Keep in mind that you have to make sure you're fighting apartheid with your choices. That's what Marion Barry says is happening in Ward 8.

The quickest, cleanest way to make it work, in my opinion, is to move the rest of tract 76.05 (the triangle of Ward 7 that juts into Ward 8) into Ward 8, the southern part of tract 68.04 (the area that includes old DC General) into Ward 7, and the 4 areas on the map currently in Ward 2 that lie east of 14th Street NW and south of New York Avenue NW into Ward 6. Voila!

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Mar 25, 2011 7:50 am • link • report

Excellent map and an excellent exercise in the complexities of redistricting.

by Sam Libby on Mar 25, 2011 8:27 am • link • report

This is a really good tool David. You really should offer this to the Council for the redistricting. Last time around I think all this had to be calculated manually by Council staff during the process. Having a tool like this available to them that can show the changes to their proposals in real time while in chamber might make it harder for the politics side of this to 'justify' itself given that there won't be a day or two in between for justifications to be construed for proposed line changes. It took me all of 5 minutes to come up with a districting plan that at least to me make sense. Even with a dozen council members in the same room, with a tool like this, they could conclude the effort in less than one session. The upside to them is that with the sun shining completely on the process, there'll be less opportunity for their vocal local activists to opposed changes based not on the public good but rather on their private interests. I say go for ... call Evans and offer him this tool!

by Lance on Mar 25, 2011 9:09 am • link • report

This one does the minimum required to bring things into compliance. Wards 7 & 8 are just above the cutoff.
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#346-dfm3l462

This one does more changing to try and make the wards all the same size:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#521-5llt3otf

by MLD on Mar 25, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

my redistricting:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#344-jcd4eeo1

by Lance on Mar 25, 2011 9:44 am • link • report

1) Great tool and "game". While I generally agree with Lance, this does have the (understandable for these purposes) limitation of requiring entire census tracts to be switched. Tract borders aren't necessarily the best ones for Ward borders, although clearly they are a good starting point.

2) My idea, based on what I posted yesterday, is here. Turns out I couldn't move quite as much of Ward 3 into Ward 2 as I had thought. Not knowing some of the NE and SE neighborhoods means this could make little sense on some of the borders.

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#504-mbtxi00d

by ah on Mar 25, 2011 9:53 am • link • report

@Lance

Software has progressed a great deal since the last time we did redistricting. I know the office of planning will be providing technical support to council for this process. They have more stringent requirements to meet than this tool offers, but I think David has done an excellent job of providing the general public with the information needed to help influence and evaluate the council's process. Kudos!

by Alex B. on Mar 25, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

@ah

I will make a plug for tract borders. Wards should hinge to tracts as much as possible. If Council members don't like it, then they also should be prepared to not get the best census data when it is available, since most of it comes at the tract level, not at the finer geographies.

by Alex B. on Mar 25, 2011 9:58 am • link • report

Alex's point is one reason I deliberately set it up to use tracts. That and the fact that there are over 200 polygons anyway, and the more there are the harder it is to redistrict, the slower the game will load, and the more work it is to compute the populations.

by David Alpert on Mar 25, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

Census tracts also seem to be confined by major roadways, which is also a pretty good way to determine ward boundaries, within reason.

by Matt on Mar 25, 2011 10:02 am • link • report

Love the game, but it should allow the ability to assign Census Tract 68.04 (containing the DC Jail and DC General) to Ward 8. Most (all?) of the population is concentrated in the DC Jail and DC General in southernmost portion of the tract.

by CR on Mar 25, 2011 10:05 am • link • report

My map: http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#908-denmfw0m

This is the easiest thing I could think of with only three changes:

1. Move tract 41 (Kalorama-Sheridan) to Ward 1 from 2
2. Move tract 76.05 (between Good Hope and Naylor Roads SE) to Ward 8 from 7
3. Move tract 78.04 (Armory/Hill East) to Ward 7 from 6

Done!

by Adam L on Mar 25, 2011 10:05 am • link • report

Mine: http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#688-zpkdwbrd

I left Wards 3, 4 and 5 alone. Like Adam L I shifted 76.05 from 7 to 8 and 78.04 from 6 to 7. I then moved Chinatown and east of the Convention Center from 2 to 6. That was it for population moves. I also moved the unpopulated areas (like around the Mall, East Potomac Park, etc.) from Ward 2 to Ward 6, making Ward 2 much more compact. Side note: tract 62.02 lists a population of 11. I can think of 5 people who live there, who are the other 6?

by Steven Yates on Mar 25, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

This is an amazing tool, and I'm super impressed that you could put this together so fast.

