Citizens Redistricting Committee

This week, New York’s Legislative Task Force on Redistricting and Reapportionment (LATFOR) is holding its final public hearing before draft plans are released. The venue is Plattsburgh on the shores of Lake Champlain in the state’s “North Country.”

This hearing was added to the schedule at a late date after some members of LATFOR correctly noted that the region was being unfairly excluded from the public hearing process. With only 2.55% of New York’s population, the North Country region (defined here as Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence, Franklin, Hamilton, Clinton, Essex, Warren, and Northern Herkimer Counties) is often overlooked by elected official and media from the rest of the state.

Dominated by the rugged mountain geography of Adirondack State Park, the region is by any measure the most rural and least developed in New York State. With the exception of the areas around the small cities of Glens Falls, Watertown, Potsdam, Massena, Malone, and Plattsburgh, the North Country has a population density of less than 100 residents per square mile. Much of the central Adirondack area is wilderness with no permanent residents at all.

Unlike much of the rest of upstate New York, the North Country’s population grew from 482,867 in 2000 to 491,962 in 2010. Looking at the map of population change, it appears that growth took place in perimeter along Lake Ontario, the St Lawrence River, Lake Champlain, and the southeast corner near Glens Falls, while losses took place mostly in the Adirondack interior.

Looking at socio-economic demographics, median household incomes in the North Country are relatively uniform in the middle-class $40,000 to $75,000 range. Incomes near small cities and in certain parts of Essex, St. Lawrence, and Franklin County often fall into the lower $25,000 to $40,000 range.

The North Country is distinct from the rest of New York State in its lack of population of communities of color and immigrants. According to Census 2010 data, 91% of the voting age population of the North Country is non-Hispanic white. However, this percentage rises if the region’s prison population is removed from the count.

13,243 incarcerated people were counted amongst twelve North Country state prisons in the 2010 Census, with the majority from the large facilities in Clinton and Franklin Counties (Clinton Correctional Facility, Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Franklin Correctional Facility).

Last year, the New York State legislature passed Chapter 57, Part XX of the Laws of 2010, ending the practice of prison-based gerrymandering in which incarcerated people are counted at the location of their incarceration. For the redistricting of the State Senate and State Assembly, incarcerated people will instead be counted at their last known place of residence.

As a result these 13,243 incarcerated people will no longer be counted as residents of the North Country. However, If we consider the population growth that has taken place since 2000, a gain of 9,904 residents, the North Country will only lose 3,339 residents, or 0.7%, compared to the last redistricting. The reenumerating of incarcerated people to their home communities instead of their prisons will not have a major effect on redistricting in the North Country, yet State Senator Betty Little (District 45-R) remains the lead plaintiff on a suit currently challenging the law in court.

Senator Little’s current district has a large majority of the North Country’s prison population. But it would not be difficult to make minor adjustments to pick up additional population and still have a district that covers the eastern half of the North Country.

The story is the same in the State Assembly where it is not challenging to make adjustments to Districts 113 (Sayward-R) and 114 (Duprey-R) in order to compensate for the loss of incarcerated people. The North Country will maintain its current four Assembly seats.

Chapter 57, Part XX of the Laws of 2010 only covers state-level redistricting and will have no effect on Congressional apportionment. But like all of New York’s congressional districts, the North Country seats will have to grow to fit the new 2010 district populations of 717,707.

The North Country is current divided between three Congressional districts.

District 20 (Gibson-R) forms an “L” shape and extends all the way from the Catskills and Hudson River Valley into the eastern portion of the North Country.

District 23 (Owens-D) occupies most of the North Country but extends to the south at Fulton County and far to the south across Oneida Lake into the whole of Madison County.

District 24 (Hanna-R) extends up from the Finger Lakes region into Herkimer County.

There is no basis in demographic data or communities of interest for any of these district shapes. As we have advocated in previous testimonies and blogs, we believe that the Congressional districts in Upstate New York should be drawn on a regional basis. Instead of two districts extending into the North Country from very distinct regions to the south, and a North Country-based district extending all the way into the completely unrelated Madison County, it is possible to draw a single district for the whole of the North Country region.

Assemblymember Ken Blankenbush (R), who represents District 122 in the western portion of the North Country, has argued at previous LATFOR hearings that the North Country region is a very distinct community with different interests and priorities than the regions to the south. Our analysis supports Assemblymember Blankenbush’s views and we believe that a unified North Country region Congressional district should be drawn.

With more than 1.3 million residents packed into an area roughly 15 miles from east to west and 20 miles from north to south, Nassau County is one of the densest suburbs in the United States. Before the New York City consolidation of 1898 and the creation of the five boroughs, what is now Nassau was the eastern half of Queens County.

And during recent decades Nassau has become increasingly dense and diverse in population, leading many parts of the county to resemble New York City’s outer boroughs in appearance and demographics.

This is more the case for the southern half of the county, particularly the Town of Hempstead, than it is for the North Shore. Parts of southern and central Nassau have reached population densities on a par with those found in the outer reaches of Queens. Almost the entire southern half of Nassau County has reached population densities greater than 5,000 people per square mile, a level which is generally considered the marker of a “dense urban environment.”

The North Shore, particularly Oyster Bay, is significantly less dense with more open space and larger lot sizes. The difference between north and south Nassau is particularly stark when looking at a satellite view: the dominant color in the North is the green of trees and open space while the dominant color in the south is the gray of parking lots and densely packed structures.

Differences between North Shore and South are also evident when looking at the socio-economic data.

The wealth of the North Shore communities, where most households have incomes of over $125,000, boosts Nassau’s overall median income to over $92,000, making it the wealthiest county in New York State by this measure.

On the other hand, some areas, particularly in central Hempstead, have median household incomes in the middle and working-class $40,000 to $75,000 range.

Differences in education closely follow the contrasts in median household income. While the majority of North Shore residents have college degrees, the majority of South Shore residents do not. The contrast is again particularly strong in central Hempstead where only a small minority of residents has finished college.

As we’ve seen in regions throughout New York, differences in education have a direct relationship with differences in work. Most residents in the north half of Nassau work in “white collar” job in business, management, or professions (e.g. architects, designers, teachers).

Residents in the south half, particularly in central and west Hempstead, are more likely to be employed in either “blue collar” work in industry, construction, and transportation, or in the service sector.

Southern Nassau also has a higher concentration of immigrant population, most densely in central Hempstead and also in western Hempstead. Parts of the Town of North Hempstead also have growing numbers of immigrants.

In all these factors, we see how many parts of Nassau County increasingly resemble the socio-economic profile of Queens: urban density, lower middle to middle class incomes, a workforce concentrated in the blue collar and service sectors, and an increasing immigrant population.

If one were to attempt to draw a shape around the areas of Nassau that most resemble Queens, the following shape would be drawn consisting of the sixteen villages of Valley Stream, North Valley Stream, Elmont, Franklin Square, West Hempstead, Lakeview, Hempstead, Uniondale, Roosevelt, Baldwin, Freeport, Baldwin Harbor, East Garden City, Carle Place, Westbury, and New Cassel.

In Nassau, this dense working-class concentration is also where the county’s black and Hispanic populations are concentrated.

Within the area of central Nassau highlighted above, the voting-age population is now 68% minority, up from 57% minority a decade ago. In the rest of Nassau outside of this cluster, 79% of the voting-age population is non-Hispanic white.

81% of the non-Hispanic black voters and almost 50% of the Hispanic voting-age population in Nassau lives in this concentrated area.

In Nassau County as a whole, but especially within this cluster, the trend towards an increasing minority population is accelerating.

Overall in Nassau, the non-Hispanic white voting-age population declined by 9% since 2000, but within the central Hempstead cluster it declined by more than 22%.

The non-Hispanic black voting-age population of Nassau increased by almost 16% and the Hispanic population boomed by more than 48%.

Even more significant in terms of proportional increase has been the rise of the Asian population.

But this is a distinct pattern from what’s happened in central Hempstead. The increase of the Asian community has been in northern Nassau, an outgrowth of the tremendous rise in the Asian population of northeast Queens. Asian voting-age population in Nassau increased by a remarkable 68% since 2000 and Asians now account for 7.4% of the voting age population of the county. The growth of the Asian community in North Hempstead and Oyster Bay is on track to be an important factor in 2020 redistricting.

Returning to the issue of central Hempstead, Nassau’s voting age population is now nearly 24% black and Hispanic, up from 18% ten years ago. With this population concentrated in a geographically compact area that also shares many other demographic commonalities, one might expect the communities of west and central Hempstead to be joined in a political district whenever possible.

Unfortunately Nassau County provides a textbook example of political gerrymandering at work.

As is the case in Suffolk, the Senate districts of Nassau County do not appear at first glance to be gerrymanders. Districts are relatively compact and divided between North Shore and South Shore.

But gerrymandering is not really about the shape of a district. In partisan gerrymandering, the shape of a district is merely the side effect of the attempt by the political party in control of the line-drawing process to favor itself and limit opportunities for the opposition party. This is usually done by cracking communities that the line drawers regard as “undesirable” to their political objectives.

As in Suffolk, this is exactly the case in Nassau with the State Senate lines.

Districts 9 (Skelos-R) and 7 (Martins-R) divide the black community in Elmont right down the middle, and Districts 6 (Hannon-R) and 8 (Fuschillo Jr.-R) cut the central Hempstead black community in half.

Dividing the black population of Hempstead between four senate districts effectively shields the incumbents by preventing the community from the opportunity to field a competitive candidate.

The south Nassau Senate lines also divide the Hispanic community which is particularly concentrated in Hempstead and Freeport.

The division between District 6 and 8, between the villages of Hempstead and Uniondale and the village of Roosevelt and Freeport, has been in place for decades despite the demographic commonalities and continued growth of the minority communities.

Rather than continue this partisan gerrymandering, a different Senate district can be drawn in Nassau that closely follows the “demographically distinct” area of Central Hempstead highlighted above.

With the black and Hispanic populations in Nassau now accounting for 24% of the voting-age population, these communities should have the opportunity to field competitive candidates for at least one of Nassau’s five senate seats.

In Congress, Nassau is divided between District 2 (Israel-D), District 3 (King-R), District 4 (McCarthy-D), and District 5 (Ackerman-D).

District 3 (King-R) stands out as the only district in Nassau that crosses North-South rather than East-West. As we’ve seen above, the North and South shores are demographically distinct, so we question the rationale behind this district’s shape.

As we discussed in our Queens blog, District 5 extends far into Queens and includes Jackson Heights-Corona and downtown Flushing. These are the most densely urban, low-income, immigrant areas of the borough and it makes little sense to combine them with the wealthy suburbs of North Shore Nassau.

Districts 2, 3, and 5 could be rearranged to solve these issues and keep the North Shore-South Shore division consistent.

In the Assembly, many of the Nassau districts are drawn in very odd twisting shapes that completely ignore village and school district boundaries.

District 18 (Hooper-D) is a majority-black district drawn in the working-class areas of central Hempstead as good government redistricting principles suggest it should be. But for some reason, large pieces of the villages and school districts of Uniondale and Roosevelt are carved out. The district also takes half of the village of Merrick, making District 19 (McDonaugh-R) non-contiguous with its section in Freeport.

District 13 (Lavine-D) is another puzzler, forming a looping horse shoe shape around District 15 (Montesano-R) and dividing numerous villages and schools districts. Demographics don’t point to any rationale for this shape.

The Nassau Assembly lines could stand for a lot of cleaning up to conform to communities of interest and important local political boundaries.

Since it’s clear what changes should be made if fair, non-partisan redistricting principles were followed, Long Island will be a critical litmus test as to whether LATFOR is capable of drawing anything resembling a non-partisan map.

Covering more than three quarters of Long Island and measuring more than 90 miles from the tip of Montauk to the border with Nassau, Suffolk is one of the largest counties in New York State. With almost 1.5 million residents, it is also the state’s most populous county outside New York City.

LATFOR’s Suffolk County hearing will take place at Farmingdale State College, located right on the border with Nassau, on Wednesday October 5^th.

As a starting point in analyzing Suffolk County demographics, it’s important to first point out the basic differences between West Suffolk and East Suffolk.

West Suffolk—the towns of Huntington, Smithtown, Babylon, Islip, and the west half of Brookhaven—is what can be described as “dense suburbia. Nearly the entire area is developed and covered with housing subdivisions, shopping centers, and office/industrial parks. Babylon and Islip are significantly denser than Huntington and Smithtown, with less open space and smaller lot sizes.

Once one goes further east than central Brookhaven (about an hour and fifteen minutes from New York City), Suffolk County becomes more rural than suburban. Much farmland remains in Eastern Suffolk County despite continued development. The seasonal summer population of the Hamptons is not captured by any of the Census numbers. This is important to remember when looking at the socio-economic data.

Looking at median household incomes, it appears that there are no concentrated areas of poverty in Suffolk County.

But there is a clear contrast between the North Shore towns of Huntington and Smithtown, where most households make over $75,000 and many over $125,000, and most of Babylon and Islip where the population is more middle and working-class. Central and South Brookhaven is also more middle and working-class when compared to the North Shore. And again, the summer wealth of the Hamptons does not show up in the Census Bureau’s surveys of permanent residents.

Differences in homeownership also follow this North-South divide. Since Suffolk County is a suburban-rural environment, a majority of households throughout the county are clearly homeowners. But parts of Babylon, Islip, and southern Brookhaven have significant numbers of renter households.

The socio-economic contrast between Huntington and Smithtown and most of Babylon and Islip can again be seen in looking at education. While a majority of Huntington and Smithtown residents have college degrees, most residents of Babylon and Islip do not. In some areas of Babylon and Islip, less than 20% of residents have finished college.

As we’ve seen in regions throughout New York, differences in education have a direct relationship with differences in work. Most residents in the north half of Suffolk work in “white collar” job in business, management, or professions (e.g. architects, designers, teachers). Residents in the south half, particularly in Babylon, Central Islip, and the Mastic-Shirley area in Brookhaven are more likely to work in “blue collar” jobs or the service sector.

Overall, the above maps indicate a demographic contrast between Huntington-Smithtown and Babylon-Islip, and to a lesser extent, between the north and south halves of Brookhaven.

Looking closer, central Babylon and Islip are particularly distinct, with higher population densities as well as the clearest concentrations of working-class socio-economic characteristics.

The above area of Babylon and Islip highlighted in red is clearly demographically distinct from the rest of Suffolk County.

In Suffolk, this dense working-class concentration is also where the county’s black and Hispanic populations are concentrated.

Within the area of central Babylon and Islip highlighted above (the villages of Amityville, Copiague, North Amityville, Lindenhurst, North Lindenhurst, West Babylon, Wyandanch, Wheatley Heights, Deer Park, Baywood, Brentwood, North Bay Shore, Central Islip, North Great River, Islandia, and the north halves of Bay Shore, Islip, and East Islip), the voting age population is now majority-minority.

In contrast, the rest of Suffolk’s voting-age population outside of this area is over 81% non-Hispanic white. More than half of the Hispanic and Black population of Suffolk County lives within this small area of Babylon and Islip.

Overall, as we’ve seen in other regions of New York, the population of Suffolk County would have fallen if not for growth in the minority communities.

While the non-Hispanic white voting-age population of Suffolk fell by 0.7% since the year 2000, the non-Hispanic black voting age population grew by 18.4% and the Hispanic population by 67.7%. Asians account for only 3.4% of Suffolk’s population but are also increasing at a rapid pace.

Suffolk is now almost 22% Black and Hispanic, up from just 16% ten years ago. With this minority population concentrated in a geographically compact area that also shares many other demographic commonalities, one might expect central Babylon and Islip to be joined in a political district whenever possible.

Unfortunately Suffolk County is one of the areas of New York where LATFOR’s habit of political gerrymandering is best exemplified.

At first glance, the State Senate districts in Suffolk County look like fairly compact, common-sense districts. District 1 (LaValle-R) occupies the eastern, rural half of the county and the other districts are all separated between North Shore and South Shore as they should be.

Only a close look at the lines in Babylon and Islip reveals the partisan gerrymandering at play here.

In Islip, Districts 3 (Zeldin-R) and 4 (Johnson-R) crack the Hispanic community almost directly in half.

In Babylon, District 4 and District 8 (Fuschillo Jr.-R) divide the black communities in North Amityville and Wyandanch.

The Senate lines in Suffolk are clearly drawn to divide minority voters into three districts to prevent a minority candidate from challenging the incumbent.

It’s not just about race though – remember that these areas put together are also a clear socio-economic community of interest that should be kept together if good government redistricting criteria were being followed.

This political gerrymander also violates the principle that villages and school districts – very important units of local governance in suburban areas like Suffolk – should not be unnecessarily divided.

Senate Districts 3 and 4 cut six school districts (Brentwood, Islip, East Islip, Connetquot, Sayville, Sachem) and seven villages (Islip, East Islip, Oakdale, West Sayville, Sayville, Holbrook, Bohemia) as they gerrymander the town of Islip.

The lines of District 4 and District 8 in the Town of Babylon slice and dice through five school districts (Wyandanch, West Babylon, Lindenhurst, Copiague, Amityville) and five villages (the same as the school districts). In some cases, the senate lines divide school districts into 20/80, 30/70, and 40/60 proportions.

In contrast, the Senate lines elsewhere in Suffolk County keep school districts mostly whole. Principles that are disregarded in Babylon and Islip are much more closely followed in other parts of Suffolk, for blatantly partisan reasons.

Rather than continue this partisan gerrymandering, a different Senate district can be drawn in Suffolk that closely follows the “demographically distinct” area of Babylon and Islip highlighted above. This would avoid the unnecessary division of this community of interest and also more closely follow the village and school district lines that are important political divisions in Suffolk.

Looking at the Suffolk Congressional Districts, the line between District 2 (Israel-D) and District 3 (King-R) in Babylon and Islip may be a good model for drawing Senate districts in this area.

Assembly Districts in many areas of New York are often gerrymandered to the advantage of the Democratic Party. In Suffolk, however, there don’t appear to be any blatant Assembly gerrymanders. The central Babylon and central Islip areas are each kept together in their own Assembly districts as they should be according to principles of communities of interest.

Where the Suffolk Assembly districts could stand to improve is in their following of village and school district lines.

Since the October 5^th LATFOR hearing is right on the border with Nassau, we’ll be publishing our Nassau analysis tomorrow rather than later in the month at LATFOR’s second Long Island hearing in Nassau.

On Wednesday September 21^st, LATFOR’s redistricting roadshow will arrive at 250 Broadway across the street from City Hall Park in downtown Manhattan.

While Manhattan is the political and economic center of New York City, it is actually only the third most populous borough behind Brooklyn and Queens, with a population of roughly 1.58 million.

Although Manhattan is composed of dozens of unique neighborhoods, the island can be generally divided into three distinct demographic zones: Chinatown-Lower East Side, the “Manhattan core” (below 96^th Street, not including Chinatown-LES), and North Manhattan beyond 96^th Street.

The population of the Manhattan core is overwhelmingly high-income and college-educated. In contrast, most households in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan have annual incomes of less than $40,000 and the majority of residents do not hold college degrees.

The effects of this disparity in education are revealed in the employment data. While the vast majority of Manhattan core residents have “white collar” management or professional jobs, the majority of residents in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES are employed in either blue-collar work (industry, construction, transportation) or the service sector (retail, hospitality, etc.).

The “three Manhattans” are also distinct in homeownership patterns.

While many core residents own their homes as condos and co-ops, renters form the vast majority in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan. This pattern is distinct from the outer boroughs where homeownership usually indicates low-density areas of single family homes. In Manhattan, the concentration of homeownership in the very high-density core is a sign of affluence.

Another contrast between the Manhattan core and the other two areas is the percentage of children in the population. There are more children in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES than in the core, where the vast majority of households are composed of singles, couples without children, and unrelated roommates.

There are also many more immigrants in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan when compared to the core.

Concentrations of immigrants indicate the Chinese community in Chinatown and the Dominican population in the northernmost part of Manhattan; Washington Heights and Inwood.

Taken together, these socio-economic indicators suggest that Northern Manhattan and Chinatown-LES form communities of interest that are very distinct from the Manhattan core. In key policy areas like housing, education, economic development, and immigration, residents outside the Manhattan core have very distinct interests and priorities.

There are also sharp contrasts in race/ethnicity, and as we’ve seen in North Brooklyn, major changes occurring due to gentrification in Chinatown/LES and the neighborhoods of North Manhattan.

Comparing data from Census 2000 and Census 2010 allows us to measure the actual objective impact of the gentrification that has taken place under the Bloomberg administration and uncover the reality behind the perceptions of demographic change. The demographics suggest that North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES are slowly but surely becoming more like the Manhattan core.

Beginning by looking at total population change, the overall population of Manhattan grew by 3.2%

But looking at this growth in the context of the “three Manhattans” reveals that almost all of it took place within the Manhattan core.

Overall, North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES both declined in population while the Manhattan core grew by 8%, buoyed by new residential construction and conversion in the financial district and far west side.

The decline of population in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES is due to a major drop in the population of children under eighteen years of age. The number of children declined by a shocking 21.5% in Northern Manhattan and 22.7% in Chinatown-LES. This indicates that family households with children are being replaced by singles and couples. In contrast, the number of children within the Manhattan core actually grew.

Changes in race/ethnicity also show the effects of gentrification.

Overall in Manhattan, the non-Hispanic white voting-age population grew by 6.8%, but this growth took place primarily in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan where the white voting-age population grew by 23.1% and 34.9% respectively.

On the other hand, there has actually been some white population decline in the most affluent areas of the Manhattan core – the Upper East Side and the West Village – as the affluent population of these areas is becoming somewhat more diverse.

The map of Census 2010 non-Hispanic white population indicates just how dramatic these changes are. Lines of Manhattan segregation that have been in place for many decades are rapidly breaking down.

