NEW YORK STATE
LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE
ON DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
AND REAPPORTIONMENT
Public Hearing on
REAPPORTIONMENT 2002
LOCATION: City Hall Council Chambers
30 Church Street
Room 302-A
Rochester, New York
DATE: March 7, 2002
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
REPORTED BY: VICTORIA SKABRY, Notary Public
PRESENT:
SENATOR DEAN G. SKELOS, Chair
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAM L. PARMENT, Chair
SENATOR RICHARD A. DOLLINGER
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRIS ORTLOFF
MARK BONILLA, Member
ROMAN B. HEDGES, Member
LEWIS M. HOPPE, Co-Executive Director
MR. SKELOS: Good morning. This
is -- we'll start the meeting for today. My name is
State Senator Dean Skelos. I'm co-chair of the New
York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic
Research and Reapportionment. This is the second in
a series of seven hearings that the task force will
conduct throughout the state concerning the proposed
Senate and Assembly lines which are indicated on my
right behind the cameras. And what these hearings
are about is to get your input on the proposed lines
that were released approximately two, two to three
weeks ago.
Upon completion of the
hearings, we will take your testimony, review the
lines. Perhaps some of them will be changed. And
then the task force will meet to vote on whether the
lines that we have finalized will be recommended by
the task force to the legislature.
As you know, our job is to
make a recommendation. It is then the job of the
Senate and the Assembly to either pass or reject the
lines, and if they are passed, to go to the governor
and either sign them or veto them. Following that,
pursuant to the Voting Rights Act assuming that it
passes both houses, signed by the governor, in the
voting rights counties, the proposed lines will be
reviewed by the justice department for their
comment.
So I'm delighted to be here in
Rochester. We were here several months ago on our
first round of hearings. I want to thank Senator
Dollinger for his hospitality, and at this time I'd
like to introduce my co-chair, Assemblyman William
Parment.
MR. PARMENT: Thank you,
Senator, and I'm just going to say welcome to the
hearing. We look forward to your testimony. As the
senator indicated, we do anticipate that the plan
that has been presented will be modified prior to it
being submitted as a recommendation by this panel to
the full legislature. And the public hearings are
an important part of gathering the information
necessary for us to make changes to this proposal so
that it better reflects the concerns of the people
throughout New York State. And with that, I would
just say welcome.
MR. SKELOS: A member of the
task force, Senator Richard Dollinger.
MR. DOLLINGER: Thank you.
First of all, I'd like to welcome everyone to the
seat of the 54th Senate district which I've been
privileged to represent for the last decade. I'd
like to welcome my colleagues from the legislature
and other members of the task force as well to our
community.
This is an opportunity to
sample constituent and resident interest in how
reapportionment, the process that we're required to
perform under the New York State Constitution once a
decade, how that should play out in the divying up
of the Senate and Assembly lines.
I think one of the other
things I just want to mention, I think Senator
Skelos may have briefly mentioned it, we do not have
currently a plan for the Congressional lines. This
hearing will focus exclusively on the Senate and
Assembly lines; the, the sixty-two Senate districts
and the hundred fifty Assembly districts, and what
their configuration should be for the next decade.
But I welcome everyone. I
will add just one other thing. There was a question
that I put on the table yesterday about the
methodology used in calculating the number of seats
in the New York State Senate. It's my continued
belief that, that the explanation that I requested
yesterday should at some point be forthcoming so
that the community groups that have submitted plans
and looked at the composition of the Senate will be
able to determine the basis for that methodology and
then apply it to plans that might be submitted
before the final plan is approved or reviewed both
by this task force and by the legislature.
But I look forward to the
comments today. Interesting things were done in
both the Senate and Assembly plan in the Rochester
area, and that's what we're here to find out is your
reaction and comments to give us more insight that
might be valuable in making the modifications that
Assemblyman Parment talked about. Welcome,
everyone.
MR. SKELOS: Also a member of
the task force, Assemblyman Chris Ortloff.
MR. ORTLOFF: Good morning.
It's very gratifying to see so many people here in
the Rochester area, Western New York, even people
from the north country availing themselves of the
limited opportunities provided to comment on an
Assembly plan which flies in the face of one man,
one vote, which is unprecedented since the Supreme
Court decision on one man, one vote in awarding four
seats to New York City when the city is entitled to
only two new seats at the expense of one seat from
upstate and one seat from Long Island.
One of the most constructive
approaches to problem solving, whether in government
or in the private sector, is to look for the root
causes. I know many of you are here to express
concern about your own district or your own region
or about the way a line is drawn around or through
one particular town. And those concerns, of course,
are important because people live in small towns.
People don't live in an entire state. They live
where they live, but it is important as well to look
for the causes behind this.
Otherwise if we don't, we may
all find ourselves doing the, the modern day
equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic while the ship has a hole in it. What I
would like to call everyone's attention today to is
the gaping hole in upstate's ship represented by the
figures on the chart over to my right.
The top number in black, eight
million two hundred fourteen thousand two hundred
sixty-six, is the 2000 US census population of the
fifty-five counties north of the Bronx. The smaller
number, eight million eight thousand two hundred
seventy-eight, is the population of the five
counties of New York City. And the corresponding
numbers, sixty-five in red and sixty-three in blue,
are the proper apportionment of Assembly seats to
those populations.
In other words, if this plan
followed the census, followed one man, one vote,
followed proper apportionment, this plan would
present sixty-three seats in New York City, not the
sixty-five that it presents. And it would accord,
apportion the sixty-five seats upstate that that
eight million two hundred fourteen thousand is
entitled to. This plan does not do that. This plan
turns proper apportionment on its head. And for the
first time since we have been required to follow one
man, one vote, an Assembly plan accords more seats
in the Assembly to the smaller of the two entities.
That's the root cause, ladies
and gentlemen, in my opinion and in the opinion of
many who looked at this, of the disparity of the
packing of upstate members into districts, of the
fact that six upstate -- six Western New York
Assembly members are put into the same district
while only two open districts are presented. This
is the root cause of the fact that the City of
Rochester goes from four Assembly members to three.
So as you're speaking to us, I
would hope that you would also perhaps, if you, if
you are able to understand the relationship between
the hole in the bottom of the ship and the problem
of the deck chairs sliding on the deck, that you
would address yourself to the larger pictures as
well as to your individual concerns.
This is a tremendous
opportunity, the last one the public is going to
have in this part of the state to comment on the
Assembly plan, and I'm gratified to hear the
co-chairman say that major changes or at least
substantial changes are in the offing. Thank you
for coming. I'm very interested to hear what you
have to say.
MR. SKELOS: I'd like to
introduce another member of the task force, Mark
Bonilla.
MR. BONILLA: Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen. Being I'm the newest member
of the committee panel, I just want to tell you real
briefly who I am, what I do, and how I came to be on
this task force. I'm a Nassau County attorney.
I've been a Nassau County resident for over twenty
years with three children and have been very, very
active within the community.
When I found out about the
reapportionment, I lobbied to get on this task
force. When I found out more importantly that it
could affect or have an impact on minorities in
general, and Hispanics in particular, I lobbied my
community leaders, if you will, who directed me to
Senator Skelos.
The Senate majority was more
than responsive in their response to me and
ultimately appointed me onto this task force. I'm
very pleased that the Senate majority has recognized
the diversities necessary in this process. And
again, I'm anxious to, to hear your comments and
we'll do the right thing. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Another member
of the task force is Roman Hedges.
MR. HEDGES: It's good to be
back in Rochester. Monroe County was my first New
York home, and I always enjoy coming back. I look
forward to hearing from you over the course of the
day today as you tell us your ideas about what
should be done in drawing the state legislative
lines. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you. The
format is that we would -- we're following a list of
individuals who have asked to speak. We would ask
if you can to keep your testimony to five minutes so
that all can be heard.
The first person on the list
is Judy Wright, the chairwoman of the Cayuga County
Convention and Business Bureau. We have
testimony -- her testimony being submitted by Chuck
Mason, so this will be made part of the record. Our
next scheduled witness is Kitty White from the St.
Lawrence River Valley Task Force for Good
Government. We would ask that our witnesses testify
to the left. Is Kitty here? Come on up. Are you
going to testify?
KITTY WHITE: Yes, but Judy
was down first.
MR. DOLLINGER: She's not
here. She submitted her testimony in writing.
That's the other option.
KITTY WHITE: Okay.
MR. DOLLINGER: The other
option, just for the record, anyone who has just
written testimony, it can be filed with the task
force, it can be considered and made a part of our
permanent record. So in instances where, for
example, Judy Wright was not able to attend, she's
submitted her testimony. It will be reviewed by the
task force staff and be a part of the permanent
record.
KITTY WHITE: Along the St.
Lawrence River there are two major distinct tourism
regions; the Thousand Islands region, number one,
that extends from Cape Vincent where I am a property
owner, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River
upstream for about twenty miles. There are actually
over eighteen hundred islands and many hotels and
motels that serve hundreds of thousands of visitors
each season.
The St. Lawrence seaway is
number two which is a project that allowed ocean
going vessels to traverse the St. Lawrence River and
gain access to the Great Lakes. Many tourists come
to observe ships in the two famous locks at Massena
and St. Lawrence County. Your proposed construction
of the Assembly district as it relates to the St.
Lawrence River has left off one town that needs
inclusion. That town is Cape Vincent in Jefferson
County.
There are four ports of entry
in Canada, and one of them is located on the Village
of Cape Vincent. The others are Collins Landing,
Ogdensburg and Massena. I suggest not separating
Cape Vincent from the other St. Lawrence River
towns. Cape Vincent is a river town just like all
the others and needs inclusion.
In addition, there are some
other Jefferson County tourism regions that could
well be placed in the district with tourism as a
community interest theme. The towns of Theresa,
Antwerp and Philadelphia in Jefferson County are
known as the Indian River Lakes region. The towns
of Brownville and Lime in Jefferson County are the
sites of white water rafting on the Black River and
Lake Ontario sport fishing. I would hope you would
see fit to join all these towns into an Assembly
district that would have a community of interest
theme of tourism. The various tourist businesses,
residents and seasonal residents of that community
would benefit from an Assembly district that
combines all the tourism areas of Jefferson and St.
Lawrence Counties.
MR. SKELOS: Are there any
questions?
MR. PARMENT: Yes. So that I
understand your proposal, the suggestion here is
basically what you'd be proposing would be a
district that would be related to the river rather
than the hilltops; is that correct?
KITTY WHITE: To the river
rather than the what?
MR. PARMENT: The hilltops.
KITTY WHITE: Right.
MR. PARMENT: In other words,
you would prefer a district to emphasize a
relationship to the St. Lawrence River rather the
Tokyo (sic) plateau or interior up-county townships.
KITTY WHITE: Yes. Cape
Vincent is known more for its tourism.
MR. PARMENT: And you would
recommend that as a priority above, for instance,
keeping some of these counties whole. This plan in
particular is, is a departure from the current plan
in that it keeps St. Lawrence County whole. Your
proposal would be not to worry so much about the
county boundaries, but to look at the community of
interest that basically is along the river?
KITTY WHITE: Yes.
MR. PARMENT: All right.
MR. SKELOS: Any other
questions? Thank you very much.
MR. DOLLINGER: Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Ezra Ford, also
from the St. Lawrence River Valley Task Force for
Good Government.
EZRA FORD: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I wanted to let you know
that I'm a career broadcaster, a former T.V. news
executive, television station operations manager,
sales manager and radio station owner. And in the
interest of fairness and disclosure, I'm also the
Democratic chair of the County of Jefferson.
However, that doesn't relate
to my testimony. I'm testifying as a broadcaster.
The concept of community interest could be defined
by the city where television viewers tune for their
local news coverage, and just as importantly where
they don't tune.
The Arbitron rating service
provides that information in the form called ADI or
area of dominant influence. The Watertown, New York
T.V. market is rated by Arbitron as one hundred
sixty-seventh market in size in the country, and its
ADI or area of dominant influence extends from
Massena in northern Jefferson County to just a
little south of the County of Jefferson boundary
line.
In other words, according to
Arbitron's statistical research which has been
accepted as valid by the FCC, more people in
Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties consider the
three Watertown television stations as their site
for local news. That certainly represents to me a
substantial community of interest. They aren't
watching Syracuse. They aren't watching Utica
stations.
As currently proposed,
Jefferson County has been placed into three
different Assembly districts. One of them, the
proposed 117th, contains six towns from northeastern
Jefferson County and joins with all of Lewis and all
of Herkimer County. There is no local news
community of interest here.
The viewers in Herkimer County
are in the Utica ADI, not the Watertown ADI. Also
the proposed 122nd ADI contains the towns from
southern Jefferson County and attaches them to the
towns in western Oswego County. Oswego is in the
Syracuse ADI, not the Watertown ADI. Viewers in
Fulton know that most people in their community
aren't watching Watertown stations for their local
news. As a matter of fact, the Watertown stations
aren't on their cable systems.
This is not to me a trivial
concern. By splitting the areas of dominant
influence news coverage of an Assembly person's
work, that work has been -- the news coverage of
that work has been diminished as has the quality of
information disseminated through the public through
the local news media. The concept of community of
interest can be strongly enhanced by looking north
to St. Lawrence County to add representation to
Jefferson County rather than by looking south which
is out of the local news ADI.
I would request that Jefferson
County be made whole in terms of Assembly
representation. If that can't be done, then I would
strongly suggest taking the additional population
needed from St. Lawrence County and adding it to
Jefferson County rather than taking that population
from counties to the south. Please keep in mind
that television areas of dominant influence can
create a community of interest and deserve to be
considered in your deliberations over the size and
composition of the Assembly districts. That's my
statement.
MR. SKELOS: Questions?
MR. PARMENT: Trying to
figure out my question. The preceding witness
testified that it would be beneficial to have Cape
Vincent associated with a river district, which
would, in part, I think, detach it from Jefferson
County if we would go in that direction. And again
I'd just ask the question, and I think you've
already testified to it, but your basic point is
that the community of interest is not necessarily
associated with county boundaries.
EZRA FORD: It's not
necessarily associated with county boundaries. But
a definition of community of interest can be where
are people watching to get their local news, and
that can be determined by looking at the Arbitron
ADI, the areas of dominant interest.
MR. SKELOS: Assemblyman
Ortloff.
MR. ORTLOFF: Thank you for
raising what is a fascinating new concept in
redistricting. I wonder if you could begin by
telling us what are the boundaries of the ADI for
Channel 7?
EZRA FORD: Roughly speaking
the three television stations in -- that have their
base in Watertown have as their area of dominant
influence an area extending from your district
currently, Massena, down to the -- roughly just
south of the southern boundary of Jefferson County.
MR. ORTLOFF: Does not the
ADI follow county lines?
EZRA FORD: I believe in many
cases it does, but I believe county lines are also
split in terms of, of ADI.
MR. ORTLOFF: In some cases
they are. I'm just asking -- obviously you look at
them every quarter. What does the map look like for
your ADI?
EZRA FORD: In other words,
the metro market versus the larger market. It's
Jefferson AND St. Lawrence Counties essentially.
MR. ORTLOFF: And Lewis
County is not part of the ADI?
EZRA FORD: A portion of it,
yes.
MR. ORTLOFF: Can you tell us
which portion of Lewis County it is?
EZRA FORD: Usually the area
to the west of the Black River.
MR. ORTLOFF: Extending all
the way south to the Atlantic County line then?
EZRA FORD: Extending -- I
don't think it gets totally to the bottom of Lewis
County, the southern portion of Lewis County, but it
gets substantially down there, yes.
MR. ORTLOFF: But I wonder if
you could tell us what is the census 2000 population
of that ADI; St. Lawrence, all of Jefferson and that
part of Lewis.
EZRA FORD: I wish I could
tell you that. I can't. I know that St. Lawrence
County is a hundred and eleven thousand. Jefferson
County is roughly the same, and I think that portion
of Lewis County is about twelve thousand.
MR. ORTLOFF: So you're
looking at two hundred thirty to two hundred forty
thousand people in that ADI.
EZRA FORD: Yes.
MR. ORTLOFF: That's enough
for two assemblies.
EZRA FORD: I like that idea.
MR. ORTLOFF: Then I guess
the question that follows that is where would you
draw the line between the two Assembly districts
that you're approximately entitled to?
EZRA FORD: I'm from a St.
Lawrence River town, the Town of Orleans in
Jefferson County. A number of the people that I'm
associated with here in this organization, this
association is from -- are from the St. Lawrence
River area.
It seems to me that if you
extended a portion of northern Jefferson County into
the St. Lawrence River Valley, that would be a
strong community of interest. There's -- there are
tourism areas that are certainly communal, in a
sense; a community of interest. Transportation is
of interest. I guess if I had my drothers, I'd take
northern Jefferson County and run it up along the
river and St. Lawrence County.
MR. ORTLOFF: And then the
rest of it you'd put all in the second district,
eastern St. Lawrence, southern Jefferson and Lewis
Counties.
EZRA FORD: That sounds like a
good idea.
MR. ORTLOFF: Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Are there any
other questions? We'll just ask if the witnesses
would bring the mike a little bit closer because the
audience is not hearing, and also if the panel
members could do the same thing so the audience can
hear also.
MR. DOLLINGER: Okay. Mr.
Ford, you raise a fascinating issue about the scope
of telecommunications as a factor in defining
community of interest; one that we have not heard in
these hearings before. But just an observation, to
some extent the reason why that, that is unusual
criteria is because that ADI may depend on the power
of your signal. It could be governed completely by
something that has nothing to do with demographics
and reapportionment. It could be if you had a
stronger signal, you'd have a bigger ADI. You would
have more expansive reach.
The other interesting thing is
that while you talk about sort of trying to create a
compatibility between Assembly lines or the Senate
lines, we'll talk about in a second, but to some
extent, if you look at it from a broad public policy
point of view, I'd rather have a television station
keeping its eye on three or four members of the
Assembly rather than just one. The theory being
that as watch dogs under the First Amendment, that
the press serves a factor as one of the checks and
balances of the power of government and the
performance of its public officials.
And that would argue that you
would -- almost from the public's point of view of
knowing who their representatives are and somebody
will watch them and keep track of them for the
public good, I'd rather have the Watertown station
covering, of course, three or four members of the
Assembly rather than just one particular one,
especially given the way the telecommunications
industry works in northern New York, your signal in
Plattsburg and Massena are the only signals north of
the thruway. Isn't that correct?
EZRA FORD: Those are the two
dominant areas of dominant influence, although Utica
is also there also. Syracuse is also there.
MR. DOLLINGER: And just one
other question with respect to the Senate lines.
The argument that you make in favor of using the ADI
as a criteria, Senator Wright's district, which
includes Jefferson County and most of those
counties, his district is entirely within that ADI.
Is that correct?
EZRA FORD: He extends into
Oswego County, does he not, and part of his district
would not be in that ADI?
MR. DOLLINGER: Okay. Under
the new plan --
EZRA FORD: I'm sorry. I'm
not familiar with the new plan. Speaking only in
terms of Assembly districts. And if I could comment
on your, your comment on local television stations,
I was a news producer and a manager at a small
market television station in Watertown. The news
resources are limited, and it would be substantially
more efficient for the television station to cover
one Assembly person or two Assembly people rather
than three that you may have proposed.
MR. DOLLINGER: That's a
practical business concern outside the demographic
scope of what we usually do up here, which I
appreciate the practicality of it, but it's not --
EZRA FORD: Community of
interest.
MR. DOLLINGER: Correct. I
understand. It was a very interesting point.
Thanks.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you. Any
other questions? Tim Sullivan, St. Lawrence River
Valley Task Force for Good Government.
TIM SULLIVAN: Good morning.
I have a brief statement. This testimony might be
unique today because I'm not a permanent resident of
Jefferson County, but my testimony concerns
Jefferson County. I love the place. I'm only a
seasonal resident. That means I have a summer home
on the St. Lawrence River. When I heard of the map
of the proposal, proposed Assembly district, I
observed one glaring omission, that the Jefferson
County Town of Cape Vincent wasn't included in the
district that appears to cover every other town that
borders the St. Lawrence River.
Of course, Cape Vincent is the
place where my summer home is. If you count from
Massena south, there are eleven towns that border
the St. Lawrence River. Ten of them are in one
district and one isn't. Why is that? I would
consider Cape Vincent a St. Lawrence River town, not
a Lake Ontario basin town. It only makes sense that
you include Cape Vincent along the river that make
up this Assembly district.
While you're at it, from a
tourist perspective, why not consider putting the
Indian River towns in the district, too. If that
would occur, then all the tourist towns in St.
Lawrence and Jefferson County would be in one
district. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Any questions?