One enhancement that would make it even more incredible: below the "Done" button, add a few graphics. I'd recommend:

1) A graphic similar to the one that was with yesterday's post, showing each ward's population as a bar chart and the two horizontal lines showing the zone of acceptability. This would help people in an attempt to get most of the wards the same size.

2) A bar chart or a series of pie charts showing the demographic breakdown of each proposed ward, that updates in real time. It would allow users the ability to strive for more (or less?) mix of races and/or incomes, which ever demographic they choose.

I'm curious: Marion Barry aside, what is the general consensus about keeping Ward 8 entirely to the east of the Anacostia river?

by MDE on Mar 25, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

This illustrates some of the nonsensical aspects of the whole census/redistricting process. I was able to solve the Ward 8 issue by simply transferring the Washington Navy Yard over to it. That gave Ward 8 the additional numbers it needed to bring it in line. Yet, in reality, since no one actually lives in the Washington Navy Yard as far as I know. Did I really transfer anyone? I remember during the ANC redistricting process the maps we were looking at showed some 8 people 'living' in Dupont Circle, yet zero living in the area where the Chinese then had its dorm-style embassy housing in S-K with some 300 people. Oh, and that's another issue. The census counts people .... not voters ...

by Lance on Mar 25, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

Lance: That tract includes the entire Near Southeast neighborhood, not just the Navy Yard. Everyone who lives in Lower Barracks Row or the buildings around the ballpark are in that tract.

The tract including the jail is one where moving it would move a lot of people but not voters.

Steven Yates: That tract includes some buildings down around the State Department; anyone live in any of them?

The Census sometimes picks up weird things. I think if someone claims they are living in the park the enumerator counts them as living in the park. Not sure if that's what's going on here.

By the way, that's not all of 62.02. Where the description says something like "62.02 west of 14th Street" that's because it's a piece of 62.02. 62.02 is a very strange shaped tract that basically includes all the Mall and its adjacent parks plus all the Capitol grounds. I split it to give people more options for drawing boundaries through that area.

by David Alpert on Mar 25, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

Fun to play around with. I noticed that census tract 62.02 west of 14th street, in Ward 2, has a population of 11. Besides the White House, what are the other residences?

Also, a strange typeo in the map - in one magnification (five down from the greatest magnification), the Ellipse is called the Eclipse. And in the two greatest magnifications, both Ellipse and Eclipse appear on the map. Weird.

by dcd on Mar 25, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

@MDE
If you are asking why there is a consensus to keep Ward 8 EotR, I think there are several reasons. The Anacostia provides a nice natural boundary. On a related note, pushing Ward 8 across the river would break up either Southwest or Capitol Riverfront neighborhoods (unless you took them in full, which would cause more changes elsewhere), while adding an area quite different from the rest of Ward 8. Ward 7 on the other hand is already across the river, so in some respects the damage is already done.

by Steven Yates on Mar 25, 2011 10:39 am • link • report

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1325-zyij3hks

I pushed some of 8 into 7, 8 now being south DC. 7 kreeped up into 5, being east DC. 5 ate some of 2. Then I messed some with the borders of the NW wards to make the borders follow major roadways or neighborhoods a bit more. 1 moved a bit up, 2 is downtown.

By the way David: Why keep the old boundaries and just tinker? Why not start with a blank map? And why can't tracks with council members in them move? Does that not give sitting council members a protective advantage?

by Jasper on Mar 25, 2011 10:40 am • link • report

@Steven Yates

Jack Evans wants the commercial areas because he represents business interests as much as his constituents.

Not saying that's a bad thing, but it's certainly a reason he'd want to keep all that area.

by Adam L on Mar 25, 2011 10:45 am • link • report

A couple of people are asking about 62.02 and the residents who live in it. Besides the White House you also have Navy Hill. There are 4 residences, at least one seems to be empty and is used for housing high level visitors. Secretary Gates lives in one house and a high ranking Admiral lives in another. I am unsure about the last, but I assume it is occupied.

by nathaniel on Mar 25, 2011 10:47 am • link • report

@David The Census sometimes picks up weird things. I think if someone claims they are living in the park the enumerator counts them as living in the park. Not sure if that's what's going on here.

