11 hours ago, Henke said:

Jenny Spencer won't be seeking re-election.

 

Hopefully a more development friendly councilperson will take her place. It's a shame that the tax abatement adjustments coincided with the rise in inflation. Her criticism of market rate developers was probably unhelpful as well. 

 

https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-city-council-member-jenny-spencer-wont-seek-another-term/

 

Criticism?   How about active obstruction?  

 

If you want people with options to live (and pay taxes) in your city they will expect a degree of comfort and that is best achieved by clustering people with similar values.

 

The only alternative to what she and her ilk call "gentrification" is more sprawl.

 

I would oppose shrinking council too much more.   Especially with our model where the councilmen are mini-mayors of sorts.

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by E Rocc

I do at least appreciate that she is leaving and not appointing a replacement/successor.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see them use her resignation as an easy way out in the redistricting. and chop Ward 15 into pieces for the existing Council members in surrounding wards.  

5 hours ago, ML11 said:

I do at least appreciate that she is leaving and not appointing a replacement/successor.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see them use her resignation as an easy way out in the redistricting. and chop Ward 15 into pieces for the existing Council members in surrounding wards.  

I was thinking the same.   Hopefully Danny Kelly goes away too and doesn't get too much of Jenny's ward. 

The requirement for redrawing is population based. Each newly drawn ward should have about 25,000 residents. The west side wards are at or above that number but all of the east side wards are well below. 
 

Ward 1 - 19,546

Ward 2 - 20,265

Ward 5 - 20,916

Ward 6 - 19,535

Ward 7 - 17,179

Ward 8 - 19,461

Ward 9 - 18,606

Ward 10 - 20,594

My best guess is that two of those above will be lost. 

But we shouldn’t have to wait long, it was reported they’ll have a new map by the end of the year. 
 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/cleveland-city-council-hires-consultants-to-redraw-ward-boundaries-council-will-lose-2-members

 

 

When the two wards go away, do two CDCs go away also?

 

I wouldn’t expect to see any CDCs go away. They are not directly tied to the wards. For example, Northwest Neighborhoods used to be 2 distinct CDCs in Ward 15. 
 

One of Griffin’s concerns is that losing council seats will mean less attention paid to neighborhoods who are merged into other wards. So I think if anything the importance of CDCs in those neighborhoods will get a boost. 

This PR was issued a few minutes ago.......

 

Department of Justice

REBECCA C. LUTZKO
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Former Cleveland City Council Member Charged with Bribery and Fraud

 

CLEVELAND – Basheer Jones, 40, of Cleveland, Ohio, has been charged in a two-count information with conspiring to commit wire fraud and honest services fraud for using his role as a public official for personal financial gain by seeking to defraud multiple community stakeholders out of more than $200,000. He previously served as an elected Cleveland city council member representing Ward 7.

 

According to court documents, from about December 2018 to June 2021, Jones allegedly misrepresented and concealed material facts to induce nonprofit organizations to enter into a variety of arrangements that would benefit Jones and his romantic partner co-conspirator. Under the guise of working on projects to benefit the city of Cleveland and revitalize Ward 7, Jones fraudulently sought and obtained funds from local nonprofits while he concealed his connection to his romantic partner, through whom he benefited from these arrangements.

 

Jones’s schemes were devised to deceive nonprofit entities into making payments toward projects they thought were for the community’s benefit. Instead, the money ultimately went into bank accounts controlled by Jones’s romantic partner. Jones would then direct her to divert those funds to herself, Jones, and to other associates who were involved.

 

The information alleges that Jones deceptively advised nonprofits to provide funding to move community projects forward or to hire a purported “consultant,” with the full knowledge that the funds would flow back to himself. For example, Jones recommended that a nonprofit hire a consultant for community outreach. Unbeknownst to the nonprofit, the “consultant” who quickly submitted a proposal and whose business was ultimately contracted, was Jones’s co-conspirator and romantic partner. She submitted the proposal and requested $5,000 per month at Jones’s prompting. The investigation discovered that she did not provide the nonprofit with substantial services in exchange for payments she received. 

