Submissions

Public Comments Return to Archived Submissions Page

• Laura
  March 30, 2023
  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to write in my serious concerns over the redistricting porposal for Kensington/Windsor Terrance . My name is Laura. Smith . I reside in Kensington, on Beverley Road between E 2nd and E 3rd streets, and am speaking on behalf of myself and my community. My comments will focus on your plan for the 44th Assembly District and, specifically, your decision to place portions of the neighborhoods of Windsor Terrace and Kensington in two different Assembly Districts, the 44th and the 51st. We believe both neighborhoods should be wholly within the 44th AD, as they have been historically. Please make Greenwood Cemetery, not the Prospect Expressway, the boundary between the 44th AD and the 51st AD. Please keep Windsor Terrace and Kensington intact. Your decision to put portions of both Windsor Terrace and Kensington into different Assembly Districts makes both impacted ADs less compact and contiguous and also divides two long-established and discrete communities with common interests, demographics, and a history of positive civic activism. Simply stated, it is contrary to many of the bedrock principles which should guide fair redistricting and good government. Specifically, we ask that you make Green-Wood Cemetery along 20th Street the western border of the 44th AD, not the Prospect Expressway as in the draft plan, and Green-Wood Cemetery along McDonald Avenue and Fort Hamilton Parkway out to 39th Street the northern boundary between the 44th and 51st ADs. This is a shift of only a few blocks but makes complete sense geographically. Without this change, the portions of Kensington and Windsor Terrace cut out of the 44th AD will be a small afterthought in the 51st AD, divided from that district by the hundreds of acres of Greenwood Cemetery. The 51st AD contains the entirety of the thriving neighborhood of Sunset Park and that neighborhood historically dominates that district. The inevitable result of the draft plan is that the few blocks of Windsor Terrace and Kensington attached to the vast bulk of Sunset Park will be underserved. The proposed plan also dilutes the ability of vital neighborhood institutions to advocate on behalf of their respective constituents. Two local elementary schools, P.S. 130 and P.S. 230, several local places of worship, such as Immaculate Heart of Mary Roman Catholic Church, the Flatbush Jewish Center, which, despite its name, is in Kensington, and the Darul Jannah Masjid and Masjid Nur Al-Islam will all see their catchment areas, now wholly within the 44th AD, divided between the 44th and the 51st AD. This is especially troublesome with respect to the mosques which serve the growing South Asian community in Kensington and will now have to petition two different Assemblymembers rather than having a single point of contact. Historically, the entirety of the two discrete, cohesive, and well-defined neighborhoods of Kensington and Windsor Terrace have been in the same Assembly District. This is true since at least the reapportionment following the 1970 census. Indeed, the phone number for the local Assembly District Office has remained unchanged since 1974, and many of my friends and neighbors have told me that they have it memorized or on their speed dial. This is not just an interesting but irrelevant tidbit, it is testimony to the fact that, at least in Brooklyn, the Assembly District is the smallest unit of government and, traditionally, the most responsive to local needs. In the 1950s, Robert Moses built the Prospect Expressway and inflicted a still-obvious scar on Windsor Terrace and Kensington. The people of Windsor Terrace and Kensington banded together and protested Moses’ plan, but unlike more affluent neighborhoods, such as Brooklyn Heights and Greenwich Village, they lost, and the Prospect Expressway was built. Moses’ wound, however, drew the Windsor Terrace and Kensington communities closer together, and over the following decades, they jointly fought and defeated repeated ill-advised rezoning proposals to first permit large-scale manufacturing and then residential overdevelopment in these thriving working class neighborhoods. We ask that you not reopen the wound Robert Moses inflicted. Again, Please make Greenwood Cemetery, not the Prospect Expressway, the boundary between the 44th AD and the 51st AD. Please keep Windsor Terrace and Kensington intact. Thank you for your time.
  