But it isn’t only a story of whites moving into these neighborhoods. Longtime minority residents are also moving out.

Overall, the non-Hispanic black voting-age population of Manhattan declined by more than 7%, and this decline was centered in the historically black neighborhoods of Harlem. More than 10,000 black voters have left North Manhattan during the past decade.

While the breakdown of neighborhood segregation may be a positive in and of itself, the flight of black residents and children from Northern Manhattan indicates that the area may be becoming less hospitable for lower-income family households. And while the core of Harlem is becoming more diverse, other areas like the northern Upper West Side are actually becoming less diverse.

Trends in the Hispanic population are also suggestive of gentrification.

The overall Hispanic voting-age population of Manhattan grew by 3.2% during the past decade. As in Brooklyn, this growth must be seen in the context of 21% Hispanic growth overall in New York City. Areas of Manhattan where the Hispanic population declined are located on the borders of gentrification in East Harlem and the Upper West Side, as well as Washington Heights and the Lower East Side.

Hispanic growth in Manhattan is strongest in Central Harlem, another indicator of its growing diversity.

Hispanic voters continue to form significant majorities in East Harlem (also known as Spanish Harlem or El Barrio), the easternmost section of the Lower East Side (also known as Loisaida), and in Washington Heights.

As we’ve seen all across New York City, growth in the Asian voting-age population in Manhattan was strong, with a 27.2% increase taking place mostly in the core-area.

In Chinatown however, the Asian voting-age population declined by roughly 3,300 or 6.6%, with extremely heavy losses the two census tracts closest to the gentrified SoHo neighborhood.

Outside of the dense immigrant enclave of Chinatown, the Asian population is spread throughout the Manhattan core.

Now let’s examine the current districts.

Manhattan is currently split between four Congressional districts: District 15 (Rangel-D), 14 (Maloney-D), 12 (Velasquez-D), and 8 (Nadler-D).

As we’ve discussed before for Brooklyn, the options for drawing Congressional Districts in New York City are constrained by the Voting Rights Act. District 10 (Towns-D) and District 11 (Clarke-D) in Brooklyn are majority-black and have to remain so to avoid a reduction in minority voting rights.

District 12 is a Hispanic-influence district (not quite a majority) that combines the Hispanic areas of Ridgewood, Bushwick, and Williamsburg with those in the Lower East Side and further south to Sunset Park. The district also serves the purpose of uniting the two Chinatowns in Manhattan and Sunset Park. This district cannot be redrawn in any way that causes a regression in the ability of either group to elect a representative of their choice.

To the north, District 15 in Upper Manhattan is a traditionally black-influenced district even though the population of non-Hispanic blacks in the district form a minority (Hispanics form the plurality). District 16 (Serrano-D) in the Bronx is a Hispanic-majority district.

With the Manhattan core surrounded by Voting Rights districts, the options are limited. The only ways to extend districts from the Manhattan core are south through the brownstone Brooklyn area (e.g. the current District8) or east through Queens or perhaps part of Williamsburg (e.g. the current District 14).

The future of Congressional districts in Upper Manhattan will be a major question addressed at the LATFOR hearing. As we’ve seen in the above maps, the area of North Manhattan covered by the current District 15 forms a clear socio-economic community of interest within Manhattan.

But many Hispanic groups are demanding that a second Hispanic-majority Congressional seat be drawn to reflect the strong growth in the citywide Hispanic population, and they have the force of the Voting Rights Act behind them.. But how can you do this without also “retrogressing” the rights of the black community in Harlem and unnecessarily dividing neighborhoods?

Drawing new Congressional districts for Manhattan while attempting to balance these competing interests will be a considerable challenge.

The situation in the Manhattan State Senate is much less complicated than Congress. Manhattan is currently divided between six districts: District 25 (Squadron-D), District 26 (Krueger-D), District 28 (Serrano-D), District 29 (Duane-D), District 30 (Perkins-D), and District 31 (Espaillat-D).

District 25 straddles the East River and unites Chinatown-LES and the Financial District with the brownstone Brooklyn area and a small piece of Williamsburg. Within Lower Manhattan, Chinatown-LES is an island of working-class minority populations and is under considerable pressure from gentrification, so it makes sense for it to be in the same district as neighborhoods in Brooklyn undergoing similar pressures.

The major issue for the current State Senate districts is in the Upper West Side, where three Senate districts converge and divide the neighborhood.

District 31 extends all the way from Riverdale in the Bronx through Washington Heights down into the Upper West Side along the Hudson River in a shape that cuts out many individual blocks from their surrounding neighborhoods.

These lines were drawn ten years ago as a blatant political gerrymander and must be repaired in the new cycle. One can walk five blocks along Amsterdam Avenue from 85^th St to 90^th St and cross three districts.

District 31 can remain a Hispanic-majority district based in Washington Heights if it is joined with neighborhoods across the Harlem River in the Bronx where the Dominican population has been growing.

If a few of the other Manhattan district lines were adjusted, a new State Senate district based in the Upper West Side could be drawn.

In the Assembly, Manhattan is currently divided into a dozen districts.

One suggestion for improving the Assembly district in Manhattan is to draw them closer to the existing boundaries of Community Boards.

In North Manhattan, for instance, districts could be drawn to almost exactly match the boundaries of Community Board 11 in East Harlem and Community Board 10 in Central Harlem. The strange gerrymander of Washington Heights and Inwood in which District 71 (Farrell-D) wraps around both sides of District 72 (Linares-D) and divides communities from block to block should also be corrected.

In Lower Manhattan, it is possible to draw an Assembly district that contains all of Chinatown-Lower East Side as defined in the “Three Manhattans” map above. The current Districts 64 (Silver-D) and 74 (Kavanaugh-D) currently divide this clear community of interest right in two.

As we’ve seen also in Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, drawing districts in New York City is very complex and difficult work. But if districts are drawn with fair, non-partisan criteria rather than strategic political motives, the map and the quality of our representative democracy could be significantly improved.

With a population of over 2.5 million, Brooklyn is the most populous of New York City’s five boroughs. More than 1 in 8 residents of New York State live in Brooklyn and if taken alone, the borough would be the fourth largest city in the United States.

Like Queens, Brooklyn is a complex quilt of dozens of neighborhoods, each with its own unique housing stock, businesses, community organizations, and local culture. And also like Queens, many Brooklyn neighborhoods have experienced major demographic changes during the past decade.

In Brooklyn, these changes are most often described by the term “gentrification.” Gentrification is generally defined as a process involving the influx of a middle-class or affluent population into traditionally working-class or low-income area and the corresponding displacement of lower-income populations. Many people perceive gentrification as a change in the neighborhood’s “character” — the community organizations, the shops, the street life, and the many other factors that form the local economy and culture.

Areas of Brooklyn that have been discussed as “gentrifying” include a belt of neighborhoods in the north half of the borough from Greenpoint, Williamsburg  and Bushwick to Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Prospect Heights. Neighborhoods considered further along in the process and already “gentrified” include DUMBO, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and Park Slope.

Comparing data from Census 2000 and Census 2010 allows us to measure the actual objective impact of the gentrification that has taken place under the Bloomberg administration and uncover the reality behind the perceptions of demographic change in Brooklyn.

Beginning by looking at total population change, the maps indicate that the changes in Brooklyn are not just about new people coming in. The overall population of the borough was almost flat – an increase of just 39,374, or 1.6%. While some of this population increase can be found in gentrifying neighborhoods like Williamsburg where many new residential buildings have been built, there is no overall correlation with areas of gentrification.

Part of the reason behind this may be that singles and couples without children are replacing large families – the percentage of children (under 18) in Brooklyn’s population declined from 26.9% in 2000 to 23.7% in 2010.

But when one looks at the change in the non-Hispanic white population, the effects of gentrification are crystal clear.

In the north half of the borough (defined as north of the south ends of Prospect Park and Green-Wood Cemetery, and north of  East New York Avenue), the non-Hispanic white voting age population has grown by over 73,000 individuals, or almost 45%. This growth is concentrated in the gentrifying neighborhoods of Williamsburg, Bushwick, Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Prospect Heights, and South Park Slope.

On the other hand, neighborhoods in South Brooklyn are showing the same trend we’ve seen in Queens and the Bronx – white population decline in traditionally white working-class outer-borough neighborhoods. In the south half of Brooklyn the white population declined by 47,000 (-9%), offsetting most of the gain in the north half.

While the gentrifying neighborhoods in North Brooklyn are increasingly trending towards white-majority populations, the neighborhoods of South Brooklyn are starting to move in the opposite direction.

Looking at a map of changes in the non-Hispanic black population of Brooklyn also brings this trend to life. While the overall black population of Brooklyn increased by 2.3%, the black population of the north half of the borough decreased by more than 18,000 individuals (-7%). With the decrease concentrated in Fort Green, Clinton Hill, and Prospect Heights, the rising housing costs and other effects associated with gentrification look to be the likely culprit. Indeed, the maps reveal a pattern of the black population being pushed out to more distant neighborhoods like Brownsville, East New York, and Canarsie.

While changes associated with gentrification have had significant effects on the distribution of the black population in Brooklyn, the overall numbers are not yet shifting in a way that will have a major impact on legislative redistricting. Non-Hispanic blacks account for 31.8% of Brooklyn’s total population in 2010 compared to 32.9% in 2000. The shift of the black population further to the east and south may affect where some district lines are drawn but will not yet affect the number of black-majority legislative seats that must be drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Changes in the Hispanic population of Brooklyn also reveal the impact of gentrification as a clear decline has taken place in the heavily gentrifying areas of Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and Park Slope. The Hispanic population of Williamsburg-Greenpoint has been particularly hard hit, declining by over 14% since 2000.

Overall in the northern half of Brooklyn, Hispanic population change during the last 10 years is essentially flat – an increase of 1.5%. This a remarkably low figure in the context of a citywide boom in the Hispanic voting age population, which has grown by over 21% in New York City as a whole. Again there appear to be patterns of a “pushing out” – from Williamsburg to Bushwick for example – which are consistent with media reports and the views of local activists.

In the south half of Brooklyn, the Hispanic voting age population increased by almost 15%, a marked contrast to the impact of gentrification in the north. Hispanic populations are growing substantially in traditionally white neighborhoods like Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, and Bath Beach.

As with the black population, the trends in Brooklyn’s Hispanic population as a whole are not significant enough to yet produce major changes for redistricting, though the boundaries of Hispanic-majority districts in the Williamsburg-Greenpoint area may shift to the east. In south Brooklyn, western Sunset Park remains a strong Hispanic majority community.

With all the media attention centered on gentrification, the tremendous growth of the Asian community in South Brooklyn has gone under the radar. The overall Asian voting age population of Brooklyn grew by almost 46% from 2000 to 2010, with Asians now accounting for 10.6% of the electorate vs. only 7.7% in 2000. This growth largely took place in the burgeoning Chinatown of Sunset Park as well as nearby South Brooklyn neighborhoods.

With growing areas of South Brooklyn approaching Asian majorities, it is now possible to drawn an Asian voting age majority Assembly seat based in Sunset Park.

