that I ignored once out of curiosity, but I think I turned around before I got to where there's a fence at the airport as it was a rather rough driveway) connecting to the airport.  That was a block line in 2010, which (along with other "non-public" roads) made it that probably no one in the census block that crossed the extension of North Street (the then-and-now ward boundary) lived to the west of that extension.  The same couldn't be said for the 2000 census though, and the city council drew or kept the line through North Street and its extension in the ward redraw following that census.

[Kevinstat]

I meant to post a link to maps of the "2000s" (used from the 2004 primary election through the 2012 general election) and current (used from the 2014 primary on) House Districts.  You can view all of them by going to the Maine Elections Division's Electoral Districts page (previous districts at the bottom, although they're missing the county commissioner districts used from 2004 through 2012 mostly) and following the instructions.  Augusta's current House districts are numbered 80 (remainder), 85 (cross-river) and 86 (west).  The previous House districts are numbered 56 (cross-river), 57 (west) and 58 (remainder).  Augusta's currently in Senate District 15, which was renumbered from 24 in the 2013 redistricting but wasn't changed at all.  (There were three others that weren't changed (besides the numbers) I think.  Lewiston being its own Senate district was one of them, although now Lewiston has exactly 4 House districts so that's a rare existence of "locally complete" nesting in Maine.)

[jimrtex]

Waddington does exist at least on paper (see August tax maps,  Map 25) - it is a long URL, but it is easy to find. And you will probably want to also find the search window the Augusta assessor.

Thanks.  Not sure what you mean by the search window though.

Augusta Tax Search, Click on Enter Online Database
I was most successful using a name of a parcel owner or a street name.

I just realized the tax maps have house numbers, they're on the street adjacent to the parcel.

Another very informative map.  You rock!

Fairbanks is shown on census maps as matching the platted Waddington. This makes the Fairbanks condo appear as being way outside the block. A difference between the Murdock and Fairbanks condos is that the Fairbanks condo is at the end of Fairbanks, while the Murdock condo is a bit south of the Murdock alignment. You can imagine the driveway between the condo and the house as being part of Murdock. At Fairbanks you are into the parking lot. The two condos are identical in appearance (see photo on tax office site).

True, but the building is on the south side of the parking lot, the southern edge of which is a continuation, albeit one curved to the north, of the southern edge of Fairbanks Street.  The building has an even address, like homes on the south side of Fairbanks Street, and my DNC Votebuilder has people who live in that building being in the trans-river House District 86 (my district, not that I represent it or anything) even though its on the other side of the district line if you go by the census block boundaries and the House District definitions that use those boundaries.  Homes on the north side of Fairbanks Street (odd addresses) are in House District 86 (the main west Augusta district), according to law and practice.  See the City of Augusta's list of ward and house districts by address.

I also just checked homes as the end of Murdock, Baldwin, Hancock and Littlefield streets (or the closest that showed registered voters) on my Votebuilder and they're all in House District 85 as well (including the single-residence at the end of Murdock Street that is west of the line and the Murdock condo which the line bypasses (I checked two even and two odd units)).  That all matches the city's street list.

My guess is that the census bureau enumerated everything to be east of the Waddington line.

One could argue that (perhaps not legally) as justification for why all those people (including those in the Fairbanks condo) are in a House district as if they were east of Waddington Street (unless they're north of Fairbanks Street).

An edge is a polyline (series of lat/long pairs) with attributes associated with it.



TLID 75472831 corresponds to Murdock St. Because the vertices are ordered an edge has a direction. In this case the direction is east to west (deternined by looking at the vertices, and noticing that the latitude is becoming more negative (negative latitudes are in the western hemisphere).

Because they have a direction, they have a left and right side. If you were standing at Sewall and Murdock and planning to walk west on Murdock, left is to the south, right is to the north.

The name associated with this edge is "Murdock St", it is on county 011 (Kennebec) of  state 23 (Maine). The address range to the left of the line is 2 to 98, and to the right is 1 to 99. As expected odd addresses are on the north side, and even addresses on the south side.

Based on this model, "18 Murdock St" (the 8-unit condo) is to the left (south) of this edge, and not east or west of Waddington.

A series of edges surround a face. A census block corresponds to one or more contiguous faces. The question of "Do Hold" or "Don't Hold" is really controlling which faces aren't or are combined into census block. Besides the address ranges on the left and right size of an edge, there are a left and right face IDs, left and right ZIP Code, and a starting and ending node.

Census Block 2024 (of CT 104, Kennebec County, ME) consists of two faces, (1) the face bounded by Murdock, "Waddington", "Osgood", and Sewall; and (2) the face bounded by "Osgood", "Waddington", city limits, and Sewall.

The Sewall edge of the second face has addresses between 236 and 298. The 8-unit condo on the west side of the false Osgood has an address of 236 Sewell, and is presumably tabulated in that edge, and in Block 2024. The Sewall edge of the first face has addresses of 228-234, and thus includes the house at 234.

So Block 2024 has addresses at 2(2 units), 6(2), 12, 16, 18(8) Murdock; and 234 and 236(8) Sewall. The two units for 2 Murdock and 6 Murdock is based on tax records.

Add the units, and we get 23 units. The 2010 census shows 14 housing units, 13 occupied. That didn't work out so well.

Let's try Block 2011, between Murdock and Baldwin (this has five faces, since there are two edges on Sewell, split by Maine Street to the east of Sewell)

North side of Murdock: 1, 7, 9, 11, and 19(3); South side of Baldwin: 2, 6, 8, 16, and 18.  A total 12 units, but the census shows 9.

Block 2020 between Baldwin and Hancock, and spanning "Mayhew". North side of Baldwin: 1 and 9; South side of Hancock: 4, 6, 8(2), 12, and 16. A total of 8 units, and the census shows 9. We're getting closer, and perhaps 8 Hancock really doesn't have two units. See picture on tax offices. That bedroom to the side has an outside entrance, but does it have a kitchen and bathroom.

Block 2017 is Hancock to Littlefield.  North side of Hancock: 1, 5, 9, 11, and 13(2); South side of Littlefield: 4(6), 10(6), and 14(3). Note that the tax office pictures indicate that the units are numbered west to east, the opposite of convention. A total of 21 units, but the census shows 7.

Block 2018 is Littlefield to Fairbanks, and spanning "Bartlett".  North side of Littlefield: 3(3), 9(6), 11(6); West side of Sewall: 190; and South side of Fairbanks: 4, 6, 12, 14, and 20(8). A total of 28 units, but the cenus shows 42. (note census shows "Bartlett" to north of 190 Sewall, where it is platted to the south.

It appears that the census placed all of the Littlefield apartments in Block 2018. If we shift 15 units from 2017 to 2018, we get:

2017: Tax count 6, census 7.
2018: Tax count 43, census 42.

Block 2009 to the west of Waddington extends to Western Avenue and I-95 and has 238 housing units, so it totally useless.

The State of Maine passed a law that said that Block 2024 is in HD-85. They did so based on data from the Census Bureau that N persons lived in Block 2024, and the desire to have roughly equal numbers in HD-85.

The meaning of the law is that if the census bureau were to take a census on November 2, 2016; that the persons living in Block 2024 who were otherwise eligible to vote (age, citizenship, residence), would (or could) vote in HD-85.

But how does Maine determine on November 2, 2016, who lives in  Block 2024, and can vote in HD-85?

Do they base it on mailing address, or GPS coordinates?

[jimrtex]

(b) In Augusta, there's a current (since 2004 or earlier) ward boundary (an extension of North Street to Bond Brook) that wasn’t a block boundary as of the 2010 census, although there were some other rather odd boundaries that resulted in probably nobody living on the portion of a certain block west of that extension.  Some of those odd boundaries don’t show up as lines of prototype 2020 census blocks, so now even North Street itself (beyond Bennett Street where it becomes part of a “No Outlet” road network) wouldn’t be a block boundary.  If an extension of North Street (as shown on most maps, without looping in on itself as shown in past Census Bureau block maps) to Bond Brook were added as a linear feature (which would automatically make that extension and North Street itself (beyond North Street Place) a “must hold” line), then the ward line could be block boundary.  Otherwise homes in the Boothby Street neighborhood will be in the same census block as some homes on Winthrop Street, Granite and High Streets, Fuller Road on the other side of the airport, and even the State Armory which is the voting place for Ward 1 (the Boothby Street neighborhood is currently in Ward 3).  This situation could possibly force the Augusta City Council to put that entire area in one Ward (probably the southwestern Ward 1, which had to gain people in the 2014 ward redraw and may again after the 2020 census), unless they can come up with some estimate as to what portion of that block’s population was on each side of North Street.  I wanted the block including Boothby Street moved into Ward 1 in 2014 rather than area on the other side of State Street, as I saw it as a neater boundary and didn’t like different sides of a dead end street being in different wards, but councilors apparently felt strongly that the Boothby Street neighborhood belonged in the northwestern Ward 3, and I wouldn’t want to have to tell them in 2022 when the ward lines will probably next come up (it has to be within a year of the Legislative districts being redrawn, and that will next happen in 2021, rather than in the ‘3’ year as for the past several decades) that they have to move that they have to put Boothby Street and the Armory in the same ward.  Extensions aren’t supposed to be greater than 300 feet, but I remember reading something somewhere about exceptions perhaps being made if appropriate justification is given, and the fact that this is a current ward boundary would arguably qualify.

