Friday, April 22, 2011

Did John Hammer bury the Rakestraw Gerrymandering Story in the middle of an article entitled "City Attorney Claims You Can't Phone It In"?

"City Attorney Claims You Can't Phone It In

"...Also at the meeting, the council voted 4 to 3 to approve new voting districts that were proposed by Rakestraw. About 18 people spoke against the new districts, which reportedly switch about 32,000 people from one district to another.

From what constituency does the Rhino Times
receive a majority of advertising revenue during off year City Council elections?

Bellamy-Small also proposed a redistricting map, but no motion was made to approve it. Bellamy-Small did make a motion to table the redistricting, but the motion failed by a 3-to-4 vote, with Bellamy-Small, Perkins and Kee voting in favor of tabling.

How much did Mary, Trudy, Bill, Nancy and Zack
spend on ads with the Rhino in 2009?

...The city was not required by law to redistrict, since the districts were all within 10 percent in population of each other. But the population difference between Districts 4 and 5 was 9.2 percent, which made redistricting reasonable if not legally required.

Is John Hammer suggesting that Mary's map is "reasonable"?

Many speakers complained about Matheny, who was not at the meeting and was discouraged from participating by phone. Several speakers said that he had indicated that the city would not be redistricting because it wasn't required by law.

Was Zack for Mary's map, before coming out against it,
after the uproar of disapproval?

Other complaints were about the Lindley Park neighborhood being taken out of District 4, represented by Rakestraw, and placed in District 1, represented by Bellamy-Small. Before the 2008 redistricting, Lindley was, according to speakers, in District 5.

No comments: