Sunday, June 24, 2012

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contiguousness

So we have a peek at what the Fifth floor gnomes and friends have come up with for City of Pittsburgh council districts.   Taking the table in the paper, which is limited to just the changes, here is what I get quickly for the proposed new city council districts.  New additions to each district marked with crosshatch.   Also I put this into Google maps as well. 

Hey... can anyone give a cogent explanation for why city council districts are not coterminus with the Pittsburgh School Distict's elected representatives.  And no.. Mt. Oliver is not big enough to explain any of that at all.  It is just a bit curious that the city is pretty much carved up into two completely separate geographies despite it starting with virtually the same city.   What is up with school district redistricting anyway?

But.. the new map.   If correct, and if the list of changes in the PG is correct... and I am wondering a bit.. then contiguousness is overrated.

7 Comments:

Blogger Jon Geeting said...

Nice looking elephant there for District 7. And maybe an airplane for District 9?

Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:40:00 PM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

I was thinking aardvark for D7... but D6 has become an island chain.

Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:42:00 PM  
Blogger Bram Reichbaum said...

Will Mr. Lavelle still be a Councilman, or will we have to start calling him Emperor?

Sunday, June 24, 2012 10:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris,

If the two sets of districts were coterminous, you'd always have some school board member seeking to oust their comrade of identical geography, and Councilmembers don't want that headache.

Monday, June 25, 2012 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

you'd always have some school board member seeking to oust their comrade of identical geography, and Councilmembers don't want that headache.

Yeah, that darn democracy thing is such a pain the rear isn't it.

Monday, June 25, 2012 8:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best I can come up with re: why council districts are not the same as school district zones is that school district zones presumably have to/try to take into account both population and placement of schools (i.e., one district should not have an inordinate # of schools located within it)?

I have no idea whether that's the answer, but that's my offhand theory.

Monday, June 25, 2012 10:17:00 PM  
Anonymous born2run said...

Mount Oliver is part of the school district, but not the city, so the populations are not identicle.

Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:56:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home