• sandye
  March 30, 2023
  I live in Gowanus, Brooklyn, 11215. I feel like my representation is okay how it is. I haven't gone over the redistricting map and won't be able to in time but think my district is okay. There are many other districts that have be redistricted on purely political lines and this I find abhorrent. Please do not let this to keep happening and be upstanding and honest with the redistricting. Democracy is about the people's needs and wants not the politicians. Sincerely, sandye renz 172 12th St. Brooklyn, NY 11215
  
• Curtis
  March 30, 2023
  I am Curtis Arluck, a Democratic District Leader in the 69th AD and a resident of the Morningside Heights neighborhood for more than 50 years. Both the draft and the current maps of the 69th AD generally keep the Morningside Heights/adjacent Upper West Side neighborhoods together, but the draft maps are a serious regression in one way: they take four Central Morningside Heights, Morningside Drive-Amsterdam Ave. blocks, 114th-115th and 118th-121st, and maroon them in the Harlem-based 70th AD, with which they have nothing in common. There is no mass transit connection between these blocks and the 70th AD, and no physical connection except through Morningside Park, which is not at all ADA accessible. Morningside Heights is in entirely different Community Board, Sanitation, Police, and City Council districts than Harlem. These four blocks had been part of the 69th AD since 1982; when they were placed in the 70th AD in 2012 there was a huge public outcry, and legislative leaders from both the 69th and the 70th AD resolved to fix this mistake in the 2022 redistricting. It was fixed, but now the draft maps, clearly with no thinking beyond, "they were in the 70th before", puts them back in the 70th. Please restore these four blocks back to where they belong, in the 69th AD. I also call your attention to the 110th-111th, F. Douglass Blvd.-Manhattan Avenue block. This is a classic "border" situation. The block geographically sits in the southwestern edge of Harlem, but in terms of shopping and other neighborhood connections looks more to Morningside Heights and the Upper West Side. Most importantly, well more than half of the population of the block is the northern building of the Towers on the Park complex, the rest of which is clearly in Morningside Heights/Upper West Side. Recognizing this, the legislature kept this block in the 69th AD in its redistrictings of 1992, 2002, 2012 and 2022. The new maps put it back in the 70th AD. It's a much closer call then with the Morningside Dr.-Amsterdam blocks, but on balance, the legislature knew what it was doing when it put this block in the 69th AD. Please keep it there. Thank you for your consideration.
  
• Laura
  March 30, 2023
  I want to comment on your plan to redistrict the 44th Assembly District and, specifically, your decision to place portions of the neighborhoods of Windsor Terrace and Kensington in two different Assembly Districts, the 44th and the 51st. We believe both neighborhoods should be wholly within the 44th AD, as they have been historically. Your decision makes areas less compact and contiguous and also divides two long-established and discrete communities with common interests, demographics, and a history of positive civic activism. We have many friends and neighbors in our windsor terrace and school community who would now be in a different district than our family. I am asking that you make Green-Wood Cemetery along 20th Street the western border of the 44th AD, not the Prospect Expressway as in the draft plan, and Green-Wood Cemetery along McDonald Avenue and Fort Hamilton Parkway out to 39th Street the northern boundary between the 44th and 51st ADs. This is a shift of only a few blocks but makes complete sense geographically. Without this change, the portions of Kensington and Windsor Terrace cut out of the 44th AD will be a small afterthought in the 51st AD, divided from that district by the hundreds of acres of Greenwood Cemetery. Thank you!
  
• Jessica
  March 30, 2023
  Most of Kensington and the entirety of Windsor Terrace have been in the same Assembly District (AD 44) for decades. This proposal to chop off several streets in both neighborhoods and stick them in a different AD (51), will cause considerable damage. These areas will be overwhelmed by the needs of the larger neighborhoods of Red Hook and Sunset Park. In addition, the portion of Windsor Terrace that remains in AD 44 will be negatively impacted as AD 44's Park Slope constituency grows and Windsor Terrace's shrinks. Park Slope will get even more of a voice than it already has as Windsor Terrace gets less, simply because of Park Slope's size. Please keep the districting the same! Thank you!
  
