Lines have been drawn in City Council’s redistricting effort: physical lines between districts and philosophical lines that seem to be drawn between races.
At the physical crux of these differences is Murray Hill, whose residents have spoken loudly against Council’s current working map that takes them out of District 14 – away from their affluent neighbors in Avondale and Riverside – and puts them into District 9, a minority access district.
At the philosophical crux: the view — voiced by a small minority of Murray Hill residents — that the neighborhood should not be in a minority district and the subsequent resentment of that view by Council members, particularly those who represent the minority districts.
The matter nearly came to a boiling point at a Rules Committee redistricting workshop Thursday morning as District 14 Council member Jim Overton offered two alternative redistricting maps that would either put all of Murray Hill, Riverside and Avondale into District 9 or put the southern Lakeshore area into District 9 and take an equal part — but not all — of Murray Hill back into District 14.
Council vice president Suzanne Jenkins put the race issue on the floor in questioning the sense of Overton’s alternative maps.
“If it’s not about representation, then why are we even having this discussion?” she asked. “Because it was clear to me at several of those meetings I went to it was about representation. Those comments were made, not by all, but by enough that the point was driven home: that if they were in District 9 their property values were going to go down.”
Overton admitted a small majority of the concerned Murray Hill citizens held that view, “but by far the majority is not interested in that. By far, the majority doesn’t care who their representative is. The majority thinks they just want to preserve a longtime — 60 years or so — relationship between areas.” He said only maybe one in 10 residents voiced concern about who would be representing them.
District 9 Council member Reggie Fullwood came out strongly against the revised maps, and at one point, while debating the swapping of Lakeshore for Murray Hill, he and Overton entered into a somewhat heated exchange.
“The map we have now makes sense,” said Fullwood. “... I don’t want to represent a group of people who don’t want me. I don’t want to represent people who are going to be lobbying against me every chance they get. If that’s the case, so be it. We’re going off on these philosophical tirades. And, what we are doing, regardless of what you’re saying, is switching out one problem for another, no matter what you say.”
Overton responded to the idea of switching problems. He said most of Lakeshore was already in District 9 and that his second map would reunite the community. He said he didn’t expect a strong negative response from Lakeshore.
“I’ve lived in this district all my life,” he said. “I’ve never lived more than a mile from where I was born. And I can tell you that people up in through here think of themselves as being in Lakeshore. And all of Lakeshore is in one piece here. And that is a sensible position to take. So you can’t just say ‘What ever you say, they’re going ...”
Fullwood interrupted.
“Should not Murray Hill be in one piece if you’re going to make that argument?” he said.
“Murray Hill is at the table, Mr. Fullwood,” Overton shot back. Both men proceeded to talk over each other for a moment.
“You’re taking a district that makes sense and you’re not making sense,” Fullwood continued.
“Well, it may not make sense to you, Mr. Fullwood, but it makes sense to the people from Murray Hill who I represent,” responded Overton.
“I represent parts of Murray Hill also,” Fullwood answered. “Keep that in mind. Half of Murray Hill is now in my district. So, you can take ownership of all of it if you want, but the reality is that I represent half of it right now.”
The exchange then brought down committee chair Pat Lockett-Felder’s gavel. A minute or so later, Overton left the room for a few minutes.
Earlier in the meeting Fullwood criticized both of Overton’s alternative plans. The first, putting all of Riverside, Avondale and Murray Hill into District 9, would reduce the minority population in his district to 51 percent, he said, and the minority voting age population to 48 percent.
Council member Jerry Holland asked general counsel Virginia Norton if the Council could legally reject a plan only because of racial balance, to which she basically replied no. When she said that would likely result in going to court, Lockett-Felder responded, “If we have to go to court, let’s go.”
Fullwood also asked Overton rhetorically, “You think the people in Riverside will be OK with that?” referring to a possible move into District 9. He added that while many Murray Hill residents have spoken about wanting to remain with Riverside and Avondale, no one from those two communities has expressed concern about losing Murray Hill.
Fullwood and other Council members said Murray Hill’s and Riverside-Avondale’s common interest in historic restoration shouldn’t be affected by Council district lines.
Fullwood said that despite district lines there will be “no wall, no barbed wire fence” to keep the communities from interacting on common interests.
Despite the title of workshop, the meeting had more debate than work, despite Council member Alberta Hipp’s pleas for a possible compromise between the two sides.
Lockett-Felder said there might be another workshop scheduled before the Rules Committee votes on a map to send to the full Council.