 

Jones later defrauded the same nonprofit out of an additional $50,000, again through his romantic partner’s consulting business. Jones claimed that he needed $50,000 to plan a community event, which included buying backpacks for schoolchildren, and falsely promised that the city would reimburse the organization. Instead, after the funds were paid, no event was held, and Jones directed his romantic partner to divide the money amongst herself, Jones, and others associated with the scheme.

 

Some of the projects Jones pushed included seeking community funding to rehabilitate certain distressed properties while concealing his financial interest in them. In one instance, Jones devised a bribery scheme under which he arranged for co-conspirators, including his romantic partner, to acquire a dilapidated property on Superior Road, and used his position as councilperson to pass ordinances allocating city funds to buy that property from them.

 

Jones arranged for a co-conspirator to buy the property a minimal cost. After asking a nonprofit to purchase and rehabilitate the property, and promising city funding, Jones sponsored an emergency ordinance to fund the nonprofit’s purchase and renovation of the property. When Jones was unable to convince the nonprofit to proceed, he arranged to transfer the property to his romantic partner’s consulting business, with the understanding that she too would share the proceeds of the sale with him. After sponsoring another ordinance to reauthorize city funding for the same project, Jones sought to finalize the nonprofit’s purchase of the property from his partner’s entity for $80,000. Ultimately the scheme failed when the nonprofit decided not to proceed with the purchase.

 

Jones and his partner did succeed in obtaining funds for the sale of a different property to another nonprofit. He misled them to believe that he was helping them to acquire the property from the original owner. Instead, he was simultaneously arranging for his romantic partner to acquire the property from the original owner in the name of another business entity, and then immediately to resell it to the nonprofit. Jones and his partner arranged to purchase the property for only $1, promising to pay a $40,500 city demolition bill. But without paying that bill or disclosing it, Jones’s partner immediately re-sold the property to the nonprofit for $45,000.

 

These charges are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial. It will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after review of factors unique to the case, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, their role in the offense, and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum, and, in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.

 

This case was investigated by the FBI Cleveland Division, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of the Inspector General, and the IRS – Criminal Investigation.

 

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Erica Barnhill and Elliot Morrison for the Northern District of Ohio.

That reminds me of an upcoming loss for Northeast Ohio -- after years of delay, Rebecca Lutzko was finally appointed as our US Attorney in June 2023.  By all accounts she's been great.  With the change in administration, Trump will undoubtedly ask for her resignation (this is routine).  Let's see how long it takes to get a replacement.  Unfortunately, based on his cabinet picks it will undoubtedly be someone with stronger political puckering than prosecutorial experience.

Basheer sounds like a perfect candidate to work in the Trump administration, or perhaps the next version of Trump University! 😐

4 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Basheer sounds like a perfect candidate to work in the Trump administration, or perhaps the next version of Trump University! 😐

or as the Mayor of Cleveland: or the Council again

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2017/01/the_rise_fall_and_search_for_r_1.html

 

Under Ohio law, anyone convicted of bribery is barred from holding office. Johnson says he had his conviction expunged in 2008, in Cuyahoga County court, and that cleared the way for him to run for city council. Johnson adds that he was convicted of extortion, not bribery.

 

Hopefully with the shrinking Council we will have less of these:

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/former-cleveland-city-councilman-sentenced-6-years-and-ordered-pay-619k-restitution

 

No wonder Cleveland has taken one step forward and two (or more) backwards for decades - while othert cities flourished.

^ Basheer Jones is the latest politician to give in to small time corruption.  Tom Wolfe in "Bonfire of the Vanities" has a good whack at what goes wrong for these people.  Getting paid relatively modest amounts, they get envious of those "mega-rich" people they work around and begin to think the undeserving and talentless rich are getting richer off their work.  And therefore they feel justified and even entitled to chisel a little extra here and there. 

 

What's amazing to me is how little they settle for.

On 11/19/2024 at 11:12 AM, E Rocc said:

 

Criticism?   How about active obstruction?  

 

If you want people with options to live (and pay taxes) in your city they will expect a degree of comfort and that is best achieved by clustering people with similar values.

 

The only alternative to what she and her ilk call "gentrification" is more sprawl.

Agreed. She comes across like a virtue signaler and out of touch with the realities of Cleveland. The last of Cleveland's concerns is gentrification.

 

On 11/27/2024 at 11:48 AM, Dougal said:

^ Basheer Jones is the latest politician to give in to small time corruption.  Tom Wolfe in "Bonfire of the Vanities" has a good whack at what goes wrong for these people.  Getting paid relatively modest amounts, they get envious of those "mega-rich" people they work around and begin to think the undeserving and talentless rich are getting richer off their work.  And therefore they feel justified and even entitled to chisel a little extra here and there. 

 

What's amazing to me is how little they settle for.

I know a lot of people who knew Basheer in HS and their consensus has always been that he's shady.

https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2024/12/end-the-shameful-secrecy-and-punitive-motives-driving-city-council-redistricting-editorial.html

 

 

Always funny to see the same people who were pushing us to vote yes on Issue 1 last month are doing the same thing. 

On 11/19/2024 at 7:16 PM, Henke said:

The requirement for redrawing is population based. Each newly drawn ward should have about 25,000 residents. The west side wards are at or above that number but all of the east side wards are well below. 
 

Ward 1 - 19,546

Ward 2 - 20,265

Ward 5 - 20,916

Ward 6 - 19,535

Ward 7 - 17,179

Ward 8 - 19,461

Ward 9 - 18,606

Ward 10 - 20,594

My best guess is that two of those above will be lost. 

But we shouldn’t have to wait long, it was reported they’ll have a new map by the end of the year. 
 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/cleveland-city-council-hires-consultants-to-redraw-ward-boundaries-council-will-lose-2-members

 

 

 

Looks like it's going to be Ward 12.   This shouldn't be a shock.

 

If I could pick two council members to go away it would be Spencer and Maurer.

Monday's council meeting had some great commenters, this person in particular pointed out that former members have been indicted and found guilty, asking Blaine if those people were "team players" (alluding to BG's comments at the previous meeting towards Councilwoman Maurer): 

 

 

I wrote to the redistricting email (consultants) and CC'd my councilwoman (RM) and the council president.

 

I just got the response from BG that "The maps are still being developed". As a GIS Professional I have no idea what's taking a well paid consultant so long to "develop" these maps. There are tools to make this process fast, efficient and equitable. 

9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

If I could pick two council members to go away it would be Spencer and Maurer.

 

Why?

Cleveland City Council - LIVE

 

Press Conference - Redistricting, Dec. 10, 2024

 

Cleveland City Council President Blaine A. Griffin will host media availability on Tuesday, December 10, to release the redistricting map that Councilmembers are expected to vote on at the January 6 City Council meeting. 

 

more details and opportunity to provide feedback at https://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/cleveland-city-council-redistricting

 

I don’t love it at first glance. Not sure how they drew this to keep 8 wards on the east side when that’s where population is declining. 
 

Curious to read other analysis though. 

22 minutes ago, Henke said:

 

more details and opportunity to provide feedback at https://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/cleveland-city-council-redistricting

 

I don’t love it at first glance. Not sure how they drew this to keep 8 wards on the east side when that’s where population is declining. 
 

Curious to read other analysis though. 

 

The new Ward 11 and 12 seem to use West Blvd as the border. This map splits Edgewater in two.

 

And to your point, look how small the wards on the West side are compared to the east, especially when you remember a third of the new ward 15 is Hopkins. Assuming the population per ward are all around 25,000, the new Ward 12 seems to be very dense.

 

How many wards span the river?

29 minutes ago, Henke said:

 

more details and opportunity to provide feedback at https://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/cleveland-city-council-redistricting

 

I don’t love it at first glance. Not sure how they drew this to keep 8 wards on the east side when that’s where population is declining. 
 

Curious to read other analysis though. 

 

Collinwood, separated the last time, is put back together.   

Cartographically speaking, these map products are embarrassing. 

Here is a link to the version with street names:

https://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/sites/default/files/Cleveland Ward Plan.pdf

I would love to see an overlay of official Cleveland neighborhoods to the proposed wards. Downtown seems like the most egregiously chopped up.

Edited December 10, 2024Dec 10 by Enginerd

Thoughts on the downsized ward map proposal from city council ?

 

https://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/sites/default/files/Cleveland Ward Plan.pdf
 

 

Edited December 11, 2024Dec 11 by ClevelandNative

10 minutes ago, ClevelandNative said:

Thoughts on the downsized ward map proposal from city council ?

 

https://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/sites/default/files/Cleveland Ward Plan.pdf
 

 

Better than I was expecting with how weird everything has been with the process. 

 

First impression is that dividing Downtown into 3 different wards is a bit weird and I'm interested to see how it plays out. It could help potentially having 3 people on council fighting for Downtown. Or it could turn into 0 people on council focused on Downtown. 

 

At least with the old maps you had the main core of Downtown all in the same ward. 

40 minutes ago, PlanCleveland said:

Better than I was expecting with how weird everything has been with the process. 

 

First impression is that dividing Downtown into 3 different wards is a bit weird and I'm interested to see how it plays out. It could help potentially having 3 people on council fighting for Downtown. Or it could turn into 0 people on council focused on Downtown. 

 

At least with the old maps you had the main core of Downtown all in the same ward. 

who gets the lakefront as is hard to tell from the drawing or maybe we can lease it to Ontario to develop a la Torornto's waterfront

2 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

Better than I was expecting with how weird everything has been with the process. 

 

First impression is that dividing Downtown into 3 different wards is a bit weird and I'm interested to see how it plays out. It could help potentially having 3 people on council fighting for Downtown. Or it could turn into 0 people on council focused on Downtown. 

 

At least with the old maps you had the main core of Downtown all in the same ward. 

The question then becomes do each of the 3 wards that have downtown have a majority of their constituents in downtown or in the nearby neighborhoods ? 
 

My guess would be that wherever the majority of constituents lay, for those 3 respective wards, will receive all the attention. 

Kerry McCormick originally challenged Griffin for the council Presidency.  Rebecca Maurer objected to the unit rule that said they all had to vote for the caucus's choice.  Spencer already said she won't run.

 

I don't recall and can't find what Hairston did.  One would think that the unification of Collinwood would have been Polensek's price for backing Griffin despite his ties to Kelley and Jackson, but Hairston also supported said unification.    

 

How close are Griffin and Hairston?   It might have been Polensek's price for retiring.  There's no way in hades he would want to be succeeded by Aisia Jones.    Cindy Barber's been mentioned but she's pretty busy these days.

Repeated question:  Does the reduction of wards also mean a reduction of CDCs?

That is a horrible map and is clearly meant to dilute the influence of downtown, certain west side neighborhoods, and make it harder for councilwoman Maurer to run for re-election. I hope there is pushback on this, or can be, not sure what the rules for new ward maps are. Clearly we need to pass our own charter amendment/legislation that creates an independent commission that would be in charge of drawing the ward maps.

 

And @Dougal The CDCs are not tied to specific wards and receive funding from a variety of sources. There are some CDBG funds awarded directly to the CDCs themselves but also a mix of other funding sources that includes funds from the pot of money councilmembers have discretion over. When I worked for Metro West (before the name change) our service area overlapped with portions of Wards 3, 12, and 14; we received some funding from each councilperson but that's not always the case and relies heavily on maintaining partnerships with council.

 

 

Thanks, Andrew0816. 