Before moving on to look at the current district lines, let’s go over some additional socio-economic demographics that are highly relevant to redistricting.

Looking at the percentage of foreign born residents, we also see a contrast between the north half of Brooklyn and the south, where far larger numbers of immigrants live. Neighborhoods like Sunset Park with growing Asian and Hispanic populations, and Sheepshead Bay and Brighton Beach with a large population of Eastern European immigrants stand out.

But it’s also important to point out the concentration of foreign-born residents in East Flatbush and Canarsie which indicate Brooklyn’s substantial community of Carribean immigrants. The Census does not distinguish between Carribean and African immigrants and native-born African-Americans when counting the black population, so this distinction sometimes gets lost.

Despite all the changes of the last decade, Brooklyn remains a mostly middle density borough of tenements, row houses, and duplexes, although there are some areas with higher density concentrations and some outer neighborhoods of single-family homes. South Brooklyn is generally less dense than the northern half.

Homeownership is a key factor in examining the character of a community and it has major implications for political representation. Communities composed mostly of renters have very different needs than communities of homeowners when it comes time to vote on housing policy issues in Albany.

In the north half of Brooklyn, only a few small pockets like Brooklyn Heights and Prospect Park West are majority-homeowner. South Brooklyn is a different story however, where neighborhoods like Canarsie, East Flatbush, and Marine Park are mostly comprised of single-family homes.

Brooklyn is home to the highest density of transit commuters in the city, with much better subway access than Queens. But again there is a contrast between the north half of Brooklyn and the south where transit users are a minority in some outer areas. Not surprisingly these are the farthest neighborhoods from Manhattan like Canarsie and Mill Basin where subway access is poor.

It’s also interesting to point out that public transit commuting is much lower in the Hasidic Jewish enclaves of South Williamsburg and Borough Park where most residents walk to work.

Median household income is a hugely important indicator of communities of interest. The “brownstone Brooklyn” neighborhoods of Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and Park Slope–neighborhoods that have undergone decades of gentrification–are clearly higher-income than the rest of the borough. The Mill Basin and Marine Park neighborhoods in the south and Bay Ridge in the southwest are also relatively high-income.

In contrast, a large swath of central Brooklyn from Sunset Park to Crown Heights to East New York and Bushwick is made up of working-class and low-income households with the majority making less than $40,000 a year and many making less than $25,000 a year. And despite its growing cachet for high-rise luxury condos, Williamsburg-Greenpoint remains, for now, a mostly middle-income community.

As it almost always does, concentrations of residents with college degrees closely correlate with higher-income neighborhoods.

Concentrations of residents with “white collar” jobs in management or professions also follow this pattern. Looking at this map side by side with the racial data also reveals the continuing gap between whites and minorities when it comes to employment in this sector.

“Blue collar” jobs in industry, transportation, and construction are especially important to the Hispanic and Asian communities, with concentrations of blue collar workers in Sunset Park and Bushwick. Blue collar employment is at its lowest in the gentrified brownstone areas of Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and Park Slope.

Employment in service sector industries like retail and hospitality is also concentrated in minority communities, particularly in the black and Latino communities of Central Brooklyn as well as Sunset Park.

One more interesting piece of demographic information to look at is the relative concentration of children and senior citizens.

As we also saw with the map of public transit commuters, the unique lifestyles of the Hasidic Jewish populations of Brooklyn are revealed in data on the concentration of children. The Hasidic populations in South Williamsburg and Borough Park clearly stand out from the surrounding neighborhoods due to their extremely high birth rates, with many families having five or more children in the household.

And despite their reputation for being crowded with $700 strollers, the brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods have fewer children than anywhere else in Brooklyn save Williamsburg-Greenpoint.

Looking at concentrations of senior citizens, the contrast between north and south Brooklyn is again apparent with higher numbers of seniors living in the south, especially in Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach.

In an objective redistricting process, those who draw the lines would pay close attention to all of these demographic factors as well as basic neighborhood geography. Unfortunately as we’ve seen elsewhere in the state, that was not always the case when LATFOR drew the last set of district lines.

The borough of Brooklyn is currently divided between seven Congressional districts, with only two of those districts based entirely within its borders.

With Brooklyn falling under the jurisdiction of the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance process, the options for drawing Congressional districts are constrained. Two black-majority districts must be drawn, as currently represented by District 10 (Towns-D) and District 11 (Clarke-D). According to the 2010 Census, the black population in Brooklyn is still large enough to draw two majority-black Congressional seats and there are only so many ways that this can be done. Keeping the compact form of District 11 but shifting it to the southeast makes sense in following the changes in the black population.

However, the imperative to draw two majority-black districts is only partially to blame for the current mess of district lines in the brownstone area of North Brooklyn, where one crosses four districts in the short distance between Red Hook and Fort Greene.

District 12 (Velasquez-D) was drawn as a Hispanic district, uniting Sunset Park with the Hispanic areas of Williamsburg and Bushwick, while also uniting the Manhattan and Sunset Park Chinatowns. But District 12 as currently drawn is not majority voting-age Hispanic—it only reaches 41%. An alternate option for making District 12 a majority Hispanic district without drawing such a gerrymandered shape may be to add Corona in Queens to the district instead of the much more distant Sunset Park.

District 8 (Nadler-D) appears to lack any such justification for being one of the most bizarrely gerrymandered districts in the state. Running from the Upper West Side all the way to Coney Island, District 8 unites areas are not only physically distant but also very different in terms of the socio-economic demographics displayed above. It is difficult to justify this neighborhood-dividing, gerrymandered district on any objective basis.

In the State Senate, district lines are also heavily influenced by the Voting Rights Act as one must draw four majority-black seats–currently Districts 18 (Montgomery-D), 19 (Sampson-D), 20 (Adams-D), and 21 (Parker-D), and one majority-Hispanic seat, the current District 17 (Malave-Dilan-D).

But with the smaller sizes of State Senate districts (c. 312,000), there’s considerably more flexibility in drawing their shapes than with the Congressional districts. For instance, there’s no reason why District 20 should extend into Park Slope and divide that neighborhood in two, and extend into Sunset Park and contribute to that neighborhood being divided between four different Senate districts.

And there’s definitely no objective explanation for the notorious gerrymanders of District 22 (Golden-R) and District 27 (Kruger-D). In half a dozen neighborhoods in South Brooklyn one can be within District 22 and have their neighbor across the street in another district for no apparent rational reason. As numerous community activists have testified at LATFOR hearings thus far, dividing neighborhoods in this manner is a major barrier to effective local community representation in Albany.

District 23 (Savino-D) also stands for improvement regarding the division of neighborhoods, but the presence of a district that crosses into Staten Island is an unfortunate necessity due to the population math.

In the State Assembly, the small size of the districts (c. 128,000) and the density of Brooklyn make it much more straightforward to draw districts based on neighborhood geography. However, there are some districts that again contribute to the unnecessary division of neighborhoods.

Park Slope and Sunset Park are once again victims of this pattern, with Park Slope divided between Districts 52 (Millman-D) and 44 (Jeffries-D)

The Asian community in Sunset Park is cracked between Districts 51 (Ortiz-D), 48 (Hikind-D), and 44 (Brennan-D). The major change possible here is the drawing of a majority-Asian district, which may actually be legally compelled under the Voting Rights Act. This district could be drawn without having negative effects on the adjacent Hispanic district or the representation of the Jewish community in Borough Park.

Like Queens, Brooklyn is an incredibly complex demographic mix, but if those who draw the districts pay close attention to communities of interest and allowing all groups an equal shot at fair representation, the borough’s district lines could be much improved

After forty New Yorkers provided LATFOR with more than five hours of testimony on Wednesday, September 7^th, the task force’s second hearing New York City will be held the very next day for the borough of the Bronx.

The Bronx is the fourth most populous borough with a population of roughly 1.4 million residents according to Census 2010.

Like all of the boroughs of New York City, the Bronx is made up of many different unique neighborhoods, each with its own unique subsections and civic organizations.

As is the case with Brooklyn and Queens, the neighborhoods of the Bronx range from dense urban concentrations to areas of single family homes that are essentially suburban in character. While the south and central Bronx is densely urban, Wakefield in the north of the borough is middle-density and Riverdale in the northwest and neighborhoods like Throgs Neck in the eastern half of the borough are low-density suburbs.

Patterns of homeownership and public transit commuting closely follow these patterns of population density. Tenants dominate the neighborhoods of the south and central Bronx but homeowners form the majority in Riverdale and parts of the East Bronx.

Looking at median incomes, the south and central Bronx forms one of New York’s largest concentrations of low-income and working-class households. The vast majority of households in this area make less than $40,000 and many live on poverty-level earnings of less than $25,000 a year. The Northern Central Bronx and most of the Eastern Bronx are more middle class and Riverdale and a couple of East Bronx neighborhoods like Pelham Gardens form islands of affluence within the borough.

As is generally the case, educational attainment is closely associated with median income levels. Overall, only a small minority of Bronx residents has a college degree.

Lacking college degrees, most Bronx residents work in either “blue collar” jobs in industry, transportation, or construction, or in service sectors like retail and hospitality.

“White collar” workers in management or professions are concentrated in Riverdale and the East Bronx, again reflecting the differences between the regions of the borough that we’ve seen in other demographics.

Now let’s move on to look at some of the demographic changes that have taken place in the Bronx during the last decade.

Overall, the population of the Bronx grew by almost 4% since 2000. This growth has been concentrated in the south central Bronx, specifically in the Morrisania and Crotona Park neighborhoods.

In every region where we’ve looked at the factors driving population growth in New York State, we’ve found that it has been growth in the minority and immigrant communities that have helped boost the population.

In the Bronx, the non-Hispanic white voting-age population decreased by more 35,000 individuals, or -21%. This pattern of white population decline in the historically white-majority neighborhoods in the outer areas of the borough is the same pattern we saw in Queens and will see in Brooklyn as well.

In contrast, the non-Hispanic black voting-age population of the Bronx grew by almost 20,000, or roughly 7%. Large numbers of black New Yorkers live through the South and Central Bronx but the large concentration of majority-black population in the area is in the North Bronx extending into Mount Vernon in Westchester County.

In the Bronx, it has been growth in the Hispanic communities that has really boosted the borough’s population. The Hispanic voting-age population of the Bronx grew by 96,825 individuals since 2000, or almost 23%. The Bronx is now a majority-Hispanic borough, with Hispanics accounting for 51.2% of the voting age population.

One interesting pattern that reveals itself on a map of Hispanic population change is the decline of the Hispanic population in Washington Heights in Manhattan compared to the strong growth in the adjacent communities of the Bronx. Almost 19,000 Hispanics left Washington Heights since 2000, representing a substantial shift of the Dominican population out of this area and into the Bronx.

Now let’s look at the current districts, beginning with the Congressional level.

The Bronx is currently divided between three Congressional districts. Of these three districts, District 16 (Serrano-D) is the only one that is entirely contained within the borough, encompassing the core of the south and central Bronx with a solid Hispanic majority.

