Last month, the provincial Utility and Review Board directed Halifax city council to reduce the number of councillors from 23 to 16, and to draw up boundaries for the new districts. City hall is now in the process of mapping the districts, and has put forward two scenarios for public consideration. See the maps here.
Neither scenario is perfect, but if I had to choose between the two I’d choose Scenario 2, and ask for some small tweaks, especially in the Preston and Sambro areas. What I’d really like to see, however, is a Scenario 3 and 4, and more population information given in a format that would be easy for the public to play around with possible boundary lines.
Anyway, my thoughts follow. I’ve also made note of where the sitting councillors live—I don’t think that should enter the consideration at all, and candidates aren’t required to live in their districts in any event, but so many people have mentioned this that I thought I should at least let you know.
Eastern rural areas
In S1, District A stretches up to include half the Musquodobit Valley, but not the area to the west, further to the airport. This seems to split that community, apparently just in the attempt to keep Steve Streatch’s house in the district. It makes more sense to use the natural dividing line of the mostly unpopulated wilderness areas, severing the link between the coastal communities and the valley. This is done in S2, where District A stretches all the way west to the Prestons, but it might make more sense to keep the Prestons in suburban districts farther west (debatable). In any event, District A is entirely too small in S1—23 percent below average—which gives that rural population far too much power. The S2 population variances for District A and B are within the 10 percent allowance, but still positive, which is why it would be OK to remove the Prestons.
The western and southern boundaries of District B make sense in both S1 and S2, so we can adopt the S2 split between DA and DB without effecting anything in a major way, and the people in the Prestons can decide whether they want to be in DA or DC.
Dartmouth and eastern suburbs
In S1, Cherry Brook is broken off from Cole Harbour (between DC and DD), but not so in S2 (both are in DC). The Cherry Brook community has repeatedly said it considers itself part of Cole Harbour, and the UARB even ruled as much a few years back, overturning an earlier district boundary proposal to split the two communities. S2 is better on this front as well.
Both S1 and S2 keep Cole Harbour separate from Portland Hills. But S1 weirdly splits Woodlawn in half by creating a district line between DE and DF running down Mount Edward Road. S2 more cleanly draws a boundary right down Cole Harbour Road between DD and DE. S2, however, has an odd western boundary line for DC; this could be moved slightly to the east, to run down Forest Hills Parkway, and keep the population roughly the same by bringing the Prestons into DC.
S1 puts the homes of Jackie Barkhouse and Lorelei Nicoll in the same district; S2 puts the homes of Nicoll, David Hendsbee and Bill Karsten in the same district.
In S1, DF has a very weird reach west to the harbour. Not sure what the point of that is. In S2, both DE and DF make more sense than their S1 counterparts (DG and DF), although maybe the Joffre Street line could be moved to keep that neighbourhood intact—in S2, DF is slightly past the 10 percent variance, so the line coould be moved all the way to Five Corner.
In both scenarios, Darren Fisher’s house remains the only house of sitting councillors in the district, and in both scenarios Gloria McCluskey and Jim Smith live in the same district (they do now as well, but McCluskey represents a different district).
Halifax peninsula
S1 leaves just two peninsular-majority districts (DI and DH) by cleaving off everything west of Oxford Street and putting it in an Armdale district (DK). S2 keeps three peninsular-majority districts by having north end district D1 stretch into Fariview, and central district DH stretch into Fairmount. Neither S1 or S2 feels right; the lines are “cleaner” in S1, with S2 having a confusing middle district. On the other hand urban representation is higher in S2; in S1 there are 2/16 (12.5 percent) districts that are peninsular-majority, compared to 3/16 (18.75 percent) for S2 and 4/23 (17.4 percent) currently.
In S1, the homes of Dawn Sloane, Jennifer Watts and Jerry Blumenthal are in the same district (D1); in S2 the homes of Russell Walker and Jerry Blumenthal are in the same district, DI, and the homes of Jennifer Watts and Dawn Sloane are both in DH. (Blumenthal has said he won’t re-up in the next election, however.)
Sue Uteck remains the sole sitting councillor in her district in both scenarios.
In S1, the one of the two peninsular-majority districts, DI, exceeds the 10 percent variance allowance (at 11 percent), while the other, DH, pushes right up against it (at nine percent). In S2, however, all three peninsular-majority districts fall within the allowed variance; DG is +five percent, DH is +seven percent, DI at -nine percent.
On balance, S2 looks better for the peninsula.
Clayton Park
In S1, Clayton Park is divided strangely, with the area around Parkland Drive stuck in a Timberlea district, DL that also includes the BLIP and areas around Kearney Lake, while Fairview and Rockingham are a separate district, DJ. In fact, the centre of S1’s DL is the Blue Mountain Wilderness. The S2 arrangement makes much more sense; Fairview is with the north end, while the rest of Clayton Park is together.
In S1, the homes of Russell Walker and Debbie Hum are in the same DJ, while the homes of Mary Wile and Reg Rankin are in DL. In S2 the homes of Debbie Hum and Mary Wile are in the same district, DJ.
In both scenarios, all Clayton Park population variances are reasonable.
Bedford/Sackville
In both S1 and S2, Bedford has essentially the same boundaries, except S1 includes a wedge west to Kearney Lake road that isn’t in S2.