Thank you very much. Sean Hennessey, St. Lawrence
River Valley Task Force for Good Government.
SEAN HENNESSEY: I'm not a
lifelong resident of Jefferson County. I moved to
Jefferson County a few years ago. I'm employed as a
designer at a Watertown manufacturing facility, and
I have some observations that I hope will be
considered in the redistricting deliberations.
This may be a cynical
observation, but it seems to me that the voting
population of Jefferson County has been used as a
sort of pool from which to draw numbers to attach to
three other ADs to make the whole thing turn out
numerically correct. I'm led to conclusion because
of the apparent randomness that was employed.
If that -- if this is true,
it's an insult to the people of my adopted county.
Instead of just using our county's statistical
computer model, here are some suggestions on how I
think the task force could improve the
redistricting.
To my way of thinking, there's
three majors sections of the Jefferson County; the
tourism, agriculture and manufacturing. The center
for tourism is along the whole St. Lawrence River
Valley which includes northern Jefferson County.
That seems to be a natural grouping. What's left of
manufacturing is sent to the vicinity of Watertown.
Of course, Watertown is now a tourism -- now a
tourist attraction in the nationally recognized
quality of the white water of the Black River.
Therefore, there is a rationale for combining the
City of Watertown and the tourist region of the St.
Lawrence Valley.
What doesn't seem to fit at
all is the area south of the Black River. It's
agriculturally different from northern Jefferson
County, and the farms are larger and the wealth is
different than the northern Jefferson County farms.
Therefore, if it were up to me and I had to take
everything into consideration, I would join the
tourism region of the St. Lawrence River Valley, St.
Lawrence Valley, the manufacturing of the City of
Watertown and the northern Jefferson County farms
into one Assembly district.
If something absolutely had to
be subtracted from Jefferson County and placed
elsewhere, it seems to be illogical that it would be
the area south of the Black River. I think that
division is much more reasonable and less arbitrary
than the random computer model. Thank you for your
consideration of my point of view.
MR. SKELOS: Any questions?
Thank you very much.
MR. ORTLOFF: One question.
There's been a lot of talk about Cape Vincent in
particular. What is the population of Cape Vincent?
SEAN HENNESSEY: I don't know
that offhand.
MR. ORTLOFF: Does anybody of
significance in this issue live in that town?
SEAN HENNESSEY: There's a lot
of tourism based out of that town.
MR. ORTLOFF: I mean people
that may have a vested interest in the process.
Anybody in particular live in that town?
SEAN HENNESSEY: I don't live
in Cape Vincent.
MR. ORTLOFF: So you're not
aware that both candidates for the Assembly in the
last election live in that town?
SEAN HENNESSEY: Yes, I'm
aware of that.
MR. ORTLOFF: You are aware
of that.
SEAN HENNESSEY: Yes.
MR. ORTLOFF: Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Mr. Al Woods,
St. Lawrence River Valley Task Force for Good
Government.
AL WOODS: Well, since you're
asking, I am from Cape Vincent. Like Bob Norris,
my address is Clayton. Cape Vincent and Clayton are
in one school district, the Thousand Islands school
district. You would be splitting that school
district.
And actually, I'm also a dairy
farmer from there, so I'm kind of out of my own
water today. I think that it should be left the way
it is. It seems to be working well, but if
something needs to be done, you definitely -- Cape
Vincent needs to be with Clayton, Alex Bay and the
rest of the river communities.
And also if you did want to
split it for an ideal, I'm in northern Jefferson
County and north of Watertown I'm a dairy farmer.
Most of us are small farmers. We're trying to grow
larger, but it's very hard with the soils we have
there. Southern Jefferson County are all large
farms, better land, better soil, do a lot better
job.
We need somebody in northern
Jefferson County who's going to look out for us.
And if you had to split it, I think you should have
north and south, but you definitely should not take
Cape Vincent away from the rest of the river
communities, especially being Cape Vincent and
Clayton are one school district.
You'd be -- we're already out
in the middle of nowhere, Cape Vincent is. And
you'd really be lopping us off, and we need somebody
who we can talk to and who understands what it's
like to be a farmer in northern Jefferson County.
And I do know both Daryl and Bob. They're both
neighbors of mine, good friends with both of them,
but I think that's the way it should be done, and
everybody always just leaves Cape Vincent out of
everything, and this would really be putting a hurt
on us if it happened that way. And being a dairy
farmer, we need all the help we can get. Thank you
very much.
MR. SKELOS: Any questions?
MR. ORTLOFF: Where do you
sell your milk?
AL WOODS: We sell it right to
Crowley's Food in LeFardsville (sic).
MR. ORTLOFF: North or south?
AL WOODS: North. I went to
southern Jefferson County the other day. Our
farmers, most of them in northern are fifty to a
hundred cows. We actually have three hundred.
We're trying to grow. We have five family members
in it. Sons want to get in it. I went to southern
Jefferson County. Six, seven, a thousand, fifteen
hundred cows down there. They get three or four
cuttings of hay. We get two. It's just a whole
different ball game. And we also have all the
tourism. And I mean Clayton, Alex Bay, Cape are all
tourism, and if you lop Cape off and stick them with
somebody else, we're going to be forgotten about.
Thank you.