District 7 (Crowley-D) joins the East Bronx with a small area of Queens in the Elmhurst-Corona-Jackson Heights neighborhoods. While we object to the current shape of this district in the Queens portion, dividing the Bronx between the South and Central Bronx and the East Bronx generally makes sense based on the distinct socio-economic demographics.

District 17 (Engel), however, is highly problematic, as we’ve previously noted in our Southern Westchester commentary. This district combines the black communities of Williamsbridge and Wakefield in the North Bronx and Mount Vernon in Southern Westchester with Riverdale and a district shape that then snakes up the Hudson to cross into Rockland County. Instead of following this bizarrely gerrymandered shape, this district could instead join the North Bronx with the towns and cities of Southern Westchester including Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mamaroneck, and Port Chester.

In the State Senate, the Bronx is currently divided between six districts, four of which are Hispanic-majority (District 28, District 31, District 32, and District 33), and one of which is black-majority (District 36).

While Districts 28 (Serrano-D), 32 (Diaz-D), and 33 (Rivera-D) are relatively compact, Districts 31 (Espaillat-D), 34 (Klein-D) and 36 (Thompson-D) are some of the most oddly meandering districts in the state.

District 31 extends from Washington Heights down into the Upper West Side along the Hudson River in a shape that cuts out many individual blocks from their surrounding neighborhoods. These lines were drawn ten years ago as a blatant political gerrymander and must be repaired in the new cycle. District 31 should remain based in Washington Heights but should perhaps be joined with neighborhoods across the Harlem River in the Bronx where the Dominican population has been growing.

If this were done, there is still plenty of room for Districts 28, 31, 32, and 33, to remain in the South and Central Bronx areas if the section that is currently cut out and joined with District 36 were redistributed to these districts instead. The extension of District 36 (Thomson-D) from the North Bronx into this area violates many of the basic principles of good government redistricting as it extends in a non-contiguous shape that blatantly divides neighborhoods. More areas of the North Bronx and Mount Vernon could be easily added to the rectangular North Bronx core of District 36 to make up for the population loss.

Similarly, we believe that the inclusion of the Fordham University area in State Senate District 34 (Klein-D) rather than one of the districts that is based in the Central Bronx is also misguided.

In the State Assembly, the Bronx districts are relatively compact and neighborhood-based compared to the Assembly districts in many other areas of the city and state. As is the case with the State Senate districts, we think that it non-contiguous crossings of Bronx Park such as District 80 (N. Rivera-D) are completely unnecessary and should be avoided.

We look forward to learning more from the testimonies of local residents and community organizations at the hearing and hope that LATFOR will be listening as well.

After holding six hearings upstate in July and August, LATFOR arrives in the five boroughs on Wednesday September 7^th with its first New York City hearing at Queens Borough Hall.

With an estimated 2010 population of 2,230,722, Queens is the second most populous borough in New York City. More than 1 in 10 residents of New York State live in the dozens of unique neighborhoods that make up Queens.

It’s impossible to label all the neighborhoods of Queens on a single map. Each of the neighborhoods labeled here is made up of so many different subsections that only local residents can even attempt to describe them accurately.

Population densities in Queens range from dense urban concentrations in Flushing and Elmhurst-Jackson Heights, to middle-density communities of rowhouses and duplexes in area like Astoria and Forest Hills, to completely suburban neighborhoods that look no different than adjoining suburbs in Nassau County.

Looking at demographic information such as homeownership and public transit usage also reveal important contrasts among the different areas of Queens.

The denser neighborhoods with subway access are majority-tenant communities, as are downtown Flushing and downtown Jamaica. The eastern half of the borough has a much more suburban character, with a majority of residents owning their own homes. The majority-homeowner neighborhoods of Middle Village and Forest Hills in central Queens are more akin to Eastern Queens than the surrounding denser neighborhoods of renters.

Similar patterns also hold when looking at public transit commuting. The areas west of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park have much better subway access than areas to the east, as subway lines in Queens terminate in downtown Flushing and downtown Jamaica.

Looking at median household incomes, the demographics also closely follow the contrasts revealed by homeownership and public transit usage. While most of Queens is middle class, with median household incomes falling between $45,000 and $70,000, Forest Hills-Middle Village and the eastern part of the borough are generally wealthier.

Area of lower-income working class concentrations are downtown Flushing, Corona, Woodside, and parts of central Jamaica.

Queens’ character as a “working class borough” is very visible in educational attainment. Only small areas of the borough have majorities that have a college degree – Long Island City, some parts of Astoria, Forest Hills, and some parts of Northeast Queens (Utopia-Fresh Meadows, Auburndale-Bayside-Little Neck).

As we would expect, higher educational attainment in these neighborhoods corresponds with higher percentages of the population in “white collar” professional or management jobs (and also corresponds with higher median household incomes).

Looking at employment in “blue-collar” jobs in construction, transportation, and manufacturing, we see that many Queens residents depend on these sectors for employment. Blue collar jobs are especially important in Ridgewood-Bushwick, Woodside, Corona, Richmond Hill, and Ozone Park.

For individuals without a college degree, employment in service sectors jobs like retail, hospitality, and the restaurant industry are typically the alternative to blue-collar work so it’s no surprise to see service sector employment concentration in the same neighborhoods. The restaurant industry and ethnic retail sectors are especially important in Flushing, Corona, Elmhurst-Jackson Heights, and Astoria.

Discussions of Queens demographics typically focus on the borough’s tremendous ethnic diversity, so we’ve deliberately begun with general socio-economic factors in order to point out these differences in the borough’s population before moving on to look at how race, ethnicity, and immigration interrelate with these factors.

Queens is known as “the Borough of Immigrants” and has dense populations of foreign-born residents in many of its neighborhoods. While many immigrants are attracted to urban areas like Flushing, Corona, and Jackson Heights, some suburban neighborhoods like Jamaica Estates are also majority-immigrant.

Now let’s move on to look at some of the demographic changes that have taken place in Queens during the last decade. Queens’ growing immigrant population is driving major demographic changes in the borough that will be especially important factors in redistricting.

The Census Bureau estimates that Queens gained only 1,343 residents between 2000 and 2010, with sharp population losses in the Astoria area. This estimate of nearly flat growth has been challenged by the Bloomberg administration, which argues that the Census undercounted the populations of Brooklyn and Queens by nearly 50,000. On the other hand, New York demographer Andrew Beveridge contends that the Census likely got it right.

Looking at the changes since 2000, Queens shares one major trend in common with many areas of upstate that we’ve looked at – a steep decline in the white population that was offset by a rapid rise in the minority population.

In the case of Queens, the borough’s demographics continue to shift with the steady decline of long-established white and black communities offset by the rapid rise of newer immigrant populations.

Both non-Hispanic white and black populations in Queens declined by 116,168 (-15.8%), and 26,950 (-6.3%) respectively, while Hispanic and Asian populations grew by 57,145 (+10.3%) and 119,031 (+30.6%).

The non-Hispanic White voting age population of Queens fell throughout most of the borough, most sharply in the Flushing area in the northeast and in the Richmond Hill-Howard Beach area. Closer to Manhattan, the gentrifying Long Island City and Ridgewood neighborhoods, as well as parts of Elmhurst, Corona, and Jamaica, defied the borough-wide trend and gained significant numbers of white residents

The non-Hispanic Black voting age population declined substantially in East Elmhurst (more than 4,600 lost) and in parts of Jamaica (almost 8,000 lost) as well.

While East Elmhurst is rapidly shifting to a majority-Hispanic community, Jamaica remains an important black community both within New York City and on the national level as well, known as a stronghold of the black middle class. But the decline in the black population of Jamaica since 2000 may foreshadow a larger decline in the decade to come as some studies note an increasing trend of black New Yorkers leaving the city for the lower cost of living in the south.

Hispanic voting age population increased most in Corona-Elmhurst, Ridgewood-Bushwick, Ozone Park, Woodhaven, Howard Beach, and Jamaica, and appears to have declined in Astoria. Looking at this pattern citywide, it appears that many Hispanic New Yorkers may be seeking relief from rising housing prices in neighborhoods like Williamsburg and Astoria by relocating to neighborhoods further from Manhattan like Corona, Ridgewood-Bushwick, and Woodhaven.

Hispanic majorities in Elmhurst-Corona, Woodhaven, and Ridgewood have become more firmly established with the Hispanic population growth since 2000.

The continued growth of the Asian community in Queens is the major story when looking at the Census 2010 data. This growth occurred throughout the borough but was most explosive in the Flushing area of Northeast Queens (gaining almost 38,000 voting-age Asians) and in Elmhurst-Jackson Heights (gaining almost 14,000 voting-age Asians).

With these changes, Asians now make up the majority of voting-age residents in many parts of Queens including Elmhurst, Jackson Heights, and Flushing, as well as suburban areas like Bayside, Bellerose, Jamaica Estates. Flushing is now New York’s largest Chinatown and is also home to a large Korean population, and these growing populations have increasingly spread to the east to areas like Bayside. Richmond Hill, Jamaica Estates, and Bellrose are heavily South Asian, and Elmhurst-Jackson Heights is an incredibly diverse mixture.

Now let’s look at the current districts and how they might be affected by these changing demographics.

Queens is currently divided between five Congressional districts.

District 5 (Ackerman-D) stretches into Queens from Nassau County and joins a huge area of Northern Queens to the suburbs of Long Island. As we’ve seen from demographics such as homeownership, transit, usage, and median income, this combination make some sense if it was only adding the suburban areas in Northeast Queens like Little Neck, Bayside, and Auburndale.

But instead the district goes all the way through Flushing and Corona and into Jackson Heights. These urban, working-class, immigrant neighborhoods are very different from the rest of the district. This District also manages to simultaneously crack the growing Asian and Hispanic communities in Corona, Jackson Heights, and Elmhurst.

District 7 (Crowley-D) is the other half of this cracking, taking half of Corona and Jackson Heights and joining it with the East Bronx, while District 14 (Maloney-D) joins Astoria with the much more wealthy and less ethnically diverse upper East Side of Manhattan.

With New York State losing two Congressional seats this cycle, one of these seats lost will almost certainly be in New York City. The most likely candidate for elimination is District 9 (formerly Weiner-D), not only because the longtime incumbent resigned, but also due to the shifting demographics within the district from white to Asian and Hispanic populations.

If District 9 were eliminated, a new district could be drawn from Jackson Heights across Flushing Meadows park through Flushing to Bayside that is over 35% Asian VAP – allowing the Queens Asian community a greater opportunity for representation in Congress. District 5 could still take the eastern, mostly heavily suburban fringe of Northeast Queens to join it with Nassau County.

Changes will also be in store for District 6 (Meeks-D). Due to Black population loss and the larger size of the new districts, the Congressional district based in Jamaica must be expanded either into Elmont in Nassau County Queens, and/or expanded to Brooklyn’s East New York if it is to remain a Black voting age majority district.

The current State Senate districts in Queens are also problematic.