Do you know of a good ward map? The one I found is really low quality, like a photocopy that been scanned into a PDF.

Anyhow on the eastside it appears that the boundary between IV and II matches the census tract boundary (river on Cony to South Belfast and on out to the city limits.

On the westside it looks like the boundary of III used to be Bond Brook, but now drops through (a former dump?) to North Street, and then Bridge Street. This is the subject of your discussion I've quoted.

But it looks like II now comes across the US 201 bridge and takes some territory on the west side. One line looks like it goes down Sewall, but another has it go out further west.

I saw a resolution from 2014 about some changes, but didn't really look into them.

2004-2014 wards:

Pretend the blue lines (which in actually are of the proposal at the time after the shaded areas are moved) are on the other side of the shaded areas.  Going into 2014 (including in late 2012 or early 2013 when then-acting Development Director Matt Nazar crunched some numbers and came up with this suggestion), the purple area was in Ward 3 (and it still is), the yellow wedge (where some friends of mine live) was in Ward 4 (and it still is) and the green area was in Ward 2 (going from south to north, the widest part of the green area still is, while the part north of the green area's first narrowing (the part north of Capitol Street, including the Governor's mansion), was moved to Ward 1.

You can also look at the fifth to last page of the Council Packet for March 27, 2014.  The next page (forth to last) shows the new (since 2014, first used in the November General Election and concurrent municipal election that year (people voted in their old polling place in the June primary)) ward boundaries, and the page after that (third to last) shows the changes.  The two preceding pages describe the two areas moving, but some of those streets had been renamed since 2004 and in the version in that council packet someone just assumed the street names that existed in the city code of ordinances from 2004 must have been correct or something.  A better description of the changes is on pages 1 and 2 of the May 1, 2014 Business Meeting Minutes, when the ordinance had its second reading and was passed unanimously over my objections.  You can see the legal description of the current wards at http://www.ecode360.com/28802191 .

For some entertainment by yours truly, go to http://livestream.com/accounts/1785601/augustacitycouncil , scroll way down to the video of the "Augusta City Council Informational Meeting 3/27/14", and watch from say 3:17:20 to 3:31:40 .  I also beat the dead horse (after indicating on March 27 that I wouldn't) at the Business Meeting portion of "Augusta City Council Business Meeting & Budget #3 Meeting 5/01/14" (introduction or reintroduction of that item beginning at 45:30, my part being from 47:25 to say 53:16 ("seeing none") and the vote and Mayor's comment from 56:22 to 57:25).

Have you warned Matt Nazar that I will be checking his arithmetic?

Would you like to make a ward map in QGIS?

[Kevinstat]

But how does Maine determine on November 2, 2016, who lives in  Block 2024, and can vote in HD-85?

Do they base it on mailing address, or GPS coordinates?

I have no idea.  I'm not sure the state has a set method either.  They may rely on municipalities to get it right, which hasn't always happened (there have been recounts that revealed that more ballots were cast in a certain district with a split town than of voters listed living in that district who cast ballots, and that difference being greater than the winner's margin; that would be an error of the election clerks though and not the municipality's pre-election attribution of voters to districts).

If the state had a set procedure that justifies how the City of Augusta (probably under the guidance of the state) has interpreted the House District boundaries, one would hope that someone from the Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions would have told me that by now (I first broached the issue in November).