MR. DOLLINGER: Just one
thing, Mr. Woods. I just want you to know, I want
you to feel at home. I know there are Monroe County
farmers here. I saw Bob Colby earlier, and I just
encourage -- it may not look like we're in dairy
farming country right here, but not a long ways away
there are plenty of dairy farms, so feel at home.
AL WOODS: Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Phillip Klein.
PHILLIP KLEIN: My name is
Phillip Klein. I am the supervisor from the City of
Saratoga Springs and the chairman of the Saratoga
County Legislative Research Committee. Since there
were no public hearings scheduled in the capital
district, I want you to know that we traveled nearly
five hours last night in order to present this
testimony today.
I mentioned our itinerary only
to emphasize how important we feel this issue is.
We feel that these new Assembly district maps, if
approved, will deny more than two hundred thousand
Saratoga people their place in Albany, and that
would be a horrible turn of events, and is
indefensible on both moral and legal terms.
Your map makers have sliced
our county residents into six separate districts
which we will share with nine other counties. We
have effectively been made a minority in each one of
those six districts. Of those nine other counties,
only Albany County is more heavily populated.
Saratoga County is the only county in that group
that has seen significant growth over the past ten
years. Our population has increased by eleven
percent since the last census and nearly sixty-five
percent since 1970. We have also been a leader in
economic development during the period of time when
the economy of upstate New York has been the subject
of great concern of state and federal officials.
Why would the Assembly want to
deny us a representative from the only county that
bucks the upstate trend? Why wouldn't they want
Saratoga County to be a full member of the State
Assembly? We understand the difficulty in drawing
lines and have heard that the difficulty is
exacerbated when you start at the edges of the state
and work towards the center.
However, I believe these maps
as currently drawn are worse than poor policy. I
believe they fail the Constitutional test. The
thirty-six districts located in Kings, Richmond and
Bronx Counties each have a population of less than a
hundred and twenty-two thousand, while the six
districts that meander through Saratoga County have
populations that go as high as hundred thirty-one
five ninety-three.
That means that New York City
residents will be afforded more representation than
upstaters, in clear violation of fundamental equal
protection rights for citizens to equally -- afford
equal representation in the Assembly.
The New York State
Constitution also provides that each county in the
state would be entitled to at least one member of
the Assembly. While that provision may be ignored
when it is in conflict with the equal population
principle of the United States Constitution, the New
York State court of appeals has required, quote, the
historic and traditional significance of counties in
the districting process should be continued where
and as far as possible, unquote.
The New York State court of
appeals has recognized the impossibility of
providing whole districts to counties that have a
population smaller than the ideal Assembly district
size. However, that does not apply to Saratoga
County. With more than two hundred thousand
residents, in fact, ours is the only county with a
population in excess of two hundred thousand that
has been denied a district of our own by your map
makers.
Of the twenty-one New York
State counties that would have described -- would be
described as major counties by the New York State
court of appeals, only Saratoga, Schenectady and
Rensselaer Counties have been denied their own
district. We believe that we could sue to prevent
the adoption of these maps, but such litigation
would be costly to taxpayers and could easily lead
to unreasonable delays and new elections.
The problem could easily be
rectified by simply redrawing the maps to ensure
that each of the capital district counties receive
their own Assembly districts. We urge you to take
another long look at the maps in the state
Constitution and save all of us the expense and
rancor of a protracted lawsuit.
I would also respectively
suggest that you reopen the public comment portion
of these hearings to include an additional public
hearing in the capital district where there are
literally hundreds of citizens who would come out to
protest the proposed districts if they were afforded
an opportunity to do so without having to travel
hundreds of miles. Thank you very much.
MR. SKELOS: Questions? We
appreciate you traveling. We want to point out that
the task force right now is seriously considering
doing another hearing in the capital region.
PHILLIP KLEIN: We would
greatly appreciate that. Thank you very much.
MR. DOLLINGER: Mr. Klein,
thank you for coming all that way, and I concur with
Senator Skelos. I hope we will have a hearing in
the capital district because of the issues that you
raise.
I just want to give you a
sense of the dilemma that we face, and not knowing
Saratoga County well enough to comment on it, but
yesterday we heard in the City of Buffalo that what
several of the speakers wanted were more seats that
had a little -- apportionment for Buffalo and not --
they didn't appear to be in favor -- the speakers
that raised the issue did not appear to be in favor
of having wholly-owned districts from your point of
view; districts that were completely within the
city.
What they suggested was in the
City of Buffalo in the prior plan were eight members
that had portions of the city, there were now only
three, and there were several speakers who said that
the city would lose its influence because it had
fewer members that had a portion of the city.
My expectation is that today
here in Rochester we may hear people come forward
and say there were four members of the Assembly that
had portions of the city. Under the current revised
Assembly proposal there are only three, and that
affects the city's clout and influence.
What you're suggesting is that
as at least as I understand it, Saratoga County now
has portions of six districts that are inside. From
the point of view of what we heard yesterday, that
would suggest that Saratoga County has got a lot of
clout because they have six members that they can
call on to come to the aid of Saratoga County. I'll
just use the example, one that's been a part of our
discussions for a long time which is the casino
issue, that the Saratoga County chamber has taken a
big stand on.