 

1 hour ago, andrew0816 said:

That is a horrible map and is clearly meant to dilute the influence of downtown, certain west side neighborhoods, and make it harder for councilwoman Maurer to run for re-election. I hope there is pushback on this, or can be, not sure what the rules for new ward maps are. Clearly we need to pass our own charter amendment/legislation that creates an independent commission that would be in charge of drawing the ward maps.

With council, are there any laws on the books dictating wards must be directed by population?    It does seems strange that the east side is emptying out yet those council people are going to retain their fiefdoms. 

I believe it’s a minimum of 25,000 people. Not sure how they accomplished it on the east side. 
 

here are the latest population stats for the current east side wards:

Ward 1 - 19,546

Ward 2 - 20,265

Ward 5 - 20,916

Ward 6 - 19,535

Ward 7 - 17,179

Ward 8 - 19,461

Ward 9 - 18,606

Ward 10 - 20,594

18 minutes ago, Henke said:

I believe it’s a minimum of 25,000 people. Not sure how they accomplished it on the east side. 
 

here are the latest population stats for the current east side wards:

Ward 1 - 19,546

Ward 2 - 20,265

Ward 5 - 20,916

Ward 6 - 19,535

Ward 7 - 17,179

Ward 8 - 19,461

Ward 9 - 18,606

Ward 10 - 20,594

I think that’s why they split up downtown in Wards 5 & 8; in order to get the population numbers needed to justify another east side ward.

 

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

How close are Griffin and Hairston?   It might have been Polensek's price for retiring.  There's no way in hades he would want to be succeeded by Aisia Jones.    Cindy Barber's been mentioned but she's pretty busy these days.

Are you saying Polensek is retiring?

26 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

I think that’s why they split up downtown in Wards 5 & 8; in order to get the population numbers needed to justify another east side ward.

 

Are you saying Polensek is retiring?

 

No.  I haven't heard anything like that, I would probably hear it if it was the case, and I would be surprised to hear it.

 

But  I understand he was a strong advocate of Collinwood being reunited.   If Hairston was too, that seems odd unless he's stepping down.  I don't think anyone could beat MP in this area right now.

3 hours ago, andrew0816 said:

That is a horrible map and is clearly meant to dilute the influence of downtown, certain west side neighborhoods, and make it harder for councilwoman Maurer to run for re-election. I hope there is pushback on this, or can be, not sure what the rules for new ward maps are. Clearly we need to pass our own charter amendment/legislation that creates an independent commission that would be in charge of drawing the ward maps.

 

And @Dougal The CDCs are not tied to specific wards and receive funding from a variety of sources. There are some CDBG funds awarded directly to the CDCs themselves but also a mix of other funding sources that includes funds from the pot of money councilmembers have discretion over. When I worked for Metro West (before the name change) our service area overlapped with portions of Wards 3, 12, and 14; we received some funding from each councilperson but that's not always the case and relies heavily on maintaining partnerships with council.

 

 

 

I mean - isn't this better than geographically arbitrary maps designed to capture select demographics? This seems like a win. Though, I get the point re: Maurer. 

1 hour ago, Enginerd said:

Are you saying Polensek is retiring?

I thought Polensek "retired" a long time ago, but then came back immediately and has since been a "double-dipper".

Below is the link to the GIS layer for the 2025 Wards Draft Map

 

https://services3.arcgis.com/dty2kHktVXHrqO8i/arcgis/rest/services/Wards2025DRAFT/FeatureServer/0

On 12/17/2024 at 9:29 AM, Zagapi said:

Below is the link to the GIS layer for the 2025 Wards Draft Map

 

https://services3.arcgis.com/dty2kHktVXHrqO8i/arcgis/rest/services/Wards2025DRAFT/FeatureServer/0

 

Kind of wild that they had to digitize these and weren't provided a file from the consultant. $100k doesn't buy much these days.

 

Sidenote, Blaine was on Sound of Ideas the other day and it's quite apparent he really doesn't like Councilwoman Maurer daylighting any of the process.