Yes, that's sort of the explanation that was given to us by the officials when we asked whey Dupont Circle Park had 8 people in it. Basically, wherever a census taker finds someone, when he/she is convassing, is where they get deemed as 'residing'. And if he/she can't get into a place, then those people don't get counted. The Chinese Embassy residence is a good example. At first blush it seems like a good thing they aren't available for counting because 'Isn't the Census for vote apportionment anyways ... and foreign residents shouldn't influence that?", but actually that's not what the Constiution says ... it's representation of everyone ... voter and non-voter alike. (We need to remember that at the time the Constitution was written, only white, male, LANDOWNERS could vote ... most of the population in each state did not have the right to vote in their respective states .... But representation in Congress was not based on eligible voters in a state but instead on the entire population of the state.) So, neighborhoods which host large populations which the census takers can't get to, end up getting under-counted and thus under-represented .. AND under-funded under the allocation formulas for all types of federal programs.

by Lance on Mar 25, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

Very cool toy!

Smallest possible change, just moving Randle Highlands, Jail, and east of the Convention Center:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1562-pwvv3hon
Closest I could get to a "perfect" map, with all populations within 2,000 of each other, and the wards being compact and generally stopping at natural boundaries:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1624-06y8y1te

by tom veil on Mar 25, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

It's possible to balance the map by just moving one census tract and unifying two that are currently split between two wards: move tract 76.05 from Ward 7 to Ward 8, unify tract 68.04 (currently split between Ward 6 and 7) into Ward 7, and unify tract 48.02 (currently split between Wards 2 and 6) into Ward 6. http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1895-qqt6xssg

It's not the evenest distribution, but it works and I think it avoids goring any incumbents' oxen. The only question I can see is if Yvette Alexander lives in 76.05, in which case tract 77.09 could be moved from Ward 7 to Ward 8 instead.

by cminus on Mar 25, 2011 11:17 am • link • report

Why is it so hard to change some areas that border each other there was one area which I could not change not matter what even though it border 2 Wards.

What is the point of the squared off areas ?

I was trying to make some Wards straight lines and or areas running along a particular street but it is impossible

Here are the results I came up with; the first two are very drastic and would probably never happen

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1657-yphgsj86

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1876-fuamj0xb

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1419-gev0htj6

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1573-nsydejf2

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1735-69otcznj

by kk on Mar 25, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

kk: To make the app simpler, it just has a fixed set of areas, which mostly correspond to Census tracts, and you can only change those.

When it didn't let you change one, was there a message that popped up? There are certain times you can't change an area, such as if it's the area containing a councilmember's home, or if changing it would cut a ward into 2 non-contiguous pieces.

by David Alpert on Mar 25, 2011 11:23 am • link • report

...And now I see that incumbent protection is already coded into the map. Convenient, that. ;)

by cminus on Mar 25, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1946-crwab990

I think this works relatively well

by matthewstenberg on Mar 25, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

What program did you use to make it? I'm sure there's someone in MD or VA that would love to do something similar for their jurisdictions (unless you already have something in the works . . . ?).

by Biv on Mar 25, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

The problem with a lot of the redistricting is the power a Zone 6 parking tag. There are limited parking spaces and garages in zone 6. Moreover, the recent sham "Zone 6 Only" parking that went in because of the stadium (as if anyone is going to park in Eastern Market and walk, particularly since the stadium itself has a plethora of cheap parking) has made even more spaces available to west Capitol Hill residents.

Moving Hill East residents to Ward 7 seems among the easiest changes to make, but those residents would (rightfully) benefit from a Zone 6 tags.

I can't remember if the Mall has zone exceptions, but this again is something to take into consideration.

by Clarice Reed on Mar 25, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

With regards to the population count for Census Tracts 62.02 and 105, how many hotels are within those tracts? The manager or some overnight staff may live at the hotel, or there may be a few long term guests who listed the hotel as their address.

Neat tool, BTW. Now, someone, if they have not done so already, could create one for Virginia or maybe just Northern Virginia. The Virginia redestricing is going to be far more complicated and intensely partisan than the DC Ward redistricting will be.

by AlanF on Mar 25, 2011 11:30 am • link • report

Here's a very evenly balanced map, with the wards ranging from a high of 76,418 (Ward 5) to a low of 74,045 (Ward 8). But I can see a few places where the residents would be unhappy with it, and Jack Evans would have conniptions.

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1945-i64yv2p6

by cminus on Mar 25, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

@Clarice

You're absolutely right that zone parking tags will be a huge issue.

It's really too bad that RPP zones are tied to ward boundaries. That's non-sensical from a parking policy perspective, but it will be a huge issue in terms of redistricting.