The difference in the tax units to the 2010 census's housing units in Blocks 2024 and 2011 would be eliminated if you don't count 18 and 19 Baldwin Street in those two respective census blocks.  Maybe the Census Bureau didn't either.  Odd though if they counted 18 Baldwin in the big sprawling Block 2009 (the one you called "totally useless") but counted 20 Fairbanks in Block 2018.

[Kevinstat]

(b) In Augusta, there's a current (since 2004 or earlier) ward boundary (an extension of North Street to Bond Brook) that wasn’t a block boundary as of the 2010 census, although there were some other rather odd boundaries that resulted in probably nobody living on the portion of a certain block west of that extension.  Some of those odd boundaries don’t show up as lines of prototype 2020 census blocks, so now even North Street itself (beyond Bennett Street where it becomes part of a “No Outlet” road network) wouldn’t be a block boundary.  If an extension of North Street (as shown on most maps, without looping in on itself as shown in past Census Bureau block maps) to Bond Brook were added as a linear feature (which would automatically make that extension and North Street itself (beyond North Street Place) a “must hold” line), then the ward line could be block boundary.  Otherwise homes in the Boothby Street neighborhood will be in the same census block as some homes on Winthrop Street, Granite and High Streets, Fuller Road on the other side of the airport, and even the State Armory which is the voting place for Ward 1 (the Boothby Street neighborhood is currently in Ward 3).  This situation could possibly force the Augusta City Council to put that entire area in one Ward (probably the southwestern Ward 1, which had to gain people in the 2014 ward redraw and may again after the 2020 census), unless they can come up with some estimate as to what portion of that block’s population was on each side of North Street.  I wanted the block including Boothby Street moved into Ward 1 in 2014 rather than area on the other side of State Street, as I saw it as a neater boundary and didn’t like different sides of a dead end street being in different wards, but councilors apparently felt strongly that the Boothby Street neighborhood belonged in the northwestern Ward 3, and I wouldn’t want to have to tell them in 2022 when the ward lines will probably next come up (it has to be within a year of the Legislative districts being redrawn, and that will next happen in 2021, rather than in the ‘3’ year as for the past several decades) that they have to move that they have to put Boothby Street and the Armory in the same ward.  Extensions aren’t supposed to be greater than 300 feet, but I remember reading something somewhere about exceptions perhaps being made if appropriate justification is given, and the fact that this is a current ward boundary would arguably qualify.

Do you know of a good ward map? The one I found is really low quality, like a photocopy that been scanned into a PDF.

Anyhow on the eastside it appears that the boundary between IV and II matches the census tract boundary (river on Cony to South Belfast and on out to the city limits.

On the westside it looks like the boundary of III used to be Bond Brook, but now drops through (a former dump?) to North Street, and then Bridge Street. This is the subject of your discussion I've quoted.

But it looks like II now comes across the US 201 bridge and takes some territory on the west side. One line looks like it goes down Sewall, but another has it go out further west.

I saw a resolution from 2014 about some changes, but didn't really look into them.

2004-2014 wards:

Pretend the blue lines (which in actually are of the proposal at the time after the shaded areas are moved) are on the other side of the shaded areas.  Going into 2014 (including in late 2012 or early 2013 when then-acting Development Director Matt Nazar crunched some numbers and came up with this suggestion), the purple area was in Ward 3 (and it still is), the yellow wedge (where some friends of mine live) was in Ward 4 (and it still is) and the green area was in Ward 2 (going from south to north, the widest part of the green area still is, while the part north of the green area's first narrowing (the part north of Capitol Street, including the Governor's mansion), was moved to Ward 1.

You can also look at the fifth to last page of the Council Packet for March 27, 2014.  The next page (forth to last) shows the new (since 2014, first used in the November General Election and concurrent municipal election that year (people voted in their old polling place in the June primary)) ward boundaries, and the page after that (third to last) shows the changes.  The two preceding pages describe the two areas moving, but some of those streets had been renamed since 2004 and in the version in that council packet someone just assumed the street names that existed in the city code of ordinances from 2004 must have been correct or something.  A better description of the changes is on pages 1 and 2 of the May 1, 2014 Business Meeting Minutes, when the ordinance had its second reading and was passed unanimously over my objections.  You can see the legal description of the current wards at http://www.ecode360.com/28802191 .