 

 

52 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Sidenote, Blaine was on Sound of Ideas the other day and it's quite apparent he really doesn't like Councilwoman Maurer daylighting any of the process.

 

 

There is more than a little irony to someone who won because their opponent was denied the Dem endorsement for refusing to endorse a judicial candidate complaining about the unit rule.

18 hours ago, GISguy said:

Kind of wild that they had to digitize these and weren't provided a file from the consultant. $100k doesn't buy much these days.

 

Sidenote, Blaine was on Sound of Ideas the other day and it's quite apparent he really doesn't like Councilwoman Maurer daylighting any of the process.

 

I'm not a fan of Blaine; I think Cleveland has a lot of anti-democratic tendencies that he is more than willing to preserve, hiding behind tradition, because it means he gets to retain his hold on power. Two prominent examples of this; his resistance to allowing public comment at council meetings and resistance to even a participatory budget trial. 

 

I think this is a failure of Ideastream/SOI, knowing that Representative Mauer's issues with the redistricting process would a topic of discussion, to not also invite Representative Mauer so both of their perspectives could be fully represented. I wonder if a condition of Blaine coming on SOI was that he was the only guest...

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

 

I'm not a fan of Blaine; I think Cleveland has a lot of anti-democratic tendencies that he is more than willing to preserve, hiding behind tradition, because it means he gets to retain his hold on power. Two prominent examples of this; his resistance to allowing public comment at council meetings and resistance to even a participatory budget trial. 

 

I think this is a failure of Ideastream/SOI, knowing that Representative Mauer's issues with the redistricting process would a topic of discussion, to not also invite Representative Mauer so both of their perspectives could be fully represented. I wonder if a condition of Blaine coming on SOI was that he was the only guest...

 

I'm not nearly as well informed about all of the lore of the council members and the full story about the community's ability to comment on the redistricting process. So, take what I say about the individual members with a grain of salt. But it honestly seems like this process went pretty well. Sure, they could have had more opportunities for the citizens to speak, but they ultimately did. Not everyone can be happy.

 

I was persuaded by Polensek pleading for folks to understand that while imperfect, this is the most democratic and transparent the redistricting process has ever been. He also talked about one of the redistricting efforts that axed a dozen council members all behind close doors. Imagine that for a moment.

 

They are bound by how the charter amendment has the process laid out. Personally, I can't really find too much wrong with the proposed map given the constraints they had to follow. It seems like council completed the task per the law. They needed to have some difficult discussions behind close doors, otherwise they don't happen at all. I'm sure we've all had work experiences where you need have a smaller meeting in a conference room.

 

As far as not allowing public comment at the council meetings, I would be inclined to agree. Council meetings have a lot of things to go through, and that is not the best format for citizens to provide their input and actually be heard. Having dedicated meetings allow you to actually break things down with them, and play around with the maps and take notes right there. You can't do that at the Council meetings.

 

I don't even want to entertain the idea of legitimizing the participatory budget proposal. That was such a short-sighted effort that was motivated entirely by populism, not liberal democracy. If they wanted to propose a new tax or some other new revenue stream to achieve a "people's budget" then I would absolutely entertain the idea, but there are certainly still risks to that idea. The purpose of the ballot measure was to undermine the city's ability to conduct the business that we empower them to do and hit them a senseless budget cut. Feel free to let me know which neighborhoods should receive less city services. Then, we can go them for public comment and get their take on it.

 

I don't mean to come off as hostile. I would just bet that if the city had doubled the public comment sessions, we would be hearing the same complaints.

With Council voting on the proposed map tonight what are everyone's final thoughts on the new lines?

 

I still don't understand if the east side is "emptying out" and the near west side is gaining population, how the east/west stayed even?   

@Cleburger because the wards were gerrymandered in order to maintain a more even split. Beyond drawing wards in a way that captures population clusters that support the drawn boundaries, the east side wards are, largely, under the minimum population threshold utilizing the lowest negative tolerance while the west side neighborhoods are above the minimum population threshold (the population of each ward is allowed to be within +/- 5% of the threshold). 