I hope DDOT takes the opportunity between now and the implementation of new ward boundaries in 2012 to adjust the RPP program in general. Redistricting opens the door to do just that.

by Alex B. on Mar 25, 2011 11:33 am • link • report

My map

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1991-xs268lvg

Barry's apartheid comment made me think about what criteria, other than population, should be used to define the wards. It seems that foremost, the people in the ward should be well represented by their council member which argues for making the wards follow existing neighborhood boundaries and would generally argue in favor of making them more homogeneous. I'm definitely not in favor of moving hill east or the Navy Yard/Near Southeast to Ward 8 which may be convenient on a map, but most likely not in the best interests of those residents.

by SE on Mar 25, 2011 11:38 am • link • report

Oh, and when it comes to tracts that would seem to be empty having a handful of voters: if memory serves, homeless people counted by the census are allowed to pick a location where they usually stay as their "address" for census purposes, and so some of them pick their usual doorways or steam grates. IMGoph, as our census expert, do I have that right? If so, that could explain people residing in non-residential areas.

by cminus on Mar 25, 2011 11:49 am • link • report

Zone 6 is so metro-accessible, why is anyone driving?

And as someone who does live quite close to the stadium, on a street that is clearly marked as "Zone 6 permits only" as well as a "Do Not Enter During Nationals Stadium Events. Local Traffic Only" sign on the street, the parking restrictions do no good when Parking Enforcement never bothers to enforce them. It's particularly bothersome during "big" games when I end up seeing my street flooded with cars from Maryland, Virgina, and Pennsylvania.

by Robin on Mar 25, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

I don't see how it's not going to end up with Barry getting much of Capital Hill and Wells getting almost all of downtown.

by Tom Coumaris on Mar 25, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

@cminus: I'm not IMGoph, but from my own census experience, that's correct. The census typically sends enumerators out one evening in the early spring to write up as many rough-sleeping homeless people as they can find, and they count where they sleep.

I am surprised, however, that 7 homeless people were being allowed to sleep in Dupont Circle itself in 2000...

by Matt on Mar 25, 2011 11:59 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris: I'm not dead yet.

by John on Mar 25, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

@Robin-I live in Zone 6 and in my neighborhood the parking enforcement puts the Navy Seals to shame with their rapid deployment and ticketing.

by beatbox on Mar 25, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report

This one is just to annoy Marrion Barry and Jack Wells.

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#2257-0y4fk1xg

It seems weird to me that council members want to "protect" their ward. That's not their job. Their job is to represent the people of their ward. Whatever the geographical coverage of the map is.

by Jasper on Mar 25, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report

@ Robin: It's particularly bothersome during "big" games when I end up seeing my street flooded with cars from Maryland, Virgina, and Pennsylvania.

Oh, the horror! Free Americans that exercise the right to move through their country and park their car!

What's your solution? Put passport control up on the District line and only let Washingtonians in with a car?

by Jasper on Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm • link • report

@nathaniel: Secretary Gates lives in one house [on the Old Naval Observatory grounds.]

Really? The Secretary of Defense gets a house now? Does he pay rent?

by Herschel on Mar 25, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report

@beatbox, want to send some of those parking enforcement guys down my way? As much as I love baseball, I dread the start of Illegal Parkingpalloza. I'm always amazed at how nasty people get when I tell people they've illegally parked and need to move their cars.

@Jasper, the streets are clearly marked as local traffic only as well as Zone 6 parking only. It's not DC residents illegally parking, it's overwhelmingly people who reside in the suburbs (and Phillies fans) who feel entitled to free parking. There are numerous low-priced lots within a few blocks of the stadium, as well as the option of taking Metro. "Freedom to park wherever you want, parking restrictions be damned" is (not yet) enshrined in the Constitution. All I ask is that people respect that the residential neighborhoods have restrictions and they go park in one of the many nearby lots if they choose to drive.

by Robin on Mar 25, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report

@beatbox and Robin -- I've noticed that Zone 6 parking enforcement seems most active in the early morning during the week. That doesn't match up very well again baseball games.

by Kate on Mar 25, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report

@Herschel
I am not sure if he pays rent, but I seem to think based on my vague recollection of newspaper articles from when he first enterd office that he does. I do know the house is not a Sec Def house, but rather a house where Secretary Gates lives.

by Nathaniel on Mar 25, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report

Yes this is great fun. Kudos to DA.

Anybody else notice that rewards of redistricting are perverse? Wards 7 & 8 will grow to take over other more successful neighborhoods, because they have attracted fewer new residents.

by goldfish on Mar 25, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report

@ Robin:It's not DC residents illegally parking, it's overwhelmingly people who reside in the suburbs (and Phillies fans) who feel entitled to free parking.