For some entertainment by yours truly, go to http://livestream.com/accounts/1785601/augustacitycouncil , scroll way down to the video of the "Augusta City Council Informational Meeting 3/27/14", and watch from say 3:17:20 to 3:31:40 .  I also beat the dead horse (after indicating on March 27 that I wouldn't) at the Business Meeting portion of "Augusta City Council Business Meeting & Budget #3 Meeting 5/01/14" (introduction or reintroduction of that item beginning at 45:30, my part being from 47:25 to say 53:16 ("seeing none") and the vote and Mayor's comment from 56:22 to 57:25).

Have you warned Matt Nazar that I will be checking his arithmetic?

Yeah, I noticed his numbers being off too, although the ones on the picture I have detailing his earlier plan are impossible for me to read confidently.  From a spreadsheet I made for the purpose in 2013 or 2014, I got the following numbers:

Augusta's 2010 census population: 19,136 (I recall one place where the total of the four ward (old, new or both) populations didn't add up to this figure)
Ideal ward population: 4,784 (I love it when these figures are exact integers; I refuse to round them before using them to calculate deviations but the courts might do that, and in this case there's no difference)

Plan going into the 2014 ward redraw:
Ward 1 4,285* (-10.43%)
Ward 2 4,849 (+1.36%)
Ward 3 5,118* (+6.98%)
Ward 4 4,884 (+2.09%)
Population range: 833* (17.41% of ideal ward population; 19.44% of the population of the smallest ward)

The proposal in the map above (from early 2013 I believe):
Ward 1 4,773 (-0.23%)
Ward 2 4,776 (-0.17%)
Ward 3 4,794 (+0.21%)
Ward 4 4,793 (+0.19%)
Population range: 21 (0.44% of ideal ward population; 0.44% of the population of the smallest ward)

Plan developed by the four ward councilors (also the final plan that is currently in use):
Ward 1 4,564* (-4.60%)
Ward 2 4,809 (+0.52%)
Ward 3 4.879* (+1.99%)
Ward 4 4,884 (+2.09%)
Population range: 320* (6.69% of ideal ward population; 7.01% of the population of the smallest ward)

My 2014 proposal (kind of a blend of the two above, as you can kind of see from looking at the population totals and seeing what wards have the exact same population in the various plans (it's not a coincidence)):
Ward 1 4,649 (-2.82%)
Ward 2 4,809 (+0.52%)
Ward 3 4.794 (+0.21%)
Ward 4 4,884 (+2.09%)
Population range: 235 (4.91% of ideal ward population; 5.05% of the population of the smallest ward)

*Assuming the entire population of 103-1000 is east of the extension of North Street and thus in Ward 3.

[jimrtex]

But how does Maine determine on November 2, 2016, who lives in  Block 2024, and can vote in HD-85?

Do they base it on mailing address, or GPS coordinates?

I have no idea.  I'm not sure the state has a set method either.  They may rely on municipalities to get it right, which hasn't always happened (there have been recounts that revealed that more ballots were cast in a certain district with a split town than of voters listed living in that district who cast ballots, and that difference being greater than the winner's margin; that would be an error of the election clerks though and not the municipality's pre-election attribution of voters to districts).

If the state had a set procedure that justifies how the City of Augusta (probably under the guidance of the state) has interpreted the House District boundaries, one would hope that someone from the Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions would have told me that by now (I first broached the issue in November).

The difference in the tax units to the 2010 census's housing units in Blocks 2024 and 2011 would be eliminated if you don't count 18 and 19 Baldwin Street in those two respective census blocks.  Maybe the Census Bureau didn't either.  Odd though if they counted 18 Baldwin in the big sprawling Block 2009 (the one you called "totally useless") but counted 20 Fairbanks in Block 2018.

Block 2009 is totally useless for purposes of determining how the units west of the Waddington right-of-way were counted because it is so sprawling. You have houses on the north side of Fairbanks and both sides of Blaisdell, and all along the west side of Sewell up to Capitol, and on the outside of Ganneston and Parkwood, etc. It is the part of census geography that wants me to go blech. And look at all those wonderful census blocks in the I-95, Western Avenue interchange.



The bolded part was somewhat rhetorical.

What does Maine wants from the Census Bureau?

For congressional districts, town populations should be enough, and the same is true for senate districts outside Portland.

House districts are a different because they have to be around 10,000 persons +/-500 persons.