 

Highly recommend the overviews/breakdowns of the proposed map Matthew Ahn has posted on both Twitter and Bluesky (I can't post the link at this time, but should be fairly easy to find).

3 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I still don't understand if the east side is "emptying out" and the near west side is gaining population, how the east/west stayed even?   

I haven’t seen the numbers of the new wards (have they been published?) but at first glance it looks like several are “borrowing” population from downtown to remain viable. 

3 hours ago, andrew0816 said:

@Cleburger because the wards were gerrymandered in order to maintain a more even split. Beyond drawing wards in a way that captures population clusters that support the drawn boundaries, the east side wards are, largely, under the minimum population threshold utilizing the lowest negative tolerance while the west side neighborhoods are above the minimum population threshold (the population of each ward is allowed to be within +/- 5% of the threshold). 

 

Highly recommend the overviews/breakdowns of the proposed map Matthew Ahn has posted on both Twitter and Bluesky (I can't post the link at this time, but should be fairly easy to find).

 

From Mathew Ahn's critique:

 

"BAD: 2. Council claims a 41% opportunity ward and a 29% opportunity ward for Latina/o voters, but I reproduced the map in Dave's Redistricting and I'm not getting those numbers. I think those wards are only 39.9% and 26.5% Hispanic."

 

This comment right there pokes a hole in Ahn's entire rant. He's clearly using different data or making different assumptions than what the City was using.

 

Looking at the methodology of Dave's Redistricting, they seem to make updates based on 2022 data and have to infer on some of the racial demographic information between The Census, ACS, and CVAP data:

 

"For all years the following ethnic and racial categories are included. Because the categories overlap, their sum will be greater than the total population for the same area."

 

From what I understand the City had to use the 2020 data. Not the ACS estimates for 2022. So this is not an apples-to-apples comparison even if the above disclaimer wasn't there.

 

I think it's really irresponsible for him to send out this Op-Ed/Thread as if it was the undiluted truth when we have no idea what concessions and assumptions the City had to make. 

 

Still, I'm sure the East side wards are at the bottom of the MOE and West side wards are at the top. The discrepancy has almost certainly increased since 2020. But, with Jenny Spencer not seeking re-election, there's an easy opportunity to eliminate a seat. It would have pissed off a lot more people if they decided to eliminate two wards on the East side instead. Even if the data said to. So you have to eliminate one ward on the East Side and go from there.

 

Another critique of Ahn's:

 

"Are neighborhoods kept together? Do opposite ends of wards feel like they belong together? Are natural barriers used for ward lines when possible?"

 

This is straight up only based on vibes.

 

I'd argue reuniting Collinwood, and cutting Slavic village in two wards is better than 4 or 5 different wards like it has been historically. Sorry Maurer, but your ward is outright silly.

 

Also, neighborhoods aren't real lines. Most neighborhood's names and borders are disputed between residents in some capacity. It's not gonna be ideal. Some blocks need to be cut out to make the numbers right.

 

This map is an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem. Populist types like Ahn have a really hard time understanding nuance.

On 1/6/2025 at 6:44 PM, Zagapi said:

From what I understand the City had to use the 2020 data. Not the ACS estimates for 2022. So this is not an apples-to-apples comparison even if the above disclaimer wasn't there.

 

I think it's really irresponsible for him to send out this Op-Ed/Thread as if it was the undiluted truth when we have no idea what concessions and assumptions the City had to make. 

 

The city told citizens to submit Daves Redistricting Maps at their public meetings, so you're pointing the blame at Matt when in reality it's Blaine and co. that pushed folks to use it. They even feature Daves Maps on their site: https://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/cleveland-city-council-redistricting#:~:text=Cleveland residents submitted seven (7) draft Cleveland ward maps during the process through Dave's Redistricting website. (To view them you must check the box next to "I Agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy" and then click Accept.)