• Roy
  March 30, 2023
  Good Morning, I would urge the commission to keep all counties together in districts in the North Country and Adirondack Park. I understand district maps are based on population, however, in the North Country it is important to keep our counties together in representation as we share many unique challenges that work better when one looks at North Country Counties as one in regard to districts. In my opinion, smaller towns are better served when left whole with their home county. I appreciate the chance to weight in on this issue, Thank You. Roy Holzer-Wilmington New York
  
• Owen
  March 30, 2023
  The way Rockland is split is atrocious.
  
• Matthew
  March 30, 2023
  As a resident of Cortlandville in Cortland County we share very little in common with the City of Ithaca that currently elects the Assemble member for the 125th Assembly District. These districts are meant to represent ALL of people in it. The people and the values of the City of Ithaca does not match any of the surrounding areas. Also, The NYS Senate should be made of a Senator from each County. And to give NYC better representation 1 Senator from each Borough. This way each County has an equal voice in how NYS is ran and how our tax dollars are spent.
  
• Joy
  March 30, 2023
  Most of Kensington and the entirety of Windsor Terrace have been in the same Assembly District (AD 44) for decades. Despite that, the IRC proposes to chop off several streets in both neighborhoods and stick them in a different AD (51), where they'd be overwhelmed by the needs of the larger neighborhoods of Red Hook and Sunset Park. In addition, the portion of Windsor Terrace that remains in AD 44 will be negatively impacted as AD 44's Park Slope constituency grows and Windsor Terrace's shrinks. Park Slope will get even more of a voice than it already has as Windsor Terrace gets less, simply because of Park Slope's size. Please don't do this to us.
  
• Barb
  March 29, 2023
  I have a summer home in Inlet in Hamilton County, so I am glad to see that both Inlet and Old Forge are in the 118 A.D., since they share a school district and a Police Department, even though they are in two different counties. I live most of the year in Saratoga Springs, in Saratoga County, so I am not happy to see that our County has been split into 4 Assembly districts, the 111,112,113 and 118. The version of the redistricting that was used for the last election had Saratoga county split into two main A.D.s and a little part into the area in the Adirondack Park. That map made more sense for our County.
  
• Matthew
  March 29, 2023
  I concur with your proposed plan to include the city of Glens Falls with the towns to the north of us. We have always considered ourselves the gateway to the Adirondacks and share common values with our friends to the north. We are all about the Balloon festival, the Winter Carnival and the Ice Castle. We are skiing, fishing and boating. We are not the "Exit door" for Saratoga and have less in common with the larger city focused on horse racing and games of chance. I appreciate the work the committee is doing to offer a fair assessment of the previous redistricting and attempting to fix its glaring shortcomings. Sincerely, Matthew Brown
  