In Massachusetts, towns and cities are redistricted before the state is. The maximum size of 4000 means that house districts can be assembled from town wards and precincts. The house districts can be comprised largely of whole towns, but if you need a little bit more you can take 3 of 5 precincts.

4000 persons is a bit less than 10% of the ideal Massachusetts house district size.  If you are somewhere around 88% to 96%, you can add another unit without busting past 105%, but will get you above 95%. Assembling districts based on units defined locally, avoids arbitrary carve-ups by legislatures acting a rush fashion and somewhat mitigates partisan gerrymandering.

Massachusetts does split wards for congressional districts, but does almost the minimal number (one less than the number of congressional districts). They do this because of the mistaken belief that congressional districts had to have identical populations. After the Tennant decision from West Virginia, hopefully they won't do the same in 2020.

In Maine, to get the same benefits, you would need to define areas with around 1000 persons. That is too small to be used for local electoral purposes. It is also undesirable to have these defined on an ad hoc basis, since they are intended to be used in assembling legislative districts, and should represent areas with a common interest that can be represented.

So an Electoral Area has a nominal size of 1000, but may have up to 1250 persons. Towns and cities with over 10,000 persons shall be divided into electoral areas.

Towns with less than 5000 do not need to be, divided into Electoral Areas since presumably House districts in these areas can be formed from groups of towns, or splitting larger neighbors.

Towns with between 5000 and 10000 persons shall be divided into Electoral Areas if the total population of they and their neighbors have more than 20000 persons. So in the Portland area, suburban towns might have to be split, but in Somerset County this is not needed for even the largest towns.

The state submits the Electoral Areas as VTDs which will cause the populations to be automatically accumulated in 2020.

[jimrtex]

(b) In Augusta, there's a current (since 2004 or earlier) ward boundary (an extension of North Street to Bond Brook) that wasn’t a block boundary as of the 2010 census, although there were some other rather odd boundaries that resulted in probably nobody living on the portion of a certain block west of that extension.  Some of those odd boundaries don’t show up as lines of prototype 2020 census blocks, so now even North Street itself (beyond Bennett Street where it becomes part of a “No Outlet” road network) wouldn’t be a block boundary.  If an extension of North Street (as shown on most maps, without looping in on itself as shown in past Census Bureau block maps) to Bond Brook were added as a linear feature (which would automatically make that extension and North Street itself (beyond North Street Place) a “must hold” line), then the ward line could be block boundary.  Otherwise homes in the Boothby Street neighborhood will be in the same census block as some homes on Winthrop Street, Granite and High Streets, Fuller Road on the other side of the airport, and even the State Armory which is the voting place for Ward 1 (the Boothby Street neighborhood is currently in Ward 3).  This situation could possibly force the Augusta City Council to put that entire area in one Ward (probably the southwestern Ward 1, which had to gain people in the 2014 ward redraw and may again after the 2020 census), unless they can come up with some estimate as to what portion of that block’s population was on each side of North Street.  I wanted the block including Boothby Street moved into Ward 1 in 2014 rather than area on the other side of State Street, as I saw it as a neater boundary and didn’t like different sides of a dead end street being in different wards, but councilors apparently felt strongly that the Boothby Street neighborhood belonged in the northwestern Ward 3, and I wouldn’t want to have to tell them in 2022 when the ward lines will probably next come up (it has to be within a year of the Legislative districts being redrawn, and that will next happen in 2021, rather than in the ‘3’ year as for the past several decades) that they have to move that they have to put Boothby Street and the Armory in the same ward.  Extensions aren’t supposed to be greater than 300 feet, but I remember reading something somewhere about exceptions perhaps being made if appropriate justification is given, and the fact that this is a current ward boundary would arguably qualify.

Do you know of a good ward map? The one I found is really low quality, like a photocopy that been scanned into a PDF.

Anyhow on the eastside it appears that the boundary between IV and II matches the census tract boundary (river on Cony to South Belfast and on out to the city limits.

On the westside it looks like the boundary of III used to be Bond Brook, but now drops through (a former dump?) to North Street, and then Bridge Street. This is the subject of your discussion I've quoted.

But it looks like II now comes across the US 201 bridge and takes some territory on the west side. One line looks like it goes down Sewall, but another has it go out further west.

I saw a resolution from 2014 about some changes, but didn't really look into them.

