Saturday, April 27, 2013

Corrected Version

Turns out there was a math error in the map I submitted that led to District 7 being drawn too large (around 18,000 people) and District 8 drawn too small (around 10,000).  Here is the corrected version that balances the population so that both are around 14,000.

I've come up with a possible fix, and in the map below have indicated the areas moved from 7 to 8 in a darker shade of pink.  Will finalize after the community meeting on April 29th. 

Click map to enlarged.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Student District, the solution

Freed from the 1986 boundaries, rotating all districts clockwise allows most of the dorms, fraternities, sororities, and cooperatives to fall into District 6.   It also gives West Berkeley and the Berkeley Hills each their own cohesive district.

Equal District Population: 14073
District 1 - North Berkeley: 13973
District 2 - West Berkeley: 14021
District 3 - South Berkeley: 14001
District 4: - Downtown North: 14116
District 5 - Berkeley Hills: 14039
District 6 - Student District: 14156 
District 7 - Downtown South & Telegraph: 14142 
District 8 - Elmwood & Claremont: 14132

Comparison to existing

Sunday, January 13, 2013

A Berkeley Student District? The Challenge

Berkeley has 8 City Council districts.
The orange rectangle is the area around campus where most students live.  25% of the city's population lives here.
None of the current council members lives there.  
Each council district must have 1 council member's current residence in it, no more, no less.
Each district must have around 14,000 people (28 dots) in it, no more, no less.

The Challenge: How to avoid splitting up the residents in the orange rectangle?

Friday, January 11, 2013

Back for 2013

As you may have heard, the process is restarting again!  This time, there's no need to adhere to the 1986 lines.  However, council members cannot be drawn out of their districts.  Therefore, is there really that much new flexibility?  I'll try a couple ideas out but my first instinct is no, and that creating a student supermajority district will still be a challenge as none of the 8 council members lives within 6 blocks of campus.  Read more on Berkeleyside.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

What the submitted proposals have in common

I went to the public hearing at the North Berkeley Senior Center tonight, where all the submitted proposals were on display.  There were six proposals:
2. Alfred Twu
3. Bateman Neighborhood Association
4. Eric Panzer Plan #1 (More Compliant)
5. Eric Panzer Plan #2 (Greater deviation from 1986)
6. Berkeley Student District Campaign (deviates greatly from 1986 boundaries and would require charter amendment referendum)

Councilmember Kriss pointed out that of all the maps other than the Student District Campaign's, 95% of the city was shown in the same districts across all the proposals.  So what's different?

Major areas of difference
1. North Downtown.  Lots of blocks had to be shifted here since Downtown has gained lots of residents in the last 25 years, while the northern part of the city hasn't.  (Intersection of districts 1, 4, 5, 6)
2. Blocks south of University Avenue near Sacramento Street.  (Intersection of districts 1, 2, 4)
3. Southern part of Telegraph.  This includes Bateman, Le Conte, and part of the Halcyon neighborhood.  (Intersection of districts 3, 7, 8)
4. Blocks near SE and SW corners of UC campus (Intersection of districts 4&7 and 7&8)

Minor areas of difference (where only 1 proposal differs from the rest)
5. Blocks south of Dwight Way between Sacramento and Ellsworth (Intersection of districts 3, 4) - only occurs on Bateman Neighborhood plan
6. 4th and University mixed use development near the Amtrak station (Intersection of districts 1, 2) - only occurs on MAPMINDS plan
7. A few blocks near Sacramento and Ashby (Intersection of districts 2, 3) - only occurs on Bateman Neighborhood plan
8. Northside UC dorms (Intersection of districts 6, 7) - only occurs on Eric #2 plan

9. A few blocks along Hopkins and Rose near Sacramento (Intersection of districts 1, 5) - one part only on Eric plan, one only on Bateman plan

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Guest post! - proposal by high school and college students.

Got an idea you want illustrated?  Email me!  Here's one just in: the First Submitted Redistricting Proposal by the Maximum Participation Minimum Deviation (MAPMINDs Coalition), a group of high school and college students. 

Green lines are their proposed boundaries, black dotted lines are 1986 boundaries.  

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Starting from the 1986 districts...

Let's start from the 1986 district boundaries, as the City Charter calls for.
Since Downtown has added lots of housing over the last quarter century, we need to move lots of people out of District 4.  Likewise, a boom in student housing construction, including several new high-rises near Telegraph, requires us to move lots of folks out of District 7.  
Other than that, the hillside districts need to gain people, while the western districts are about the right size.  District 3 is more or less fine as it is, with the current population inside the 1986 boundaries within 1% of one eighth of the city. 

Here's a mathematically elegant plan that starts from the 1986 boundaries and equalizes the population in six moves. 

Move A: District 1 needs 639 more people.  Conveniently, District 2 has 525 too many.  The first move has District 1 cross south of University one block between San Pablo and Sacramento.  This brings in more folks within walking distance of North Berkeley BART, which is near the population center of District 1.

Move B: After giving 686 people to District 1, District 2 now is short 161.  These will come from District 4, which has plenty to spare.  Two blocks near Dwight and Sacramento are chosen to keep District 4 as compact as possible. 

Move C: The biggest move is 1,822 people from District 4 into 5 near Cedar and MLK.  Since the council member of District 4 lives right near the 4-5 border, this move needs to sidestep that block and go further south, instead of just taking District 4's northern blocks.  A side benefit is it preserves the downtown corridor of Shattuck Ave. within District 4.

Move D: District 6 is limited in where it can expand: two of its neighbors, Districts 5 and 8, have no people to spare.  Further expansion into District 7 requires crossing the UC campus.  Fortunately, District 4 still has more residents to spare. 

Move E: Well, after the last 3 moves District 4 is actually short a few hundred.  These will have to come from District 7.  The two blocks near Bancroft and Ellsworth, closest to Downtown Berkeley BART, are selected.

Move F: Finally, District 8 needs about 900 folks from 7 to balance the two out.  To preserve District 7's integrity as the Telegraph Ave and student housing district, this move comes out of 7's southeast corner.