• Mark
  March 29, 2023
  View File
  A RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER ROSS BRADY, ESQ From Mark E. Glogowski, Ph.D. Dear Commissioners At the end of my last presentation to the Independent Redistricting Commission, on March 1, 2023, Mr. Ross Brady, Esq., asked me two questions. One was, what counties do not have representation. The other was somewhat vague, but I believe was essentially, what is the relationship between the counties and New York City and what was the impact of their being incorporated into the city. The first question is relatively easy to answer. Looking at the 2012 Assembly District map, only one county had representation in the NYS Legislature. That county was Chautauqua County, which is entirely and exclusively encompassed by the 150th Assembly District. It alone enjoyed the benefit of having an Assembly Representative dedicated to addressing the county’s issues exclusively - no matter how large or small the issue. The new 2022 map proposes inserting a portion of the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation into the 150th Assembly District. That portion of the Indian Reservation extends into Erie County. Placing that part of Erie County in the 150th Assembly district will result in a loss of representation in the NYS Legislature for Chautauqua County. Here’s why I claim that to be the case. As the Assembly Districts are currently designed, the Assembly Members have the responsibility to represent the individuals that live in their districts. As a result of that expectation, Assembly Members believe they have no obligation to bring the county’s concerns before the NYS Legislature; their responsibility is to represent the people, and not the counties. The fact that this attitude exists among the Assembly Members was substantiated in a conversation with the Assembly Member from the 101st Assembly District. Assembly District 101 passes through or clips seven different counties (see the 2012 Assembly District map). The Assembly Member from the 101st Assembly District, when asked about his representation of a county’s problem stated, “I don’t represent any of the counties in the district. I represent the individual residents in the district. The county issues are the county’s problem.” If any county government has a concern regarding issues within the county, or even issues that spread into a neighboring county, the fact that the Assembly District line overlaps the county line serves as a continual reminder to the Assembly Members that there is no expectation that the Assembly Member serve the counties. That same attitude is maintained by Assembly Members in districts which are contained entirely within one county, but do not cover the entire county. This fact can be illustrated by considering an issue in Monroe County and how it was handled. There are seven Assembly Districts in Monroe County: Four Assembly Districts are entirely within Monroe County and three Assembly Districts overlap into a surrounding County. (The 2022 map proposes a total of eight Assembly Districts in, and overlapping into, Monroe County.) The issue was the traffic congestion at the west end of Route 531 on the west side of Monroe County. Traffic was getting more congested every year. A redesign was needed. A permanent solution would have been to extend Route 531 to the west, to the Monroe County line and then into Orleans County. This was actually the original plan when construction for Route 531 started back in the 1960’s. However, four of the Assembly Members whose districts were entirely within Monroe County considered the termination of Route 531 to be an issue outside their district. They left the issue to be handled by the Assembly Member from the 139th Assembly District. Unfortunately, Assembly District 139 also contains all of Genesee County and most of Orleans County. Thus, while the 139th Assembly Member theoretically represented that part of Monroe County, and even Orleans County into which the expressway would be extended, he did not intervene in this issue. He left the matter, concerning how Route 531 would be redesigned, up to the other Assembly Members that had districts within or overlapping Monroe County. The failure of the four Assembly Members, whose districts were completely in Monroe County, to intercede to stop millions of dollars from being spent on what was clearly not a fix to the traffic problem, demonstrated they do not believe they are responsible for bringing county issues before the legislature. Besides, the problem was not in their district. The response of the three Assembly Members whose districts spread into other counties demonstrates that they are either incapable of representing Monroe County, or will not represent the county just because a piece of the county was placed in their Assembly District. Their justification is clearly - they represent the people, not the county. With the NYS Department of Transportation receiving no official input from the NYS Legislature (i.e., the Assembly Members), that agency literally, spent millions and just “moved the problem down the road”. The point here is that it doesn’t matter if a piece of a single county, a piece of a neighboring county along with a complete county, or several entire counties are placed in an assembly District, the counties all lose their ability to be represented in the NYS Legislature. As for the second question: There are two parts: 1) What is the relationship between the counties and New York City and 2) what was the impact of their (the counties) being incorporated into the city. I cannot answer the first part of this question because I am unfamiliar with what the arrangements are that were made between New York City and the five counties within the City of New York. As for the second part of this question, the impact that the annexation of the counties had on the City of New York , let me first