I was not advocating illegal parking. I was reacting to your formulation in which you expressed displeasure with people from MD, VA and PA show up in your street. It's not your street. It's a public area. Anybody can come there. Anybody should follow the law. Even when it's clearly geared to treat locals preferentially.

by Jasper on Mar 25, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report

Here's my map:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#3442-m9ua17fa

In any map, every district represents multiple neighborhoods. For my attempt, instead of trying to make the neighborhoods socially homogenous, I tried to make more people represent a wider range of demographics. Districts 6, 7, & 8 would represent a significant number of people east and west of the Anacostia River. This would get a third council member to be invested in the east side of the river while making it harder to win any of the seats by playing to only one side of the river.

by Dan on Mar 25, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report

My minimum moves version is 76.01 from 8 to 7 (which brings 7 into compliance) and then 62.02 from 2 to 8 (to extend 8 over into NW) and either 108 or 56 from 2 to 8 (either of which brings both 2 and 8 into compliance). 108 is mostly GWU, so it's moving faces rather than voters. In either case, 8 would end up a fraction whiter.

This only affects wards not already in compliance!

by jim on Mar 25, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report

This is fun. Mine probably makes the most sense out of any I've seen on here yet. What do you think?

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#3631-qsi7za27

by Eric on Mar 25, 2011 3:26 pm • link • report

@Eric:

I literally laughed out loud when I saw your map. It's great!

by Steven Yates on Mar 25, 2011 3:30 pm • link • report

@ Dan: I like that idea!I gerrymandered a bit more, with the goal of gentrifying the wards.

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#3685-7mzprxv4

Wards 5, 6, 7 & 8 cross the river.
Wards 2, 6, 7 & 8 cross the race borders, and own part of the Mall.
Georgetown gets split over two wards.

I would have messed things up more, but I got stuck on the unmovable council member districts.

This is fun!

by Jasper on Mar 25, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report

By Jove, I think I've got it! A solution that will give those parts of the city that have been left behind access to the skills of the Council's top economic thinker, give Lance a councilmember who agrees with him on transportation and development issues, and give Tommy Wells the perfect urbanist design sandbox! It also increases the use of major roadways as ward dividing lines and improves the chances for a new United stadium, which are both nice fringe benefits.

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#3682-ubhddix1

This magnificiently Solomonic solution has been embargoed to the press until next Friday.

by cminus on Mar 25, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report

Great fun. I added all of SW DC to ward 8, made ward 7 go south just a bit, and gave ward 6 a bit of eastern ward 2. Neighborhoods all stay intact this way.

I also moved Eastern Cap Hill back into ward 6 where it belongs.

by T. Aloisi on Mar 25, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

Ward 3 remains relatively the same, the rest get the treatment:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#3907-glcoikit

by MLD on Mar 25, 2011 4:01 pm • link • report

I tried to turn it into a giant yellow smiley face... but alas, all those pesky councilmembers' homes & its refusal to let me smother the city with Ward 4 limited my capability to turn DC into awesome.

by Bossi on Mar 25, 2011 4:04 pm • link • report

Interesting that even in the more outlandish revisions (all of which are excellent, Eric and Jasper) Ward 1 is largely untouched. I'd have thought that it would be affected more, as it touches on four other wards.

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier, but is the immovable councilmember district enshrined in law, or just, as a practical matter, a non-starter? Appropriate districting is one of the foundations of democray, and it seems silly to hold it hostage just because an elected official happens to live on the outskirts of one of his or her ward.

I promise I'm not as naive as this post makes me appear.

by dcd on Mar 25, 2011 4:13 pm • link • report

dcd: It's not enshrined in law. It's just that any plan which does that is a nonstarter with the Council, and a big part of the goal with this application is to try to generate some input that we can use to give Councilmembers a sense of what residents want them to do. I don't mind fantastical gerrymandered maps, which are fun, but I had to draw the line somewhere.

by David Alpert on Mar 25, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report

@dcd

Ward 1 is the most compact of the wards and its tracts are mostly high-population, so it's hard to change them drastically without drastically changing other wards too.

Redistricting a council member out of his/her seat is probably possible (not against the law). It happens sometimes when states redraw district boundaries. But I would think on the DC council since each CM has more power (part of a smaller group) they would prevent it from happening.

My final silly attempt. In hindsight I should have messed with ward 8 even more.
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#3977-i725w2xz

by MLD on Mar 25, 2011 4:23 pm • link • report

I found this on line which helps explain 'some' of the methodology behind the canvassing involved in the Census:

www.civilrights.org/census/census-resources/census-and-non-traditional-housing.pdf

by Lance on Mar 25, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report

@dcd 'Interesting that even in the more outlandish revisions (all of which are excellent, Eric and Jasper) Ward 1 is largely untouched. I'd have thought that it would be affected more, as it touches on four other wards.