 

On 1/6/2025 at 6:44 PM, Zagapi said:

Slavic village in two wards

 

SV is cut into four wards in the new maps.

 

On 1/6/2025 at 6:44 PM, Zagapi said:

Sorry Maurer, but your ward is outright silly.

 

I don't think she was ever pleased with having to cross through another municipality to get to the other half of the ward, but the new maps very obviously exclude her from SV (her neighborhood is next to Washington Park, new ward 5), meanwhile Ward 4 stretches across multiple neighborhoods to capture a piece of SV. 

 

On 1/6/2025 at 6:44 PM, Zagapi said:

This map is an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem.

 

Consultants got paid a lot of money to make these maps, the fact the public had minimal time to comment and they were voted on in the same meeting they were introduced speaks volumes. They knew this was coming and have had 2020 census data for years, but somehow the state and BOE are to blame for the compressed timeframe. Definitely an imperfect solution indeed.

• On 1/6/2025 at 6:44 PM, Zagapi said:

   

  From Mathew Ahn's critique:

   

  "BAD: 2. Council claims a 41% opportunity ward and a 29% opportunity ward for Latina/o voters, but I reproduced the map in Dave's Redistricting and I'm not getting those numbers. I think those wards are only 39.9% and 26.5% Hispanic."

   

  This comment right there pokes a hole in Ahn's entire rant. He's clearly using different data or making different assumptions than what the City was using.

   

  Looking at the methodology of Dave's Redistricting, they seem to make updates based on 2022 data and have to infer on some of the racial demographic information between The Census, ACS, and CVAP data:

   

  "For all years the following ethnic and racial categories are included. Because the categories overlap, their sum will be greater than the total population for the same area."

   

  From what I understand the City had to use the 2020 data. Not the ACS estimates for 2022. So this is not an apples-to-apples comparison even if the above disclaimer wasn't there.

   

  I think it's really irresponsible for him to send out this Op-Ed/Thread as if it was the undiluted truth when we have no idea what concessions and assumptions the City had to make. 

   

  Still, I'm sure the East side wards are at the bottom of the MOE and West side wards are at the top. The discrepancy has almost certainly increased since 2020. But, with Jenny Spencer not seeking re-election, there's an easy opportunity to eliminate a seat. It would have pissed off a lot more people if they decided to eliminate two wards on the East side instead. Even if the data said to. So you have to eliminate one ward on the East Side and go from there.

   

  Another critique of Ahn's:

   

  "Are neighborhoods kept together? Do opposite ends of wards feel like they belong together? Are natural barriers used for ward lines when possible?"

   

  This is straight up only based on vibes.

   

  I'd argue reuniting Collinwood, and cutting Slavic village in two wards is better than 4 or 5 different wards like it has been historically. Sorry Maurer, but your ward is outright silly.

   

  Also, neighborhoods aren't real lines. Most neighborhood's names and borders are disputed between residents in some capacity. It's not gonna be ideal. Some blocks need to be cut out to make the numbers right.

   

  This map is an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem. Populist types like Ahn have a really hard time understanding nuance.

I have a lot to add but pressed for time at the moment but want to stress:

• the public comment meetings specifically for the ward maps were announced 1 week in advance;
• said public meetings did not have the map available for the public to view
• tract level data that included demographics was released in May 2023; the city could have and should have started earlier  https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/release/about-2020-data-products.html
• although I appreciate that the city held meetings public meetings (compared to 2014), they could have started earlier.

 

I also used a shapefile that I obtained from Council on December 10th and imported it into Dave's and was able to replicate the 39.97% and 26.58% Hispanic as Ahn mentioned BUT the numbers that he refers to use is the VAP - the voting age population.

 

According to my replication of are 42% and 29.5% Hispanic of total population as indicated in the attached screenshots.

 

as indicated immediately below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, I made a map and want to share it for critique - https://www.davesredistricting.org/join/4d9e18ba-9db3-4552-9af4-3a33356b151b

 

it's immediately below:

Edited January 9Jan 9 by skorasaurus