Whither Jocelyn Square?

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Campaign 2013

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

by Thomas MacMillan | Jan 16, 2013 1:04 pm

(7) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall

Laurel Leff Photo After weeks of wrangling last year, aldermen decided Jocelyn Square would join Ward 9 as part of East Rock. Now Ward 8 Alderman Michael Smart wants to take it back as part of Wooster Square—if that’s legal.

Smart is one of two lawmakers who are looking to redraw ward boundaries months after aldermen inked new ward lines as part of a once-a-decade redistricting.

Wooster Square’s Alderman Smart and Newhallville Alderwoman Brenda Foskey-Cyrus want to shift the boundaries of their wards—8 and 21, respectively—to re-annex certain blocks that went to neighboring wards in the redistricting shuffle that wrapped up last May.

It’s an open question whether the law allows them to make the tweaks. Since Smart and Foskey-Cyrus submitted their change requests to the Board of Aldermen in October, the board has heard two conflicting legal opinions on the matter.

City Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden said it’s a no-go: the window to change ward boundaries has closed. But private attorney Martyn Philpot told aldermen it can be done—carefully.

The Board of Aldermen is expected to caucus on the matter at its next meeting, on Jan. 22, and decide on a course of action.

Re-Redistricting

Thomas MacMillan Photos Over a couple of months last spring, city aldermen grappled with the once-a-decade task of redrawing ward boundaries. The process is required by law as a means of assuring that the populations of the city’s 30 wards remain roughly equivalent. No ward is allowed to deviate by more than 5 percent from an average ward population of 4,326, based on 2010 U.S. Census data.

Redistricting amounts to a huge and confounding puzzle, with a number of different official and de facto variables to take into consideration: Where aldermen live in the ward, where polling places are located, where natural geographic borders exist, where an alderman’s base of support resides, demographics. Like stepping on a bubble in a linoleum floor, changing any ward affects neighboring wards, creating cascading consequences that can alter boundaries across the city.

After weeks of meetings and hearings, aldermen finally solved the puzzle—or so it seemed. They approved a new ward map on May 21, 2012. It went into effect on Jan. 1, 2013.

Over four months after the approval, on Oct. 3, Aldermen Smart and Foskey Cyrus proposed amendments to shift their borders again.

Both aldermen are looking to retain portions of their wards that had “ended up” in other wards after redistricting.

“As you may be aware, there were portions of current Ward 21 that were always intended to remain in my ward after redistricting but ended up outside of Ward 21 in the redistricting map that we adopted,” Foskey-Cyrus wrote in an Oct. 3 letter accompanying her proposal, addressed to board President Jorge Perez. A letter from Smart featured nearly identical language.

Foskey-Cyrus wants to hold onto a single block by Hillhouse High School bounded by Sherman Parkway, Henry Street, County Street, and Munson Street. The block is pictured with “187” in the middle of it, indicating the number of people living there. The green star is Hillhouse high, a polling place for Ward 28.

The block was among several that redistricting sent to Beaver Hills’ Ward 28, represented by Alderwoman Claudette Robinson-Thorpe. The proposed change would take a notch out of Ward 28; the blocks on three sides would still be in Robinson-Thorpe’s ward.

Asked why she wants to annex that one block, Foskey-Cyrus said, “I just need it.” She said she has a “particular reason” but declined to say what it is.

Smart’s proposal would return the Jocelyn Square neighborhood to his ward, an area bounded by I-91, the Mill River, and railroad tracks to the south. During redistricting, these blocks were ceded to East Rock Alderwoman Jessica Holmes in Ward 9. Jocelyn Square, centered around a park, was cut off from the rest of the city a half-century ago by the construction of I-91.

Smart said the area was intended to remain part of his ward and that it was likely simply an error that put it in Ward 9. He said it should move back to Ward 8 because otherwise, “it’s not what was worked on during the redistricting process.”

Smart said the area is home to “couple hundred” people, an amount that, if added, would be within the acceptable deviation from the average ward population.

According to the map, however, the area in question around Jocelyn Square appears to be home to 404 people. Adding that many people to Ward 8 could necessitate further adjustments somewhere else. Smart would have to cede some territory to a neighboring ward to make room for the annexation of Jocelyn Square.