Yes, I noticed that too when I was doing my redistricting excercise. The official line (as I'd talked about in the earlier part of this thread) was that because it was like a balloon, Ward 1 was getting pushed around 'a lot' by the many iterations the Council went through before settling on the current boundaries. One person in the know though (a Councilmember's aid) had winked at this assertion ... and told me that it was Graham's efforts to re-establish is potical base (i.e., push the African-Americans out of his ward ... for the same reasons Fenty would have pushed them out of the city if he could have. There was a serious A-A contender on the east side of Ward 1 at the time.) She went on to say that his antics had caused the process to drag out far longer than it should have. (I think it took a couple months of meetings ...)

by Lance on Mar 25, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report

@MLD -- I love your latest re-drawing. It would put the biggest town-gown battles all in the same ward!

by Jacques on Mar 25, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report

Here's mine.... http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#4449-rhluya6t

Ward 7 resident

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Mar 25, 2011 5:35 pm • link • report

@goldfish... That comment is not accurate. Many new residents have moved into Ward 7. The problem is the land use in Ward 7 is mostly single-family or low-density multi-family residential which has remained relatively stagnant over the last decade. Without major land use changes into higher density, we more than likely won't see major changes in population.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Mar 25, 2011 5:47 pm • link • report

With a ward to stretch the length of the Potomac, and with the Stadiums together: http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#1394-lfjic54k

by Patrick on Mar 25, 2011 6:16 pm • link • report

How about:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#4743-4cgb6lgt

by MBG on Mar 25, 2011 7:52 pm • link • report

I tried to get every ward within +/- 500 residents of the balanced population of 75,000, so Ward 7 adds five tracts east of the river. I also consolidated NoMa and the Mall/Southwest Federal Center into Ward 6, to provide continuous oversight for future development:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#4697-0yyf45zs

Something that should be possible to do is to calculate the perimeter of wards on the fly. A good map should have compact districts -- minimizing the perimeter:area ratio. Sometimes it seems that remappers seek to maximize that ratio; I used to live across from this Chicago ward, which has just about most squiggly boundaries I've ever seen. A great many years ago, the ward was about four miles to the southeast and was infamous for being run by the mob.

In that spirit, I also humbly offer a "shake things up" map as well. Gerrymanderers, you may bow down in awe.

by Payton on Mar 25, 2011 8:32 pm • link • report

Lance,

Regarding the non-counting of people living in the Chinese Embassy complex and whether it passes Constitutional muster: the Embassy Complex is sovereign Chinese territory, and therefore they cannot be counted because they are not living on U-S soil.

The framers of the Constitution may not have foreseen this situation, but by allowing for treaties, the document speaks affirmatively to this matter. A consular treaty with the PRC takes the people living in that building out of the USA and puts them on Chinese soil. Therefore, they are not counted.

by Mike S. on Mar 25, 2011 8:52 pm • link • report

@MLD
@MatthewStenberg

I don't think Mary Cheh is going to take kindly to being redistricted out of her ward.

by Andrew on Mar 25, 2011 9:03 pm • link • report

Here is my stab:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#4938-3qowkmt8

I was still trying to get the Woodley Park portion of Ward 1 into Ward 3, but it became entirely too complicated.

by Andrew on Mar 25, 2011 9:09 pm • link • report

Because CMs serve 4 years, some of them wouldn't technically be moved out of "their" district. But some might--what happens then? Can they continue to serve the remainder of their term or would they no longer be eligible? (This is essentially the same question of what would happen if a CM moved out of their ward).

So it's a bit different than Congressional reapportionment, where everybody is up for reelection under the new apportionment.

by ah on Mar 25, 2011 9:09 pm • link • report

I dare someone to top the outlandishness of this one:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#4999-qpw60ik9

by Eric on Mar 25, 2011 10:21 pm • link • report

Thank you David. I made one earlier that was just simple, but then I thought: what if we got to vote on these things, imagine how sneaky we could be?