2004-2014 wards:

Pretend the blue lines (which in actually are of the proposal at the time after the shaded areas are moved) are on the other side of the shaded areas.  Going into 2014 (including in late 2012 or early 2013 when then-acting Development Director Matt Nazar crunched some numbers and came up with this suggestion), the purple area was in Ward 3 (and it still is), the yellow wedge (where some friends of mine live) was in Ward 4 (and it still is) and the green area was in Ward 2 (going from south to north, the widest part of the green area still is, while the part north of the green area's first narrowing (the part north of Capitol Street, including the Governor's mansion), was moved to Ward 1.

You can also look at the fifth to last page of the Council Packet for March 27, 2014.  The next page (forth to last) shows the new (since 2014, first used in the November General Election and concurrent municipal election that year (people voted in their old polling place in the June primary)) ward boundaries, and the page after that (third to last) shows the changes.  The two preceding pages describe the two areas moving, but some of those streets had been renamed since 2004 and in the version in that council packet someone just assumed the street names that existed in the city code of ordinances from 2004 must have been correct or something.  A better description of the changes is on pages 1 and 2 of the May 1, 2014 Business Meeting Minutes, when the ordinance had its second reading and was passed unanimously over my objections.  You can see the legal description of the current wards at http://www.ecode360.com/28802191 .

For some entertainment by yours truly, go to http://livestream.com/accounts/1785601/augustacitycouncil , scroll way down to the video of the "Augusta City Council Informational Meeting 3/27/14", and watch from say 3:17:20 to 3:31:40 .  I also beat the dead horse (after indicating on March 27 that I wouldn't) at the Business Meeting portion of "Augusta City Council Business Meeting & Budget #3 Meeting 5/01/14" (introduction or reintroduction of that item beginning at 45:30, my part being from 47:25 to say 53:16 ("seeing none") and the vote and Mayor's comment from 56:22 to 57:25).

Have you warned Matt Nazar that I will be checking his arithmetic?

Yeah, I noticed his numbers being off too, although the ones on the picture I have detailing his earlier plan are impossible for me to read confidently.  From a spreadsheet I made for the purpose in 2013 or 2014, I got the following numbers:

Augusta's 2010 census population: 19,136 (I recall one place where the total of the four ward (old, new or both) populations didn't add up to this figure)
Ideal ward population: 4,784 (I love it when these figures are exact integers; I refuse to round them before using them to calculate deviations but the courts might do that, and in this case there's no difference)

Plan going into the 2014 ward redraw:
Ward 1 4,285* (-10.43%)
Ward 2 4,849 (+1.36%)
Ward 3 5,118* (+6.98%)
Ward 4 4,884 (+2.09%)
Population range: 833* (17.41% of ideal ward population; 19.44% of the population of the smallest ward)

The proposal in the map above (from early 2013 I believe):
Ward 1 4,773 (-0.23%)
Ward 2 4,776 (-0.17%)
Ward 3 4,794 (+0.21%)
Ward 4 4,793 (+0.19%)
Population range: 21 (0.44% of ideal ward population; 0.44% of the population of the smallest ward)

Plan developed by the four ward councilors (also the final plan that is currently in use):
Ward 1 4,564* (-4.60%)
Ward 2 4,809 (+0.52%)
Ward 3 4.879* (+1.99%)
Ward 4 4,884 (+2.09%)
Population range: 320* (6.69% of ideal ward population; 7.01% of the population of the smallest ward)

My 2014 proposal (kind of a blend of the two above, as you can kind of see from looking at the population totals and seeing what wards have the exact same population in the various plans (it's not a coincidence)):
Ward 1 4,649 (-2.82%)
Ward 2 4,809 (+0.52%)
Ward 3 4.794 (+0.21%)
Ward 4 4,884 (+2.09%)
Population range: 235 (4.91% of ideal ward population; 5.05% of the population of the smallest ward)

*Assuming the entire population of 103-1000 is east of the extension of North Street and thus in Ward 3.

So you already have a spreadsheet with block populations. Very good.

A "shapefile" is actually a set of files. The ".shp" files contains the coordinates of polygons, lines, and points. The ".dbf" file is a DBase file that contains the attributes associated with geometric features. When you drag a ".shp" file, QGIS looks for a ".dbf" file of the same name.