Districts 11 (Avella-D) and 16 (Stavisky-D) currently crack the Asian community in Flushing right down the middle. A majority-Asian state senate district can easily be drawn in Flushing consisting of downtown Flushing and the areas to the south and east. Such a district would also make far more sense based on neighborhood geography than the current District 16.

The current district geography of Elmhurst-Jackson Heights cracks the Asian community even more egregiously than in Flushing, cracking it into four pieces with parts in District 16 (Stavisky-D), 13 (Peralta-D), 15 (Addabo Jr-D), and 12 (Gianaris-D).

While it’s not possible to draw a majority Asian district based in Jackson Heights, the current lines in this area stand for much improvement. Beyond concerns of ethnic representation, we believe that neighborhoods should never be cracked into arbitrary pieces in this manner.

Many of Queens Assembly districts are bizarrely gerrymandered, dividing coherent local communities into strangely curving and swerving puzzle pieces. The two districts in Far Rockaway, Districts 23 (Pfeffer-D) and District 31 (Titus-D), are one such example, but the effects of this pattern overall are most damaging to the Asian population of the borough.

In the Assembly, Queens currently has 18 seats. Of these eighteen seats, only one of them as currently drawn forms an Asian majority seat in Downtown Flushing (District 22 Meng-D), while three can be drawn to properly reflect the 30% growth of the Asian population during the last decade.

The Asian community is currently cracked into numerous districts that divide coherent neighborhoods like Jackson Heights and Richmond Hill into oddly curving slices that have no basis in any demographics.

In the Flushing area only one Asian majority seat is currently drawn in Downtown Flushing (District 22 Meng-D). The rest of the Asian community is cracked into three other districts: 24 (Weprin-D), 25 (Lancman-D), 26 (Braunstein-D). Two majority Asian VAP districts can be easily created in Northeast Queens to reflect the explosive growth of the Asian community there.

The current Corona and Jackson Heights Assembly districts are equally problematic, dicing the neighborhoods into arbitrary pieces and cracking both the Asian and Hispanic communities. Asian majority areas in Jackson Heights are sliced into five districts: District 34 (DenDekker-D), District 39 (Moya-D), District 35 (Aubrey-D), District 28 (Hevesi-D), and District 30 (Markey-D). An Asian-majority Assembly seat can be drawn based in Jackson Heights while also drawing the two Hispanic-majority districts in Elmhurst-Corona area into two more compact, neighborhood-based shapes.

Richmond Hill is another significant Asian neighborhood that is sliced into multiple pieces by the current Assembly Districts, depriving the South Asian community there from the opportunity to have a voice.

The way in which LATFOR chooses to redraw the districts in Queens, some of which are in need of radical change, will be a major test of whether or not it is capable of drawing fair districts based on communities of interest rather than political gamesmanship.

LATFOR’s final hearing in upstate New York is taking place in the City of Buffalo ‘s Common Council Chambers on Thursday, August 18^th.

In this blog post we’ll be looking at the Buffalo region, defined as Erie County and Niagara County.  Overall, the region lost 32,920 residents over the past decade, with the overall population declining by 2.8%, but it remains home to over one million New Yorkers (Census 2010 Population: 1,128,874).

The City of Buffalo (Census 2010 Population:  261,310) remains the second most populous city in New York State despite losing another 30,000+ residents in the last ten years. This decline, representing 10.7% of the population, continues a pattern of population loss that has been firmly entrenched since 1950 when the city was more than twice its current size.

The City of Niagara Falls (Census 2010 Population:  50,193) also continues to shrink, with its population dropping by 9.7% since 2000. Like Buffalo, the city is less than half the size it once was.

The continued shrinkage of Buffalo and Niagara Falls was offset to some extent by growth in some of the region’s suburban towns, led by Clarence and Wheatfield which grew by 17.4% and 28.6% respectively.

As we’ve seen is the case all across New York State, the region’s minority populations grew, with the Asian and Hispanic populations experiencing major growth of almost 70% and 40% respectively. However, the Asian population (25,597, or 2.3% of the region) and Hispanic population (45,968, or 4.1% of the region) remain small as a percentage of the whole and their growth could not make up for the loss among the White population.

In the Buffalo region, the Hispanic population is concentrated along the city’s waterfront, while the Asian population is mostly in the town of Amherst near the SUNY Buffalo campus.

The regional Black population grew just slightly by 1.8% and continues to be centered within the City of Buffalo. The 2010 Census estimates the black population of the City of Buffalo to be just over 100,000, and as the map below shows, it is a very spatially concentrated community in the center of the city.

Outside of Buffalo, the black community also has a population center in Niagara Falls. Buffalo and Niagara falls together contain over 80% of the region’s black population.

From a regional perspective, Buffalo and Niagara Falls share other characteristics in common beyond the concentration of minority populations. The median income in Buffalo and Niagara Falls is markedly lower than in surrounding towns with many city households living on less than $25,000 a year. Large numbers of Buffalo and Niagara Falls residents received public assistance and/or food stamps.

It’s important to point out that poverty is comparatively high throughout the City of Buffalo, not only in communities of color.

As one might expect, rates of homeownership in the cities Buffalo and Niagara Falls are much lower than in the rest of the region and significant numbers of Buffalo residents depend on public transit for mobility

The populations in most areas of Buffalo and Niagara Falls are also less likely to hold college degrees and “white collar” professional/management jobs than residents in the surrounding suburbs and towns.

The shape of the Buffalo region’s new Congressional districts has been the source of much speculation in the press due in part to the continued decline in population. Of the three districts in the area, District 28 (Slaughter-D) is the most under-populated, falling over 100,000 residents short of the requirement for New York’s new districts (717,707).

District 28 has other deficiencies as well. The district unnecessarily splits the City of Buffalo and then hugs the coast of Lake Erie on a path over 100 miles long to the City of Rochester. Part of Buffalo and the entire City of Rochester are detached from their surrounding regions as are numerous towns along the coast of Lake Erie. The rationale for this district’s shape was likely to combine the Black populations of Western New York in Buffalo and Rochester but only 27% of the voters in the current district are Black –a percentage that will significantly decrease if the same Buffalo-Rochester combination was attempted for the new larger Congressional districts.

In the case of Western New York, it may be more beneficial for both the Buffalo and Rochester urban populations to have a separate voice for each city and region in Congress. As numerous residents at LATFOR’s Rochester public hearing testified, each city is the core of its own regional economy and residents do not often travel between the two cities. Monroe County (Rochester) is very close to the size of the new Congressional districts, and a new district centered on Buffalo could easily be built from Erie and Niagara Counties.

Buffalo’s State Senate districts are also due for major changes because of the region’s population loss. District 60 (Grisanti-R) is especially under-populated, now falling more than 40,000 residents short of a proper State Senate district population due to the population loss in Buffalo and Niagara Falls.

It is possible to fit the City of Buffalo within a single State Senate district but if this were done, it would be impossible to include Niagara Falls in the same district (too many people). As we’ve seen above, from a communities of interest point of view there’s a strong argument to include these two cities in the same district due to their many commonalities. The new District 60 could potentially be drawn to include all of the City of Buffalo except a small area of the southeast corner, the town of Grand Island, and the entire City of Niagara Falls.

Two other area Senate districts, Districts 61 (Ranzenhofer-R) and 62 (Maziarz-R), carve out Buffalo-Niagara suburbs into districts that extend far to the west. District 62 even enters the City of Rochester. It would make much more sense to combine pieces of these districts to make a more compact Buffalo suburbs district.

In the Assembly, changes are also in order as District 141 (Peoples-D) is short more than 20,000 residents and District 140 (Schimminger-D) is short almost 15,000 residents.

With Buffalo’s recent population loss it is now possible to divide the whole city into two rather than three Assembly districts. As the maps above demonstrate, Buffalo residents form a distinct community of interest and it would make more sense to neatly divide the city into two Assembly districts rather than combine parts of the city with demographically distinct suburbs like the current District 145 (Schroeder-D) does.

In preparation for tomorrow’s LATFOR hearing in Binghamton, we’re examining the Eastern half of the Southern Tier: the counties of Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Schuyler, Tioga, and Tompkins.

This large region of New York State is predominantly rural with only five incorporated cities: Binghamton (2010 population: 47,376), Elmira (29,200), Ithaca (30,014), Cortland (19,204), and Norwich (7,190).

Census 2010 estimates the total regional population at 560,275. From 2000 to 2010, the region grew by an estimated 1,160 residents, or 0.2%. This growth, small as it is, defies the commonly repeated notion that Upstate New York is rapidly and universally shrinking in population.
However, the region’s population would indeed have declined if not for major growth in the minority communities – 26% growth in the black population, 29% in the Asian population, and 56% in the Hispanic population.

Despite this minority growth, the Eastern Southern Tier’s population remains 89.7% White (down from 92.1% in 2000). Black and Hispanic populations are heavily concentrated in the three largest cities of Binghamton, Ithaca, and Elmira, while the Asian population is clustered around the two major research universities of the region, SUNY Binghamton, and Cornell University.

The Binghamton and Ithaca regions appear to be receiving major economic and demographic benefits from the presence of their universities. Ithaca City grew 2.5% from 2000 to 2010, buoyed by growth in the Asian and Hispanic populations which grew by 21% and 32% respectively. Ithaca’s suburbs grew even faster than the city, with Tompkins County’s total population growing by over 5%.

Binghamton was completely flat in population (an estimated loss of 15 residents) but the towns closest to the university, Union and Vestal, grew. The city of Binghamton was saved from population loss by the growth of its minority communities. While the Binghamton white population declined by 6.7%, this was offset by major growth in the city’s minority communities. Black population increased by 36%, Asian by 25%, and Hispanic by 65%.

In contrast to Ithaca and Binghamton, the city of Elmira lacks a major university and it lost an estimated 5.6% of its population from 2000 to 2010. While Elmira’s minority communities also grew, this growth was much more modest than in Binghamton and Ithaca.

Compared to Elmira and the region as a whole, the Binghamton and Ithaca areas also have more college graduates and white collar jobs, factors that are certainly also connected to the presence of the major research universities.

Yet there is also significant poverty present. Overall, residents of the cities of Binghamton, Ithaca, and Elmira have lower incomes than in surrounding suburban and rural areas which are almost universally middle class (with median incomes of $40,000 to $75,000).

As is to be expected of urban areas, the cities also have much lower rates of homeownership.

Moving on to analysis of the current districts and potential redistricting changes, let’s begin with Congressional districts.

The region is currently split up between three Congressional districts. District 22 (Hinchey-D) is a district that stretches all the way from Ithaca to Poughkeepsie and is one of the most sprawling and oddly shaped districts in the state (we also addressed this district in the Hudson Valley commentary). While we agree that Binghamton and Ithaca should be in the same district, this could be accomplished in a very different, more regionally focused way.

District 24 (Hanna-R) occupies the cities of Cortland and Norwich and the more rural areas of Broome and Tioga. It is also a sprawling and oddly shaped district as it stretches into the Southern Tier all the way from the Adirondacks, and District 29 (Reed II – R) swoops down into Elmira all the way from the suburbs of Rochester and then stretches west to Cattaraugus County.

