Yankee_in_TX Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Is there a website some where that lays out boundary lines for Heights, Shady Acres, etc, etc? If not, what is 25th just west of Durham? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee_in_TX Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 If not, what is 25th just west of Durham?Nevermind on this question:The Shady Acres Civic Club is bounded by properties on the north side of 26th Street east of Couch and on the north side of 27th street west of Couch; on the east by a line approximately 575' west of North Durham Drive separating the 800's from the 900 addresses; on the south by a line in the center of 15th Street east of Bevis and by properties south of 21st Street west of Bevis; and on the west by a line approximately 725' west of Ella north of 21st Street and by a line approximately 150' east of Bevis south of 21st Street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samiamj Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Is there a website some where that lays out boundary lines for Heights, Shady Acres, etc, etc?If not, what is 25th just west of Durham?It depends on the address. From 900 up, you are part of Shady Acres. From 899 and down, you are part of Heights Progressive.Here is a map of Shady Acres.http://www.shadyacres.org/index.php?page=12 For a detailed map,http://www.gugi.us/SACCAREASINDEX.html Edited June 26, 2009 by samiamj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/04/parker_administration_lays_out.html There may be a method to their madness but I can't see it. Appears that Woodland Heights, Norhill/Proctor Plaza and East Sunset Heights are part of a new district. Speculation I heard today has been either "divide and conquer the most opinionated neighborhood in town" or District H and Woodland Heights will never see eye-to-eye again, so Gonzales wanted them out of his domain. I don't know if either of these have a shred of truth, but I think the borders are strange indeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 An admittedly half-baked idea; why not let voters decide in which district they belong?When registering to vote, one could choose a district, much as one now chooses a political party. It would be to one's advantage to affiliate oneself with neighbors with similar concerns. Therefore, Montrose people would create a Montrose district (of whatever letter designation), Heights people, East Enders, etc. would do the same. It's surely not a crazier idea than to think the current gerrymandering is a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannomad Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I won't pretend to fully understand all of this, and of course it's inherently political, but in addition to the politics I think the Voting Rights Act has a lot to do with the process of redrawing. I'm not trying to make any type of statement or start a debate on racial/ethnic politics, instead I am only laying it out the way I understand it. In a nutshell, I think the Voting Rights Acts says the city council must look like an accurate representation of the racial/ethnic makeup of the city's population. Obviously District H was becoming a "white district," whereas it had been a Hispanic district. Therefore, it had to be redrawn both politically and legally. Now District H is clearly Hispanic again, and the new District J is clearly the White/Non-Hispanic district which takes in the majority of the recently gentrified areas. I think it only takes a few seconds to look at this map and determine "who" the district is suppose to represent. The new map more clearly matches the current racial and ethnic makeup of the city. This also explains why some districts barely stretch through other areas before engulfing entire neighborhoods again. District H being the best example of this in how it takes in the "Hispanic north side," barely slips though the "Black 5th ward," and then reemerges to take in the "Hispanic East End." A fair population size is achieved without "diluting" the Hispanic or Black representation on the council. Again, I'm not trying to be controversial, or say if this is right or wrong, but I think that it fits with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and the reality of politics. Of course I have not ruled out the possibility that I am completely wrong here either. Here's some more info for anyone interested: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/2011/ (the voting right act info can be found near the bottom under "Redistricting Criteria:") 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/04/parker_administration_lays_out.htmlThere may be a method to their madness but I can't see it. Appears that Woodland Heights, Norhill/Proctor Plaza and East Sunset Heights are part of a new district. Speculation I heard today has been either "divide and conquer the most opinionated neighborhood in town" or District H and Woodland Heights will never see eye-to-eye again, so Gonzales wanted them out of his domain.I don't know if either of these have a shred of truth, but I think the borders are strange indeed...While your point is likely valid, I believe you said it backward. It is the Heights that got carved out to form a new district, not Norhill/Woodland Heights. These neighborhoods were left in District H with the invisible councilman. The blowback has already begun that of the 2 new districts created, one is majority Anglo, and the other majority African-American. Though at first glance it appears a slight to the fast growing Hispanic population, the numbers appear to support 4 Hispanic majority districts. I don't think that the fact that Hispanics were not elected in 2 of the districts, despite having a Hispanic majority, is what the Voting Rights Act addresses. It is merely the "opportunity" to elect Hispanics.I'm not sure what I think of this yet. Getting rid of Ed Gonzales is wonderful. Getting a Parker puppet in return would not be. But, simply because one lives in the Montrose does not make one a Parker clone, so this may be a win for the Heights...partially, since they cut us in half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heightsite Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Has anyone found the proposed districts by ZIP code? I can't tell which district I'm in under the new proposal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutfieldDan Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 It is the Heights that got carved out to form a new district,...of the 2 new districts created, one is majority Anglo, and the other majority African-American. ...I'm not sure what I think of