“We certainly don’t want to do that,” Smart said.

A Slippery Slope?

The proposed ward adjustments never made it to committee. They were waylaid by a legal question: Does the Board of Aldermen have the authority to change ward boundaries after the redistricting process is over? Two lawyers offered aldermen two different answers.

“No,” was the short answer from Corporation Counsel Bolden, presented in a letter dated Oct. 19, 2012. Click here to read it.

In the letter, Bolden argued that the law requires that redistricting can take place only within six months after newly drawn General Assembly districts go into effect, a deadline that passed on June 1, 2012.

In a letter dated Dec. 13, 2012, Attorney Philpot disagreed. Click here to read it.

“It is reasonable to argue that the Board of Aldermen may amend the ordinance it put into effect and, in fact, it is consistent with public policy and the applicable provisions within the City Charter,” he writes.

Then Philpot sounds a note of caution: “On the other hand, such amendments should not be countenanced without a substantial basis or rationale for doing so.”

Aldermen should avoid starting down a “slippery slope,” Philpot states. “If every alderman were permitted to alter ward boundaries at any time, this would inevitably lead to chaos and would undermine the efficacy of the initial vote adopting the originally approved boundaries of the redistricting plan.”

Aldermen have the right to make the change, and have done so in the past, said board president Alderman Perez. The question is how the board exercises the right, he said. He agreed that the board should be very careful to avoid the slippery slope.

“Just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean you abuse that right,” he said.

He said the board will discuss the options at its next meeting.

Alderman Smart said he agrees with attorney Philpot’s reading of the law, and said the changes should be made. “If there’s an error, you look to adjust it.”

East Rock’s Alderwoman Holmes, who would lose several blocks to Alderman Smart if his proposed change goes through, said she has no opinion on the proposal right now.

The new ward boundaries “are just barely into effect,” she said. “I’m just getting to know them myself.”

Any changes would include an opportunity for public testimony before going into effect, she said.

Comments

posted by: Threefifths on January 16, 2013 12:06pm

Both parties use gerrymandering to gain a political advantage through more favorable district boundaries.This is why I call it the crooked two party system.Keep voting them in.

posted by: robn on January 16, 2013 1:07pm

So an absurdly disconnected peninsula of East Rock gets gerrymandered by the union supermajority into Foskey-Cyrus’ Newhallville Ward and now she wants more? I cry big FOUL and then some. If we had a different USAG, the feds would be crawling up this BOA’s keister about this highly questionable behavior.

posted by: SaveOurCity on January 16, 2013 1:14pm

@ ThreeFifths: What planet are you living on? Both parties?!? Let’s see, there is a (D) next to the mayor and a (D) next to each alder…. that’s 31 (D)‘s and nothing else. We are a single party town (much like Moscow without the onion domes)

posted by: anonymous on January 16, 2013 2:37pm

Changing the boundaries after they have been adopted should be illegal, and the Mayor and Jorge Perez should come out now and say so. The process used before involved public input. You can’t just subvert that.

Let’s wait another 10 years and focus on things that matter, like the budget deficit.

posted by: darnell on January 16, 2013 4:14pm

@anonymous

There is nothing in the Charter that says that they can not amend the boundaries, and there is plenty in the Charter that says they can.

How would the Mayor and Jorge Perez expressing their opinions on this issue change the legality of it. This is not a monarchy, in fact, the BOA has full control and authority on this issue, and do not have to bow to either the mayor or the president of the BOA.

Also, there will be a public hearing for public input.

So, what’s your beef with democracy?

posted by: Threefifths on January 16, 2013 6:18pm

posted by: SaveOurCity on January 16, 2013 12:14pm

Last I looked there is a Republican party,But they are not running anyone.My point is when the do start running again.On the record there is a two party system.

posted by: abg22 on January 18, 2013 12:02pm

This kind of situation argues strongly for introducing some form of nonpartisan redistricting in charter revision, i.e. giving authority to redraw ward boundaries to a bipartisan judicial panel who would be instructed to consider representational continuity (not drawing any sitting alders out of their wards), but would be in a position to consider mainly factors other than their own political needs. The country is slowly moving in this direction. The question is whether New Haven wants to be one of the early adopters of redistricting reform or one of the last.

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form