Major changes in the Congressional districts are undoubtedly in store for the Eastern Southern Tier as New York loses two seats. The new districts will be considerably larger, with populations of roughly 717,707.

We believe that the new Congressional districts should attempt to be much more regionally focused than the existing ones. In the Eastern Southern Tier, one idea is a district consisting of the seven counties included in this analysis (Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Schuyler, Tioga, and Tompkins), plus the counties of Yates, Seneca, and Steuben. The total population of these 10 counties is 719,864, very close to the target population for New York’s new districts.

The region’s current State Senate districts keep Binghamton, Ithaca, and Elmira each in separate districts. As we’ve argued in each of our blog posts and demonstrated in the maps above, cities are distinct communities of interest compared to suburbs and rural areas. While it’s good that none of the cities in this region are themselves divided, efforts should be made to place two of the three cities in the same district. In the Eastern Southern Tier it’s impossible to keep all three cities in one Senate district, but two of the three can be easily included in the same district.
In this case, it might make the most sense to have Binghamton and Ithaca, both with major research universities and associated demographics and economics, together in one district.

In the State Assembly, the current districts are fairly compact and rational with the exception of District 123 (Finch-R), which oddly extends far to the west and north to pluck the city of Auburn out of Cayuga County and connect it with towns far to the south and east. There does not appear to be any communities of interest rationale for this far-flung, twisting district.

As always, we believe that the local residents are the most qualified to offer suggestions on new districts so we look forward to hearing their thoughts at the LATFOR hearing tomorrow.

For August 10th’s hearing in White Plains, we’ll also be covering the lower and mid-Hudson Valley region since there is currently no hearing scheduled for any of the cities or towns between Westchester and Albany.

The Hudson Valley is a diverse demographic landscape of rural areas, suburban areas, and five small cities (all with less than 35,000 residents: Peekskill, Middletown, Newburgh, Beacon, and Poughkeepsie).

When the Census 2010 numbers were released last year, many were surprised at the strength of population growth in the Hudson Valley. Overall, the region including Northern Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Southern Dutchess, and Southern Ulster counties grew by over 7% from 2000 to 2010.

Like the Albany region, this growth was largely due to major increases in minority populations. While the white population grew by 1.5%, the black population grew by 25%, the Asian population by almost 40%, and the Latino population by more than 70%. Overall, the region added over 111,000 minority residents compared to a growth of around 15,000 white residents. The growth in the Asian community was very widely spread throughout the region, while the growth in the black and Hispanic communities was also broad, but more concentrated in the region’s cities.

As is the case throughout the state, black populations in the Hudson Valley are clustered in urban areas including the Village of Spring Valley in Rockland County (though not an independent city, it is considered the most urban area in Rockland alongside downtown Nyack) and the four cities along the Hudson River.

The Hispanic population is more dispersed than the black population but is concentrated in the City of Middletown in Orange County, Peekskill, Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and the towns of Haverstraw and Ossining.

Also as we’ve seen in other regions, the urban communities of the Hudson Valley share many demographic characteristics in common besides minority populations. Residents of the region’s five cities and Spring Valley in Rockland have lower incomes than those in surrounding areas, although the difference is not as stark in Orange and Dutchess counties. Residents of the cities and Spring Valley (as well as Haverstaw, Ossining, and Mount Kisco) are also are far less likely to own homes, less likely to have college degrees, and less likely to hold “white collar” professional jobs.

It’s also interesting to note the broad changes in demographics that occur from south to north. As the distance from New York City increases, median incomes, education, and white collar jobs all generally decrease.

With all this demographic information in mind, let’s take a look at the current districts, starting with Congress this time.

In the Westchester-Rockland area, Congressional District 17 (Engel-D) stands out as a particularly bizarre gerrymander. The district starts in the urban areas of Mount Vernon, the Bronx, and Yonkers, then snakes up the Hudson to cross into Rockland County. The large black community of the North Bronx and Mount Vernon is joined with the distant suburbs of Rockland County instead of the much more similar communities of Yonkers and New Rochelle. The black community in Yonkers is actually split in two by this district. District 17 is a strong candidate for revision this redistricting cycle.

In the Northern part of the region, District 22 (Hinchey-D) plucks the cities of Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and Middletown into a district that extends all the way to Binghamton and Ithaca hundreds of miles away. Communities of interest and geographical common-sense suggest that the five cities of the Hudson Valley Region (Peekskill, Middletown, Newburgh, Beacon, Poughkeepsie), or at least the four on the Hudson River, should all be within the same Congressional district.

The current State Senate districts will have to change significantly due to the increase in the region’s population. Districts 38 (Carlucci-D) and 39 (Larkin Jr.-R) both have too many residents to continue to qualify as valid State Senate districts. Rockland County, with a population of roughly 311,000, must now compose its own district.

The current State Senate districts also unnecessarily split the region’s cities into separate districts. The city of Middletown is currently plucked into District 42 (Bonacic-R), a district that extends all the way to Delaware County, when it could easily share a district with Newburgh. District 40 (Ball-R) separates Peekskill from Beacon and Poughkeepsie in a district that could be redrawn to be more compact and centered on the Hudson River shore, a “Metro North Hudson Line” district.

Some of the State Assembly districts in the Hudson Valley have especially odd shapes, partially due to the constitutional requirement to follow town boundaries combined with the low population sizes of Assembly districts.

For example, the only way to include the cities of Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, and Beacon in one Assembly district (District 100, Kirwan-R) is to divide Dutchess County. While this looks odd on the map, both cities are directly connected to the areas across the river by bridges. Residents of Poughkeepsie and Beacon should weigh in whether this district make sense, or whether it would more accurately reflect local communities to keep the cities within a Dutchess County based Assembly district

Other potential areas for discussion in the Assembly districts are the intersection between Districts 94 (Zebrowski-D) and 95 (Jafee-D) that splits the minority communities of Rockland County in the Spring Valley area, and District 98 (Gunther-D), which like State Senate District 42 (Bonacic-R), carves Middletown out of Orange County to be joined with areas far to the north and west.

Westchester County is the next stop on LATFOR’s tour of New York State. For the Wednesday August 10^th hearing in White Plains, we are splitting our analysis into two segments – one for densely populated Southern Westchester, and one for the Hudson Valley since there will not be another LATFOR hearing in this region.

Southern Westchester is a diverse landscape of cities, villages, and towns with demographic characteristics that vary widely. Some villages in Westchester are only a square mile large and have their own schools district and distinct place-based identity, so we’ll first provide a map showing the various villages within the towns and cities.

Once we start analyzing the demographics, the villages make the map too busy to read easily, so refer back to this map if need be.

Looking at communities of interest in Southern Westchester, the first pattern that becomes clear is that the three cities bordering the Bronx – Yonkers, Mount Vernon, and New Rochelle – have very different characteristics than the towns to their north.

In many ways, these cities share more in common with the Bronx than with most of Westchester. Residents of Yonkers, Mount Vernon, and New Rochelle have lower incomes than the affluent suburban residents to the north, are far less likely to own homes, are less likely to have college degrees, and are more likely to be employed in “blue collar” jobs than “white collar” jobs.

These “working class” demographics are also shared by a group of communities about 10 miles further north along the I-287 corridor – the village of Port Chester within the Town of Rye, the western portion of the City of White Plains and the adjacent Elmford area in northeast Greenburgh, and Sleepy Hollow on the Hudson River along the town boundaries of Greenburgh and Mount Pleasant.

These communities are also where Westchester’s minority populations are clustered. Mount Vernon’s population is more than 60% black, part of a dense and clearly defined community that spans the Bronx-Westchester border. Yonkers, New Rochelle and the White Plains-Greenburgh area are also home to black communities.

Southern Westchester’s Hispanic communities are concentrated in Yonkers, New Rochelle, White Plains, the Village of Port Chester, the Village of Elmsford, and the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The Hispanic communities have experienced major population growth over the past decade.

The spatially dispersed clusters of working-class, minority communities in Southern Westchester make it a challenge to draw districts that knit them together. The State Constitution’s requirement to keep towns intact and the ripple effects from majority-minority districts drawn in the Bronx make the task even harder.

The current State Senate districts for Westchester are heavily influenced by the shape of District 34 (Klein-D). District 34 is known as the “donut” district for its encirclement of District 36 (Thompson-D) and is often pointed to as an example of gerrymandering. In this case, however, the general shape of the district is heavily influenced by the Voting Rights Act and the “keep towns intact” requirement.

District 36 is a majority-black district, and the other Senate districts in the Bronx are all drawn to be majority-Hispanic districts as mandated by the Voting Rights Act. The majority-white population of the East Bronx must therefore be joined to Westchester in some way.

Because Mount Vernon must be part of a majority-black district, it must be combined with the adjacent black community in the Bronx rather than Yonkers or New Rochelle. And the population math makes it nearly impossible to join the minority-area of Yonkers with New Rochelle because the white areas of the Bronx must be joined up with Westchester.

Southern Westchester is an excellent example of how the Voting Rights Act and requirements to keep respect political boundaries can sometimes make it difficult to draw compact “common sense” districts that respect communities of interest. That being said, there’s no reason why the black-majority State Senate district in Bronx-Mount Vernon shouldn’t be more compact and occupy the whole of Mount Vernon rather than splitting the city in two. District 34 could also be drawn in a much neater and more compact way without adversely affecting any communities of interest.

As for the two state senate districts further north, I can say as a native of Southern Westchester than the general idea of splitting the west and east sides of the county makes sense. The Long Island Sound and Hudson River communities have very distinct identities.

On the other hand, the Assembly Districts have a lot more flexibility because of their smaller size.

The current Assembly Districts do not cross the Bronx-Westchester border and instead split southern Westchester into some very odd shapes. District 87 (Pretlow-D) contains the whole of Mount Vernon but then snakes into South Yonkers when it could instead combine Mount Vernon with the urban area of New Rochelle.

In both cases, the black voting age percentage for the district would be in the low 40’s. Since majority-minority districts would not be affected, it makes more sense to keep the urban minority area of Yonkers intact as an Assembly District and combine Mount Vernon with New Rochelle. The current districts unnecessarily crack the Yonkers and New Rochelle minority communities almost completely in half.

We will also be posting an analysis of the larger Hudson Valley region in advance of the Westchester LATFOR hearing where we will also address Congressional districts – stay tuned.

Albany is the venue for LATFOR’s third public hearing, taking place on Thursday, August 4^th, 2011. Since this hearing will be held at the state capital in the legislature’s own office building, we expect it to attract a wide variety of interest groups and politicians from all over the state.

However, as with Syracuse and Rochester, Common Cause/NY’s analysis will focus on the state legislative districts in the region in which the hearing is taking place, in this case the “Capital Region” of Albany-Troy-Schenectady.

It is first important to point out that in contrast to the general perception of upstate population trends, the Capital Region and each of the three cities all grew in population from 2000 to 2010. Albany, Troy, and Schenectady collectively grew 3.6% while the region as a whole (defined as all cities and towns within 15 miles of Albany) grew over 5%.