make some general comments. The counties in New York State were created by the NYS Legislature and they operate under provisions set out in the NYS Constitution. Counties are essentially administrative units of the state and serve a government purpose. That is the primary reason counties were always guaranteed at least one Representative to the State Assembly. Those representatives were to act as the intermediary between the counties and the state. Thus, the counties themselves were responsible for administering services the state would provide: They were responsible to coordinate interactions between the state agencies and services and the municipalities receiving that support; and were to report to the NYS legislature on issues as they arose in their county. Bringing regional (county) concerns to the state legislature was the primary function of Assembly Members. A useful distinction between a city and a county is the fact that, by definition, a city is a permanent settlement whereas a county is established by the state for political and management purposes. In reality, city services are usually available only within city limits. Cities generally have some sort of historical establishment and legal system, their own court systems, law enforcement, fire departments, and some form of medical care centers, utility services, housing divisions, and public transportation systems that can help move the community from one side of the city to another. All of these services can be, and in the less dense counties often are, provided by the county. When the City of New York annexed the territory of the nearby counties, theoretically, it was to provide municipal services and to exercise regulatory authority necessary to protect public health and safety. What was apparently not addressed when the counties were annexed by the City of New York was what the role and function of the county government would be. It would appear that the City of New York’s annexation of the five counties resulted in the usurpation of all of the responsibilities of the county governments. All of the intra-county and intercounty concerns were now the responsibility of the city government. The result was that the city had no direct input into the NYS Legislature except through the Assembly Members. While county governments are supposed to be an arm of the NYS government, the county governments in New York City were now defunct. This left the county governments with no foundation upon which to act as an intermediary to the NYS Legislature on the city’s behalf. With the 1964 US Supreme Court ruling, resulting in the total loss of county representation in the Assembly, all of the Assembly Members lost their ability to influence the legislature on behalf of the counties. Today, the city’s representatives in the Assembly are stuck addressing the thousands of issues that formerly did not even exist. Issues discussed at the Independent Redistricting Commission hearings are not county wide issues. They are issues generated because of the loss of a county wide focus. The IRC was plagued with issues like school districts being split and placed into two or more Assembly Districts, impediments to the development of local cultural groups because those groups were being physically split into two or more Assembly districts, and communities of various nationalities and ethnic groups and religious groups being physically split into multiple Assembly Districts. These artificially created Assembly Districts will limit the Assembly Member’s ability to represent these very same groups on a county wide basis. The loss of county wide oversight has complicated greatly the task of the NYS Legislature. It used to rely on the Assembly members to address the issues in their county and plan the coordination of legislation and policies that are appropriate across the state. Instead of 62 regions (counties) being represented in the Assembly, there are now 150 pieces of the state referred to as Assembly Districts and there is little cohesion within the district. In some districts there is no cohesion within the Assembly Districts. The 150 pieces of the state are comprised of, or include, parts of 62 cities, 534 villages, 933 towns, an estimated 1,200+ hamlets, and literally tens of thousands of smaller community and social groups. All these thousands of groups separately now come to the state for assistance via their Assembly Representative. The loss of the county focus has resulted in the Assembly Representatives having little to no time to address county concerns. There have been, and continue to be, calls to divide New York State into two or more separate states, is a consequence of the failure of the Assembly members to bring regional concerns to the NYS Legislature. All of the calls from NYC residents for New York City to secede from NYS are directly related to the loss of the New York City’s county representation in the NYS Assembly. New York City, and counties across the entire state that are provided with two or more Assembly seats, would benefit greatly by the creation of overlapping county wide Assembly districts. The residents in those counties would then benefit greatly by restricting the voting for Assembly candidates to just one Assembly vote per person - no matter how many county wide positions there are to fill. This voting structure would maximize the ability of politically oriented groups to organize county wide and to get their representative elected. With the above comments in mind, it is clear that New York City has been dramatically impacted by the failure to maintain a county government within the city. Restoring the Assembly Districts to county wide districts would greatly improve the communications and relations between the NYC and the New York State Legislature. Submitted 3-29-2023; Mark Glogowski. Ph.D.; mglogowski08@gmail.com (also submitted as a Word Document)
  
