I support the Moderate change, where only the boundaries of Districts 1 and 4 are adjusted, resulting in 1.6% maximum variation between districts.
Personal background: I was redistricted by the school board this year. The result is that while I last voted for a board member 4 years ago, I do not get to vote this year, but have to wait 2 more years. Some people living very close to me voted two years ago and also get to vote this year. My feeling is that, if possible, districts that vote on the same election year should have their boundaries adjusted, if possible. That is the case in this example.
I note that the redistricting is not perfect with these 3 census blocks being moved. But District 1 will increase population as town homes are built on 10200 So, and other projects are also developed over the next few years. District 4 can grow from annexation of County and Granite islands, as well as from development east of Wasatch Blvd.
When I looked at the maps for the last presentation, I considered adjusting the boundary between Districts 1 and 2 such as shown in the second (most significant) map. It would move the District 2 population closer to Historic Sandy, which some consider the heart of the District 1. This adjustment also moves a significant area from District 4 to District 3, an undesirable situation because of the election cycles. The changes between Districts 2 and 3 are less of an issue to me. The resultant variation between districts after all these changes is just 1.4%; not close enough for all the disruption.
The final map, Minimal Change, resulting in the 4.1% variation is inadequate for the adjustment.
I am heartened that the 5 and 7 district ideas did not gain any traction.
I would like to know what the impact of annexation on population will be over the next 10 years. In other words, how much will the population in each district change if all the unincorporated county islands within it are annexed between now and the next national census. Also, which parameters are used to estimate the population each year?
I don't think dividing Historic Sandy is a good idea. I understand the need to balance the council districts but I think this should be done by moving more recent subdivisions and leaving the historic district together. The Sandy City Historic Preservation Committee is charged with maintaining the look and feel of this area. It will be easier to do this if it is treated as a contiguous neighborhood. The Historic District boundaries are 8400 South on the north, 700 East on the east, 9000 South on the south, and State Street on the west. I am opposed to encroaching on this area. Therefore, option 4-1 is my least favorite. Thank you for considering my comments, Sandra Haak, Resident of Sandy
I support the Moderate change, where only the boundaries of Districts 1 and 4 are adjusted, resulting in 1.6% maximum variation between districts.
Personal background: I was redistricted by the school board this year. The result is that while I last voted for a board member 4 years ago, I do not get to vote this year, but have to wait 2 more years. Some people living very close to me voted two years ago and also get to vote this year. My feeling is that, if possible, districts that vote on the same election year should have their boundaries adjusted, if possible. That is the case in this example.
I note that the redistricting is not perfect with these 3 census blocks being moved. But District 1 will increase population as town homes are built on 10200 So, and other projects are also developed over the next few years. District 4 can grow from annexation of County and Granite islands, as well as from development east of Wasatch Blvd.
When I looked at the maps for the last presentation, I considered adjusting the boundary between Districts 1 and 2 such as shown in the second (most significant) map. It would move the District 2 population closer to Historic Sandy, which some consider the heart of the District 1. This adjustment also moves a significant area from District 4 to District 3, an undesirable situation because of the election cycles. The changes between Districts 2 and 3 are less of an issue to me. The resultant variation between districts after all these changes is just 1.4%; not close enough for all the disruption.
The final map, Minimal Change, resulting in the 4.1% variation is inadequate for the adjustment.
I am heartened that the 5 and 7 district ideas did not gain any traction.
I would like to know what the impact of annexation on population will be over the next 10 years. In other words, how much will the population in each district change if all the unincorporated county islands within it are annexed between now and the next national census. Also, which parameters are used to estimate the population each year?
I don't think dividing Historic Sandy is a good idea. I understand the need to balance the council districts but I think this should be done by moving more recent subdivisions and leaving the historic district together. The Sandy City Historic Preservation Committee is charged with maintaining the look and feel of this area. It will be easier to do this if it is treated as a contiguous neighborhood. The Historic District boundaries are 8400 South on the north, 700 East on the east, 9000 South on the south, and State Street on the west. I am opposed to encroaching on this area. Therefore, option 4-1 is my least favorite. Thank you for considering my comments, Sandra Haak, Resident of Sandy