This growth marks a historic reversal from four decades of population decline from 1960 to 2000 and was driven by growth among minority communities. While the white population of the region continued to decline, this decline was outweighed by a near 30% increase in the black population and a Hispanic community that almost doubled in size.

While minority populations grew throughout the region, black and Hispanic communities remain clearly concentrated in Albany, Troy, and Schenectady.

In addition to having higher numbers of minority residents, the city populations share other commonalities compared to the surrounding region. Residents of Albany, Troy, and Schenectady have lower incomes than residents of the surrounding towns, are less likely to own their homes, are less likely to be employed in white collar jobs, and are more dependent on public transit.

All of these factors are important in determining the legislative decisions that would serve the best interests of these communities.

For the State Senate, it would be ideal if at least two of the three cities could share a district but because the state constitution emphasizes maintaining the unity of counties, it is difficult to do so. Albany County, with a population of 304,204, is within 2.6% of the ideal population of a State Senate district in the current 62 member format and thus must form its own district. Troy in Rensselaer County and Schenectady in Schenectady County are separated by Saratoga County and could only be combined by dividing the counties multiple times.

The State Constitutional guidelines on keeping counties intact also prevents the individual cities from being divided in the manner of Rochester and Syracuse. The imperative to keep counties united makes the geography of State Senate districts in the Capitol Region less flexible than in other regions of New York.

However, the State Assembly districts are another story entirely. Albany, Troy, and Schenectady are each unnecessarily split between two Assembly districts (each city’s population could easily fit within a single 128,000 person Assembly district).

This cracking is most egregious in Albany where the black community is carved almost exactly in two, with an estimated 9,820 black voting age individuals in District 104 (McEneny-D) and 8,428 in District 106 (Canestrari-D). This division of the City of Albany between two Assembly districts has no relationship whatsoever with the characteristics of the local community.

The division of Schenectady between District 110 (Tedisco-R) and 105 (Amedore Jr-R) similarly cracks a distinct community of interest with no valid rationale.

The fact that the New York State Constitution does not prohibit the unnecessary division of cities as it does for counties and towns should not give the legislature a free hand to arbitrarily divide cities for political reasons. In the Capitol Region, the urban minority communities responsible for the region’s newfound growth should be respected and allowed the opportunity to benefit from unified political representation in the Assembly.

On Wednesday July 19, 2011, LATFOR is holding its second public hearing on redistricting in New York State in the chambers of the Rochester City Council. Irrespective of whomever ultimately draws district lines, this hearing will likely be the only chance for Rochester residents to make their voices heard in the public record on the subject of redistricting.

If Rochester’s new State Senate and State Assembly districts were drawn with the good government principles of respecting political boundaries and those of local neighborhoods and communities of interest, they would look very different than the contorted lines that currently divide the city.

Current State Assembly Districts – Rochester Region: The current assembly districts combine suburban and rural communities with strangely carved chunks of the City of Rochester. District 131 (in yellow) is an especially odd-shaped district that combines a twisted hook shaped section of the city with sparsely populated rural areas far to the south and west.

Current State Assembly Districts – Rochester City: The current assembly districts divide the city into three strangely carved pieces that arbitrarily divide some neighborhoods such as the 14261 zip code on the north side of the city and Maplewood in the northwest.

Rochester’s current State Assembly districts – Districts 131 (Bronson-D), 132 (Morelle-D), and 133 (Gantt-D), divide the city into three pieces and split some distinct city neighborhoods completely in half. These lines seem to be drawn with the intent to maximize the chances of electing three Democrats from the area.

Current State Senate Districts – Rochester Region: The current senate districts also crack the city into three strangely carved pieces that are joined with suburban and rural communities from halfway across the state.

Current State Senate Districts – Rochester City: The current senate districts divide the city into three along arbitrary lines that do not closely relate to neighborhoods or communities of interest.

Rochester’s current State Senate districts – Districts 55 (Alesi-R), 56 (Robach-R), and 62 (Maziarz-R) appear equally gerrymandered with the intent to produce Republican representatives. The 14261  and Maplewood neighborhoods are again split in two and the Lyell-Otis and Dutchtown neighborhoods on the city’s west side are carved out from the rest of Rochester to be joined with rural communities in a district that stretches all the way to Niagara Falls.

New districts drawn with more respect for the integrity and representation of Rochester communities would look very different than the current highly partisan lines.

For the State Senate, with district populations of over 300,000, we question why the entire City of Rochester (2010 Population: 210,565) should not be included within a single district. Respect for the integrity of city, town, and village political boundaries is a longstanding principle of fair, non-partisan redistricting.

Looking beyond the issue of political lines, if you look at the demographic data from the 2010 Census and 2005-2009 American Community Survey, there are various factors that lead to the conclusion that the population of Rochester forms a community of interest that is distinct from the surrounding suburban and rural areas.

As these maps illustrate, communities within the City of Rochester are more racially diverse, less wealthy, have more children, and have much lower rates of homeownership than communities in surrounding areas.

Rochester Region – Distribution of Black Population: The black community in the Rochester region is overwhelmingly concentrated within the city limits. Since the year 2000, the Rochester black community has grown by 1.3% to over 83,000 individuals.

Rochester Region – Distribution of Hispanic Population: The Hispanic community in the Rochester region is overwhelmingly concentrated within the city limits. Since the year 2000, the Rochester Hispanic community has grown tremendously — by 22.9% to over 34,000 individuals.

Rochester Region – Median Household Incomes: Communities in the City of Rochester are for the most part less wealthy than the surrounding communities. A large proportion of household in the central city have incomes of less than $25,000 a year.

Rochester Region – Homeownership: Residents of the City of Rochester are far less likely to own their homes than residents of surrounding communities.

Rochester Region – Distribution of Children: Many neighborhoods within the City of Rochester have much higher densities of children than exist in surrounding communities.

They are also more likely to be employed in “blue collar” jobs like construction or industry rather than “white collar” professional or office jobs.

Rochester Region – “Blue Collar” Workers: Communities within the city of Rochester have higher concentrations of workers in construction, transportation, and production “blue collar” jobs than surrounding areas.

Rochester Region – “White Collar” Workers: Communities within the city of Rochester have much lower concentrations of workers in management, professional, and office “white collar” jobs than surrounding areas.

There is a valid argument that the distinct, shared social and economic interests of Rochestarians could benefit from the unified political representation provided by a single State Senator.

For the State Assembly, with district populations of 125,000 to 135,000, the entire city could not fit into a single district. However, there’s no good reason why the city should be divided among three assembly districts rather than two, and why some neighborhoods should be carved out and joined with suburban areas.

From our vantage point downstate, we don’t have the local knowledge about the Rochester community that can help make assembly districts more responsive to local needs. We’d like to hear Rochesterians weigh in to inform us and whoever ultimately draws the maps what makes sense to them. Whatever the new shape of Rochester’s new state legislative districts, local residents and communities are the best qualified to offer guidance to LATFOR and should take advantage of the opportunity.

There is no good reason why Rochester communities should continue to be divided into partisan puzzle pieces for the parties in Albany.

On Tuesday, July 18, LATFOR is holding its first public hearing on redistricting in New York State at the Syracuse City Council. This opening round of the public hearing process offers the residents of Syracuse an opportunity to speak directly to the commission that oversees New York’s redistricting process and influence the shape of their new districts.

There is much room for improvement. The current State Senate and State Assembly districts in Syracuse are textbook examples of partisan gerrymanders with little respect for political boundaries or communities of interest.

Current State Assembly Districts – Syracuse Region: The current assembly districts combine suburban and rural communities with strangely carved chunks of the City of Syracuse.

Syracuse’s current State Assembly districts – District 119 (Roberts-D) and District 120 (Magnarelli-D) – divide the city into a gnarled spiraling shape that appears to have been designed to maximize the chance of electing two Democrats. In District 119, a large chunk of the central city is pulled out and combined with suburban and rural areas, including the Onondaga reservation. District 120 joins the rest of the city with suburban and rural areas to the northwest.

Current State Assembly Districts – Syracuse City: The current assembly districts divide the city in two along twisting, gnarled boundaries.

Syracuse’s current State Senate districts needlessly split the city in two, with half the population carved out into District 49 (Valesky-D) and joined with rural populations stretching from the shores of Lake Ontario nearly to Utica. District 50 (DeFrancisco-R) combines the rest of the city with other suburban and rural communities to the south and west.

Current State Senate Districts – Syracuse Region: The current senate districts combine suburban and rural communities from halfway across the state with strangely carved chunks of the City of Syracuse.

New districts drawn with more respect for the integrity and representation of Syracuse communities would look very different than the current highly partisan lines.

For the State Senate, with district populations of over 300,000, we question why the entire City of Syracuse should not be included within a single district. Respect for the integrity of city, town, and village political boundaries is a longstanding principle of fair, non-partisan redistricting.

Current State Assembly Districts – Syracuse City: The current senate districts divide the city in two along arbitrary lines that do not closely relate to city neighborhoods.

Looking beyond the issue of political lines, if you look at the demographic data, there are various factors that lead to the conclusion that the population of Syracuse forms a community of interest that is distinct from the surrounding suburban and rural areas. As these maps illustrate, communities within the City of Syracuse are more racially diverse, less wealthy, have more children, and have much lower rates of homeownership than communities in surrounding areas. There is a valid argument that the distinct, shared social and economic interests of Syracusans could benefit from the unified political representation provided by a single State Senator.

Syracuse Region – Homeownership: Residents of the City of Syracuse are far less likely to own their homes than residents of surrounding communities.

Syracuse Region – Distribution of Children: Many neighborhoods within the City of Syracuse have much higher densities of children than exist in surrounding communities.

For the State Assembly, with district populations of 125,000 to 135,000, the entire city could not fit into a single district. But there are definitely more sensible ways to draw two districts for Syracuse than the gnarled hook that currently exists.  Perhaps the Westside and Southside could be combined with adjoining suburbs andthe Northside and Eastside, located across the dividing lines formed by I-81 and I-690.  From our vantage point downstate, we don’t have the local knowledge about your community that can help make political districts more responsive to your needs. We’d like to hear Syracusans weigh in to inform us and whoever ultimately draws the maps what makes sense to them

Syracuse Region – Median Household Incomes: Communities in the City of Syracuse are for the most part less wealthy than the surrounding communities. A large proportion of household in the central city have incomes of less than $25,000 a year.

Syracuse Region – Distribution of Black Population: The black community in the Syracuse region is overwhelmingly concentrated within the city limits. Since the year 2000, the Syracuse black community has grown by 12.2% to over 40,000 individuals.

Whatever the new shape of Syracuse’s state legislative districts, local residents and communities are the best qualified to offer guidance to LATFOR and should take advantage of the opportunity.

There is no good reason why Syracuse communities should continue to be divided into partisan puzzle pieces for the parties in Albany.

Since 2000, the population of the City of Syracuse has declined by 1.5% to a total of 145,170. This decline is considerably less than the other major upstate cities, Rochester and Buffalo, which declined by 4.3% and 10.7% respectively.