The real problem is Sackville. In S1, a single Sackville district, DO, stretches all the way from Bedford to the Hants County line. This may be a single community of interest, but it places the population variance at an astounding +31 percent. S2 avoids this problem by cleaving off everything past Beaver Bank Road and leaving Lower Sackville barely within the variance in the opposite direction, at -nine percent.
In S1 the homes of Bob Harvey and Brad Johns are in the same district; in S2 they are in separate districts. In both scenarios, Tim Outhit’s is the onlyhome of a sitting councillor in the Bedford district.
Spryfield and western rural areas
S2 solves the problem of an overly large district in Sackville in S1 by cutting off Upper Sackville and sticking it with Upper Hammonds Plains, the Hammonds Plains Road corridor and Kingswood. Although the Upper Sackville add on is weird, the rest of the district makes sense, and finally breaks Tantallon and Hammonds Plains apart from each other, which has long been desired. But this leaves, in S2, an out-of-variance DM stretching from Hubbards to Terrence Bay, at -28 percent from average.
Still, there are some easy population fixes that make sense: S2’s DK is at +nine percent variance, and so the strip along Highway 306 from Harrietsfield to Sambro can be broken off DK and put in DM, and Goodwood can be taken from DL and put in DK. This isn’t a perfect solution, but arguably Herring Cove and Portuguese Cove are more commuter suburbs than is Sambro, and so fit better with Spryfield. The exact line of the split would depend on populations of the various small towns—DL will have to be brought down to something like -eight percent variance to make that scheme work.
Neither scenario much affects sitting councillors residences, except for Brad Johns as noted above.
This article appears in Aug 18-24, 2011.
Personally I think Scenario 1 makes far more sense with regard to the consistency of the maturity of development of the area (i.e., folks with similar needs). People in what will be District B who live in Waverley/Fall River/Beaverbank have littel in common with anyone who lives past Goffs on the Old Guysborough Rd (suburban vs rural). While we’re at it it might be a good idea (given Scenario 1) to give Distrct A back county status.
As someone from the Musquodoboit Valley, S2 makes complete sense when it comes to my community. Separating the Musquodoboit Valley from the Eastern Shore makes so much more sense than cutting the valley in half. I’ve encountered so many people who think the two areas are one in the same. I can’t even count the times that people think Middle Musquodoboit and Musquodoboit Harbour are the same place. This just in; not even close.
If the current District 1 needs to be divided, at least divide it into the two larger communities (Musq Valley and Eastern Shore) and not by cutting the Musquodoboit Valley, a community that shares a common way of life and views on what is important. Sure this means Councillor Streatch will have to chose which district to run in, the one he stands the best chance of winning in or the one he lives in, but that’s a compromise I’m more than willing to make.
Okay hate to state the obvious but aren’t these councillors paid to do this work…So they want the public to do the work they are paid to do so they can blame the public if it does not work?
What an awful mess. The more time I spend trying to shoe horn my ideas in to this paradigm the more frustrated I am.
Doesn’t this kind of seem like bullshirt?
Here’s my view from Musquodoboit Harbour.
Citizens fill out a form on two totally arbitrary scenarios – no context, no history, no room for original or creative thinking. Even the seat change itself was not decided by popular vote.
We know nothing of the demographics and geography of any of this. If there was a vote we could see who is messing with whom. Instead we’re just going forward on what Mr. Mills wants.
Then our elected reps just pass on… what? … a summary of the most common opinions? … to an unelected, unaccountable quasi-judicial, unfirable group of people who have about as much in common with average working residents as the King of Portugal, so that they can arbitrarily decide the thing.
No one likes being part of the process more than me. But honestly. This isn’t consultation. This isn’t democracy. Who would really want to be involved in this? Only the very few that suspected because of the ‘dog whistle politics’ and code words of “solving the urban rural divide” that it would be a chance for suburban commuters and rural residents to stick it to those rich Southenders.
And council… chastened… picks up the words and “consultation” as if a wedding vow.
How about we stop here for one gosh darn minute and really seriously do what should have been done ten years ago – a real independent, critical and skeptical analysis of the Amalgamation scheme.
My proposal is that we reduce the council size to zero then allow each community to have a “community council” of their own to set their own by-laws and path to the future, competing for the best ideas, people and economic development. But to be clear – for community councils to work the must have fiscal independence.
I am rapidly developing a Localist view regarding municipal government that sees regionalism as a problem. A Localist view fits nicely with ‘buy local’, family values and cultural appreciation. It’s feeling good.
The geographics of having Terrence Bay and Sambro in the same district just don’t make sense. Sambro might have a lot in common with Terrence Bay but the reality is we are a 45 minute drive apart and Sambro is only a 20 minute drive from Spryfield. The people around the “Sambro Loop” shop and commute through the Spryfield area and would rarely have an occasion to spend time in Terrence Bay on a regular basis. The whole Sambro Loop rightly belongs with the district that Spryfield falls under. Scenario 1 would cause there to be an awful lot of driving for the counsellor and that person would also have to zigzag in and out of a neigbhouring district just to get to all parts of his/her district. This didn’t make sense and wasn’t efficient when the RCMP were policing both Sambro and Terrence Bay under the same zone and those officers had to travel through HRP territory to cover all of their zone. In my opinion, scenario 1 would be a big step backwards for those living on the Sambro Loop.