But that's really our dilemma
is that if we were to carve a district -- if the
Assembly were to carve a district that was solely
within Saratoga County, it would have one
wholly-owned member, so to speak, but may have fewer
members who have any connection with it. And I just
want to tell you that but that's part of the
dilemma. We hear contradictory things as we move
through the state. Some people saying we want more
districts to be involved in the community because we
think it gives us more clout. What's you're
suggesting is you would take fewer if you got one
that was wholly within the county district. Is that
correct?
PHILLIP KLEIN: That is
correct. What we're looking to do, other than a
minority, all six of those districts would place
Saratoga County residents in a minority position
within that newly created Assembly district.
What we would like is to be a
majority seeing how we have six -- two hundred
thousand people in the county, we would at least
like to have one Assembly or two Assembly districts
that would show Saratoga County residents as a
majority within that district, and I realize it's a
difficult task drawing these maps, but we just urge
you to take another look at it and look at it in
that light.
MR. DOLLINGER: But it's your
testimony that you'd rather have two voices in the
Assembly if you had a big share of those two voices
rather than six potential voices in which you may
have only a minority share.
PHILLIP KLEIN: We have four
Assembly people representing the county right now,
and we would, with a new districting, have six.
It's a very difficult number to work with. It's --
you have six people that we need to send your case
to, and we're always going to be a minority voice.
We would much rather have three.
MR. DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Sally Brown, League of Women Voters, Rochester Metro
area.
SALLY BROWN: My name is
Sally Brown. I'm the vice-president of voter
service of the League of Women Voters of the
Rochester metropolitan area. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to address the task force on the
issue of redistricting. Since 1965 the League of
Women Voters of New York State has supported
standards to ensure equitable representation to
women in the New York State legislature.
The redistricting guidelines
of the league are based on four principles; equal
population, contiguous boundaries, integrity of
existing political subdivisions and geographic
compactiveness.
We strongly believe that
adherence to the guidelines in their prescribed
order would inhibit the temptation to indulge in the
practice of equal population gerrymandering and
splintering of communities of similar interest.
While the one person, one vote requirement ensures
that districts will be composed of an equal number
of bodies, it does not guarantee that it will be
represented fairly. It does not prevent the drawing
of lines to fracture, isolate, weaken or strengthen
communities of interest in order to achieve
political advantage.
To redistrict by packing where
lines are drawn to concentrate a political party
into one or a few districts assures an outcome but
does not ensure fair representation.
To redistrict by cracking
where opponent supporters are split among several
districts thereby dramatically increasing the
incumbent's chances of reelection may be smart
politics, but it does not ensure fair
representation.
Ghosting or splitting
districts thereby placing two incumbents in one
district is a good example of divide and conquer,
but does not ensure fair representation.
These and similar techniques
ensure representation for the political party, not
the people, nor do they generate competitive races
between the parties.
Yesterday I looked over the
Senate's website on the proposed reapportionment and
a number of questions occurred to me. First, why is
it so difficulty to get to the website? I ended up
having to call our state office and get the number,
and I'm pretty computer literate. The information
about redistricting should be much more accessible
to the voters.
Second, why are there seven
hearings, and why has the whole southeastern and
northern parts of our state been left out? If I
were a concerned citizen from Watertown, Plattsburg
or Elmira, I'd have to travel between two and four
hours by car just to get to the meeting and also
hope that there were no snow storms.
Where are the new
Congressional district lines? How can New York
citizens be wholly involved in this process if we
don't have all the information? Your task force was
given two years and a two million dollar budget.
Why has the data been released so late in the
process that citizens are only being given ten days
in which to the participate?
Where's the competition?
Under these new lines how will candidates actually
participate in a political race? If there's no true
competition, then New Yorker's no longer believe
their vote matters and they withdraw from the whole
system. This may be good for existing political
parties, but it's bad for democracy.
Let's look at the districts.
59, 55 and 51. What are they? I spoke with Barbara
Bartelliti yesterday and we discussed these areas.
This looks like an amoeba, maybe a paramecium. We
studied district 51, and Barbara is convinced this
is Abe Lincoln with a fishing pole. I myself think
it's Groucho Marx with a mustache. And we are
agreed this one is Big Bird at a typewriter.
These districts may be legal,
that may be true examples, but they're true examples
of gerrymandering. They don't look like compact
geographical or competitive districts.
The League of Women Voters of
the Rochester metropolitan area would be remiss if
we did not also mention another issue; the need for
an impartial commission for drawing the lines. The
current task force is composed of two state
assemblymen, two state senators and two political
appointments. The current redistricting plan
appears to be designed to eliminate competition and
to ensure that each party will solidify its majority
in its respective legislative body.
Elections where each district
is created to reflect the interests of the people
rather than the politicians is sorely needed. It's
absurd to expect and allow legislators to make
objective decisions which affect their own political
future. This statement represents the thoughts of
Aimee Allaud from the New York State League of the
Rochester -- of the women voters, and also reflects
the opinions of myself and Jane Schmitt of the
Rochester league. Again, I thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
MR. SKELOS: Questions?
MR. ORTLOFF: I have one
question. I have one question, and I may have heard
you wrong, but it seems to me that you aren't at all
concerned with the Assembly plan at all.
SALLY BROWN: I beg your
pardon?
MR. ORTLOFF: It seems you're
not at all concerned with the Assembly plan. In
fact, when you talked about the website, you called
it the Senate website, and you chose -- the
districts that you're upset with, they're all Senate
districts. I just wonder why the league has this
blind spot in looking at the Assembly.