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5080-c0jq8u8a

Muhahahaha!

by copperreddc on Mar 25, 2011 10:51 pm • link • report

So, I think what most people in Chevy Chase want is to be put back into Ward 3. I won't justify that, but it is a desire.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 25, 2011 10:58 pm • link • report

Here are my artistically inspired joke proposals:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5280-q8ljn5zt

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5269-vutmow15

On the last one if it weren't for the councilmembers houses I would have had all the districts be border-to-border NW-SE.

by Zmapper on Mar 26, 2011 2:53 am • link • report

The pattern of the numbering of the DC wards is similar to the pattern of the numbering iof the arrondissements in Paris ... they start at the center and expand 'like a snail' as the French say. (Except that Paris' is counterclockwise). I wonder if ours purposely started off that way? Would be interesting to see what the first apportionment looked like back in the 70s ... and how it's changed since then.

by Lance on Mar 26, 2011 9:04 am • link • report

This is so addicting! But here's mine:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5403-0051ceev

Main goal, besides evening out populations as much as possible, was to span Wards 5, 7 and 8 across the Anacostia River, maybe foster more of that "One City" unity. So I have Ward 8 getting Navy Yard and Southwest south of M Street, Ward 7 taking parts of Hill East, and Ward 5 spanning the river to include River Terrace, Kenilworth, and other neighborhoods west of 295.

Elsewhere, to make up for the lost areas in Ward 5, I gave it Carver/Langston, eastern Kingman Park, Trinidad, Ivy City/Gallaudet, and (powerplay) Chinatown. Ward 5 gets northern Queens Chapel, Truxton Circle, and Shaw east of 7th Street. Ward 2 grabs another section of Woodley Park, in the name of evening out populations.

by Tim on Mar 26, 2011 9:08 am • link • report

Only amateurs pull two or three wards across the river. It's possible to pull seven wards across the river:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5292-l2rmgv65

Doing so actually would amount to a severe dilution of East of the River's political clout, since it amounts to "cracking" the area and minimizing its ability to sway any of the council races.

I see that Zmapper also proposed a series of NW-SE stripes. Mine offers even less contiguity: it shatters existing social boundaries and divides neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible, so as to make more councilmembers vested in each neighborhood and to further baffle "concerned citizens." It redistricts even more of the city, to make councilmembers get out there and familiarize themselves with new neighborhoods. And it puts much choice territory, including the Capitol and the Vista Hotel, into Ward 8 (making Ward 2 the largest ward east of the Anacostia) to lessen the effects of the apartheid afflicting it. Every ward is within +/-1% of the ideal population, as well.

by Payton on Mar 26, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

@ David Alpert:It's just that any plan which does that is a nonstarter with the Council

Thank you for confirming here that council members act in their own interest first. By including the limitation, you implicitly condone that anti-democratic behavior. It is a form of self-censureship that we do not need. We do not need to exclude good ideas because of the poor council members position. I'd love to see Wells and Barry end up in the same ward.

Furthermore, we can laugh at proposals like

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5280-q8ljn5zt
and
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5269-vutmow15
(hats off to Zmapper)
or
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#4999-qpw60ik9
(Eric)
or
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5292-l2rmgv65
(Payton, also making my point)

but they're not as crazy as you think. They would force council members to represent the city more as one unit, as opposed to the silly notion of black vs white apartheid. That way, the city could truly become One City, in stead of 8 wards.

@ Payton: Doing so actually would amount to a severe dilution of East of the River's political clout,

I am not sure it is good to give a part of the city a lot of clout over the others. You can argue that "east of the river" has a lot of clout, but you could also argue that the rich white folks determine everything anyway.

So, it would not be bad to see if such a crazy map could force council members to see the city as One, not as a haphazard 8.

by Jasper on Mar 26, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report

Yes, such "ribbons" are indeed crazy. As I mentioned, "cracking" is a common way for politicians to "divide and conquer" inconvenient constituencies. An extreme example in practice is Austin, Texas, which was split into three districts as part of Tom DeLay's attempt to dilute away its Democratic votes.

If you really wanted "One City," you'd advocate for a city council entirely elected at large. That used to be fairly common across the US. These days, it's largely been discarded as a violation of the civil rights of minorities, since the citywide majority are always able to vote its candidates in, leaving minority groups without a seat at the table. Geographically compact wards also ensure that what's going on in each neighborhood quickly resonates at City Hall.

by Payton on Mar 26, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report

Just for kicks... how difficult would it be to add a function where we can add or remove wards entirely? I'd be curious to see how we might redistrict (reward?) if we had 7 wards, 6 wards... or a 9th ward?

by Bossi on Mar 26, 2011 2:49 pm • link • report

Oh- one more request: would it be feasible to add some sort of marker on the map to denote which zones have the councilmembers' homes within them, and then to let us override those, anyway? I'd be curious to see how things might look if Bowzer & Evans didn't live where they live... but their homes are in the way of my masterminding.

by Bossi on Mar 26, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report

@Lance: The arrondissements of Paris go clockwise, not counter.

by Herschel on Mar 26, 2011 6:15 pm • link • report

Hey, why not, here's another one, with the single goal of getting as much of the business district as possible out of Jack Evans's hands and into Tommy Wells's.