this yet. Getting rid of Ed Gonzales is wonderful. Getting a Parker puppet in return would not be. But, simply because one lives in the Montrose does not make one a Parker clone, so this may be a win for the Heights...partially, since they cut us in half.This explains Gonzales' vote for historic districts. Most of the historic districts are now NOT in District H. This must have been a deal that Parker made with Gonzales some time ago to get Gonzales to support the new historic district ordinance. He now is assured of being re-elected, despite his failure to represent the constituents he has now. We who live in the Heights have had NO representation on City Council, thanks to Parker and Gonzalez. I want to get rid of both of them. I don't care if Gonzalez is no longer going to be my councilman, he doesn't deserve a future in city government because he is an opportunist who took advantage of the neighborhoods he is supposed to represent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Has anyone found the proposed districts by ZIP code? I can't tell which district I'm in under the new proposal!Pretty sure Studewood/Main is the dividing line in the Heights. I wish they had a better map as well.Interesting that Montrose and The Heights (not Norhill, etc) are back together again. I remember back when they were split.Being a former Heightsonian and a current Montrosian, I can see the common interests, and how that may help both neighborhoods at City Council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heightsite Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 It's hard to tell if the line's at Studewood or Heights Boulevard on the southern end of the Heights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Gonzales is most assuredly not assured re-election. He screwed his Hispanic constituents as well, and they are not pleased. He will get an opponent.While the Heights and Montrose may have similarities, the problem is if the new councilmember is a Parker puppet. If that happens, we are no better off than we were with Gonzales. In fact, it could be worse, as Gonzales is ignored by the rest of Council. He was no help, but he couldn't garner support to hurt us either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 It's hard to tell if the line's at Studewood or Heights Boulevard on the southern end of the Heights.I see what you mean.I think it is Studemont/Studewood south to Washington, Washington to Heights/Waugh, Heights/Waugh to Memorial, Memorial to I45.I wish they had a better map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 If you blow the pdf up enough, you can see that the line comes southest on N. Main to the Studewood intersection. It then heads south on Studewood and curves under the freeway. Look at a regular map to see the curve in Studewood at I-10. It then goes west on Washington to Heights/Waugh, south on Waugh to Buffalo Bayou, and east on the bayou to I-45.It also includes a triangle at N. Main and Studewood, but I cannot tell how many blocks that includes. It is likely the boundary of a Census district, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Enjoy.http://gregsopinion.com/maps/HoustonCOH2011Districts.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Enjoy.http://gregsopinion.com/maps/HoustonCOH2011Districts.htmlNice.Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heightsite Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Thanks, Red! Why can't the city present a comprehensive map? Woodland Heights residents must be livid as well as those that live in Memorial Heights. I'm certain they will contest the boundaries as they more likely share common demographics with those of us to the west of them rather than the east.Not to hi-jack the thread, but I had no knowledge of Washington Cemetery, another perk to seeing Red's map! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwki Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Not to hi-jack the thread, but I had no knowledge of Washington Cemetery, another perk to seeing Red's map!Maybe Red could mark Howard's grave site too! Back to topic, why does Norhill get disenfranchised? I feel like a Palestinian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I am glad that Montrose is being taken out of D, but being put in with the whiniest group in the city give me pause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I am glad that Montrose is being taken out of D, but being put in with the whiniest group in the city give me pause.The pattern is consistent. Dangerous Montrose Liberals is a category not protected by the Voter's Right Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 The pattern is consistent. Dangerous Montrose Liberals is a category not protected by the Voter's Right Act.Drat!Foiled again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 The pattern is consistent. Dangerous Montrose Liberals is a category not protected by the Voter's Right Act.I assume that at 1:00 am in the morning, you were simply looking for a thread in which to post 'dangerous montrose liberal', as the city has a 'dangerous montrose liberal' as its chief executive officer. Hardly sounds like they need protecting. That being said, the larger...and more relevant...question is whether the creation of a majority Anglo district will pass muster with the DOJ, which will review the proposed plan under the terms of the court settlement from the 1970s lawsuit. The clear argument of Mayor Parker is that 4 of the 11 districts are majority Hispanic. However, two of those districts are existing districts that have not elected Hispanics, and further, the Voting Age Population is not majority Hispanic. The rules require that the districts be within 10% population difference from the biggest to the smallest. But, due to larger families in Hispanic neighborhoods than other groups, and those ineligible to vote (generally illegals), the voting age population in these neighborhoods is a smaller percentage. I don't think the DOJ settlement contemplated this scenario in the 1970s.Left unsaid by Hispanic critics of this map is the fact that Hispanics have a rather abysmal voting participation record. While I am all for a fair district map that gives "opportunity" for minorities to be elected to counsel, I do not believe that the court settlement requires minority voters to be spoon-fed their candidates. If a district is majority minority, but that minority cannot be bothered to leave the house to vote, whose fault is that?It will be interesting to hear Parker's response to these claims, and whether DOJ will agree with Parker or the critics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.