• Dalton
  March 29, 2023
  The 58 Assembly District should remain as is before IRC proposal. We have worked hard in the district currently as it is and have grown to know those residents like family. They have come to be able to rely on our office and have a representative they can rely on. Walking those streets and knowing on those doors and introducing ourselves to them, having given them the assurance that we will be there for them when called upon. The thing that binds us is the community relationships we have built over the years, and like a family, you just don't throw out a wife or a relative because someone else suggest that you should. Please do not tear this family apart. We have come this far together and I would like us to continue that way. Full disclosure, I have worked in this district for the past 23 years, as a constituent's liaison and I am the voice that constituents hear when they call. I know them, know their issues and I want to continue serving them in the current format. Dalton Robinson
  
• Paul
  March 29, 2023
  I had previously testified to my opposition to the proposed plan. For two mains reasons. First it fails to consider the differences between Mariners Harbor and St George which have traditionally had separate representation. With Mariner's Harbor having different and particular needs given it's separation from mass transit and health options available to eastern Staten Island. Second an island that is 42% Latino and/or people of color should not be gerrymandered to give an arbitrary white majority to 75% of it's districts with non-white residents being overwhelmingly packed into a single district. It is not about who represents who but having leadership that has to listen to diverse voices and take them into consideration when making their decisions. I previously submitted this map addressing those concerns. https://davesredistricting.org/join/df7d7763-676e-449c-8386-7968ac7bd08d I was asked at the meeting whether Brooklyn or Manhattan made more sense to pair with Staten Island and I answered truthfully neither. Though perhaps at least Manhattan is a place where Staten Islanders would have some contact and a fair easier and less expensive ferry link exists. I used Brooklyn to address the committee's concerns about Brooklyn. But the solution did not fit right with me. And it really should not. In the current map, in your proposed map, and even in the one I previously submitted the eastern shore of Staten Island is paired with the northern part of Bay Ridge. These are areas that have little in common. Perhaps 40 years ago it was considered a preeminent Italian enclave. But those times have past and it is not a much more diverse area of Latinos, Arabs, and other groups. And even the area of Staten Island included has been changing with for instance a lot of Jews from the former Soviet Union. The areas are aggressively non-contiguous, have no synergy and defy any logic. But your question does remain. Which areas make the most sense to pair since Staten Island cannot contain four districts entirely. After City Island and Eastern Queens (neither of which are viable partners geographically) the part of New York City most similar to Staten Island is Coney Island. Something I in fact mentioned at the hearings. So I started from scratch and used the State Senate maps that have already passed as inspiration. Since it makes sense to have similar patterns of division on all levels. This is my revised map that includes the core of the 23rd Senate District combining the northeastern part of Staten Island with western Coney Island. https://davesredistricting.org/join/13845915-f4d0-460b-930a-393052891e36 A couple of reasons why this is a superior arranged to the proposed map of the commission. It combines like communities that are already combined in other political configurations. Each part combines a large African-American population along with other growing immigrant groups such as Latinos and other immigrant groups. Each part has a significant Jewish Russian population. Each part is addressing similar issues. Waterfront development, increased flooding due to climate change, sub-par mass transit, needs for better hospital service One part has ferry service, the other half has been trying to get similar ferry service. The proposed map unlike other proposals has actual bridge contiguity. It is not a perfect solution. Staten Island is a unique animal hard to pair. But I feel it is a better one that other proposals. And one that is familiar to the residents of each side of the water as they are already united in a state senate district. This proposal will also allow for a Bay Ridge not to be split up in so many different directions. It also creates two districts in Staten Island that are 62% and 57% people of color respectively. Again they are not created to elect anyone of any race or ethnicity or any group in particular. In fact no race or ethnicity has any type of majority or ability to elect anyone on their own. These are just districts meant to encourage coalition building to include the many diverse groups that make up the Staten Island of the 21st century.
  
• H
  March 29, 2023
  The current IRC suggestion for District 24 is the ideal district for our Punjabi Sikh-American community. Since the 70's our community has been settling in Richmond Hill. Our oldest Gurdwara(Sikh Temple of Worship) in New York on 118th st and 97th ave is in this district. As are 5 other Sikh Gurdwaras. We also have 101 ave in this district designated as Punjab Ave because of our contributions. Our community set up many mutual aid kitchens across this city during COVID. We are neighborly and get along with our Guyanese neighbors in Richmond Hill. We deserve to be kept in a 1 district. Please do not divide us anymore.