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#6065-4qlwgrc5

by tom veil on Mar 26, 2011 10:46 pm • link • report

@ Payton: If you really wanted "One City," you'd advocate for a city council entirely elected at large. That used to be fairly common across the US. These days, it's largely been discarded as a violation of the civil rights of minorities, since the citywide majority are always able to vote its candidates in, leaving minority groups without a seat at the table.

Or you hold proportional elections. I know that's kinda unheard of in the US, but it gives plenty of minority protection, as proven by the splintered parliaments and city councils in Holland and Belgium. I can pretty much it would guarantee a republican and a green seat in DC. Which is why the totalitariandemocratic party in DC will stop it at all means.

How come no republicans run for wards 2, 3 and 4? They should have a chance if they're moderates.

by Jasper on Mar 26, 2011 10:54 pm • link • report

Another one: instead of slicing the city into ribbons, this one tries for L'Enfant inspired diagonal wedges:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#5589-sy62e0w5

Unfortunately, the position of Alexander's and Wells' home turfs results in their easterly slice getting divided east/west instead of north/south. The relatively high population density of Mid-City becomes quite apparent in the narrow pie slices radiating north.

by Payton on Mar 27, 2011 8:53 am • link • report

In the spirit of racial and economic integration (not as creative as Eric's)....

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#6175-nr1tgn5e

totally far fetched but fun thinking how it would upset the pandering apple cart.

by Joe on Mar 27, 2011 9:27 am • link • report

This boundary attempts to put a greater emphasis on caretakers of responsible city growth on critical areas (within limits possible) by minimize Barry and Thomas impact...

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#6216-4itbv1wv

by Joe on Mar 27, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

I get a laugh whenever I here Barry moan about apartheid, since Ward 8 includes Bolling; a place I can guarantee he's never set foot on, nor a big source of votes for him. Here's my map where I move Bolling together with Navy Yard in Ward 6 and adjust Ward 7 to include most of the eastern corner of DC:
http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#7664-s1hsngb5

by Smoke_Jaguar4 on Mar 28, 2011 8:09 pm • link • report

The common themes to my maps...
- 1 tends to migrate southeast a little bit, picking up bits of Logan Circle whilst losing portions of Col Heights.
- 2 centers more on Georgetown
- 3 expands up to Rock Creek Park
- 4 tends to push into Col Heights
- 5 tends to push a bit into westward
- 6 moves more downtown
- 7 reaches out along Benning and E Cap
- 8 is the outlier... sometimes picking up the northern shore of the Anacostia; sometimes pushing up into 7.

by Bossi on Mar 29, 2011 12:08 am • link • report

This is the easiest to institute, and most plausible. Only three census tracts change. 8 takes a bit of 7, 7 takes a bit of 6, and 1 takes a bit of 2, all adjacent to their territory already.

by Rich on Mar 31, 2011 9:49 am • link • report

Here we are: http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#8448-qfdpetp5

by Rich on Mar 31, 2011 9:50 am • link • report

I'm with cminus and Tom Veil: Here's one named NeedMoreConstituentServicesForWard2 MovesDowntownToWard6: http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#8433-rfw2lntl

by Rob Halligan on Mar 31, 2011 9:54 am • link • report

What fun, what fun! I hope the Council gets something similar to work with. My attempt:

http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#8577-qhcf07ix

Thank you Mr. Alpert!

by swededc on Mar 31, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report

Greater, greater tool.

One thing to learn from the 2001 redistricting is that stray tracts are a bad idea. Kingman Park's attachment to Ward 7 has been a disaster for its residents. There is little cross-river understanding or sympathy at the ANC level for local issues of zoning, licenses, traffic, noise, etc. (This goes both ways.)

Now in 2011, we have the numbers to create an entire effective ANC district west of the river for Ward 7 or 8. This goal should drive the solution in my mind.

The two easiest ways to do this are to create ANC out of east Ward 5/6 (for Ward 7) or out of southwest Ward 6/2 (for Ward 8). Both solutions have a lot of practical matters to consider.

However many people are delighted by the idea of moving the White House and half of the Capitol into Ward 8! (The numbers work.)

by GeneI on May 18, 2011 10:49 am • link • report