If you want to add additional columns to the ".dbf" file it is easy to do. So you might add the block population, and ward number. You could then color the blocks based on their ward, or display the population of the block, along with block number.

And you can create new shapefiles based on attributes of a source atribute, such as creating shapefiles for the wards.

[Kevinstat]

I downloaded a new version of QGIS.

I don't know why you got two security warnings, maybe you clicked on the installer twice. Mine said it was an unknown source also. I went ahead and did it.

You will be asked if you want to load three data sets. I would go ahead and load them. They are used with tutorials. One nice thing about QGIS is that there is an active user community. You can Google for almost anything: "QGIS how do I ..." and usually find something useful, including Youtube videos."
The North Carolina data set will take quite a while, and you can probably add it later, but it may easier to get it now. Spearfish and Alaska are much smaller.

The installer doesn't put shortcuts in, so go to the Start menu and under All Apps, under the Q's find QGIS find "QGIS Desktop 14.1", that is the one you want to use. Drag it to the desktop and also to the start menu.

Click on it. The first time may take a while after the splash screen comes up. In my case it was reconfiguring from my old version. Eventually, you will start getting hints, which you can cancel. You should have a big display area. Drag a shapefile (.shp) into it.

I don't see "QGIS Desktop 14.1".  Under "QGIS Essen" under "All Apps" is "QGIS Desktop 2.14.2" and "QGIS Deskton 2.14.2 with GRAS", among several other apps (those are the only two "Desktop" ones.  I downloaded the "QGIS Installer Version 2.14 (64-bit)" (not the md5 "version", which couldn't have really been a version as it was downloaded almost instantaneously, but it wasn't something I had a program to run).  You might have downloaded a different version.  I did download the three data sets, as you suggested.

So, which should I use?

[jimrtex]

I downloaded a new version of QGIS.

I don't know why you got two security warnings, maybe you clicked on the installer twice. Mine said it was an unknown source also. I went ahead and did it.

You will be asked if you want to load three data sets. I would go ahead and load them. They are used with tutorials. One nice thing about QGIS is that there is an active user community. You can Google for almost anything: "QGIS how do I ..." and usually find something useful, including Youtube videos."
The North Carolina data set will take quite a while, and you can probably add it later, but it may easier to get it now. Spearfish and Alaska are much smaller.

The installer doesn't put shortcuts in, so go to the Start menu and under All Apps, under the Q's find QGIS find "QGIS Desktop 14.1", that is the one you want to use. Drag it to the desktop and also to the start menu.

Click on it. The first time may take a while after the splash screen comes up. In my case it was reconfiguring from my old version. Eventually, you will start getting hints, which you can cancel. You should have a big display area. Drag a shapefile (.shp) into it.

I don't see "QGIS Desktop 14.1".  Under "QGIS Essen" under "All Apps" is "QGIS Desktop 2.14.2" and "QGIS Deskton 2.14.2 with GRAS", among several other apps (those are the only two "Desktop" ones.  I downloaded the "QGIS Installer Version 2.14 (64-bit)" (not the md5 "version", which couldn't have really been a version as it was downloaded almost instantaneously, but it wasn't something I had a program to run).  You might have downloaded a different version.  I did download the three data sets, as you suggested.

So, which should I use?

Sorry, it should be 2.14.2

They put out minor updates frequently, and had incremented from 2.14.1 to 2.14.2 after I downloaded a version a day or so ago.

Previously I had been using 2.12.3 (Lyon), so Essen must be the release name for 2.14.

Versions are backward compatible, but not forward compatible. When I first ran 2.14 it was able to read my project file from 2.12.3 (and gave a warning that it would be saved in 2.14 format). But it apparently does not work the reverse direction.

Once you get going, you will want to save your project every so often. A project is not the shapefiles per se, but how you are presenting them, etc. I have a project for Hudson and another for Augusta. When I want to switch between them, I save one and load the other. It takes about 20 seconds.

I don't understand the difference between QGIS and GRASS, but GRASS is apparently more complicated to use, and there are apparently compatibility problems with files, etc. I've always used QGIS. The Browser is apparently a quick way to look at shapefiles - if you had a directory full of .shp and couldn't figure out which is which, you could use it. When I first downloaded QGIS, the browser was the first listed, and I spent a day trying to figure out why I couldn't do anything useful. Once I've figured out QGIS, I've never opened the Browser, but it might be useful.