SALLY BROWN: We don't have a
blind spot, sir. We're concerned about all of them.
We just picked these as an example.
MR. SKELOS: Could I ask you
a question about the very dramatic Lincoln hat? Is
that Herkimer County?
MR. ORTLOFF: Yes, it is.
MR. SKELOS: And Herkimer
County goes up like that?
MR. ORTLOFF: That's right.
MR. SKELOS: So basically the
Senate proposal keeps Herkimer County intact within
the Senate plan.
MR. ORTLOFF: I'm looking at
it across the room where all I can see is the
outline, and I'm not really a geographer but even I
can recognize that as Herkimer County. I would
perhaps suggest that you do a sixty-two page book
giving names to the geographic outlines of all the
counties.
MR. SKELOS: Timothy
Jennings.
TIMOTHY JENNINGS: Good
morning. My name is Timothy Jennings, and I'd like
to thank of the members of the New York State Task
Force for Demographic Research and Reapportionment
for coming here today, holding these hearings so
that we may express our views on the design of the
future Assembly districts. It's through hearings
such as this that the foundations of our
representative democracies are built.
And as an example of that, and
the importance of these hearings, I have referred to
the words of James Madison from Federalist papers
where he discussed representative government and how
we determine what the government shall be. In the
words of Madison, and I quote, the first question
that offers itself is whether the general form and
aspect of the government will be strictly
Republican. It is evident that no other form will
be reconcilable to the genius of the people of
America with fundamental principles of revolution or
with the honorable determination which animates
every notary of freedom to rest all our political
experiments on the capacity of mankind for
self-government, unquote.
I'd like to point out to the
task force that when Madison referred to the term
Republican form of government, he was alluding to
the form of government that derives its power
directly or indirectly from the people. He was not
alluding to a particular political party.
My wife Susan and I are
currently residing in Pittsford which is located
just a few miles southeast of the City of Rochester
and is located in the 136th Assembly district. As
you know, the Rochester area has a long
distinguished history as one of the major industrial
engines that power the economy of Western New York.
Ours is a culturally diverse community whose social
and economic impacts extend well beyond our borders
into the surrounding counties.
In your deliberations I urge
you to design a new 130th Assembly district that
would be more closely connected to Monroe County and
its contiguous neighboring counties. It is my hope
that our community will be empowered through your
careful and thoughtful design of our Assembly
districts so that common interests will be more
effectively represented in Albany.
As you know, Monroe County is
closely linked both socially and economically with
the surrounding contiguous counties as many of our
citizens earn a living by working in the greater
Rochester and metropolitan area while residing in
the neighboring communities. Even those who are not
directly employed in Monroe County are indirectly
impacted by the county's ripple effects through
cultural interaction, Rochester based television,
radio and newspapers, as we've heard earlier, tax
revenue, subsidiary industries, tourism, retail
trade and the service sector, all providing
employment.
Residents of our area also
face the same economic challenges together. For
instance, the lead story on the front page of
yesterday's Democratic Chronicle, our local
newspaper, reads that Rochester, Rochester area lost
twelve thousand four hundred jobs in the past year.
Gentlemen, that's the equivalent of two point three
percent of our area's total employment in the last
year. This has resulted in an unemployment rate of
six point three percent for the local area, the
highest in the decade. Statewide only New York
City, which, of course, is much larger, lost more
jobs than we did in the last ten years.
These losses were most acute
in our manufacturing sector which hemorrhaged
employment at the rate of seven thousand six hundred
jobs last year alone with two thousand four hundred
jobs lost in some of our most important industries
including Kodak, Xerox, Bausch & Laumb, not to
mention related companies like Global Crossing and
Valeo. And I believe Global Crossing is in the
process of declaring bankruptcy.
As you know, the economies of
Western New York are anchored by an interconnecting
web of major employers in the manufacturing,
automotive, health care, technology,
telecommunications and educational sectors. The
people who work in these industries share a
community of interest in their employment, and
therefore should be brought together by designing a
legislative district that empowers them as a group
and gives them a unified voice that will express
their shared priorities and concerns.
Few of the areas of our shared
concerns and community of interest include major
issues like our local governments slipping bond
ratings that affect what we can forward to do and
how we'll pay for it. We also share common concerns
about the educational attainment and financial
health of our local school systems and the future of
our children. As you may know, our local school
systems are in dire trouble. They are millions of
dollars in deficits as we speak.
We share concerns about the
growing burden of rising property taxes and a
falling tax base. We're concerned about the stiff
competition for scarce local revenues that are
needed to pay for much needed economic development
projects like the long overdue fast ferry project
between Rochester and Toronto.
As a community we look for
action on the construction of the new intermodal
transportation bus and train terminal that is needed
to bring our transportation infrastructure in the
local area into the 21st century. We care about
expanding the availability of affordable airfare to
and from our area in order to increase tourism and
spur economic growth.
We hope for some vision from
our elected officials in resolving issues related to
the expansion of the Seneca Park Zoo, the local
thruway toll plazas and the construction of a new
soccer stadium. We care deeply about the need for
child care in our communities and job training that
would provide even the poorest of our community with
the tools that they need to lift themselves and
their families out of dire poverty and back onto the
road of dignity and self-sufficiency.
We share common concerns about
affordable housing to shelter our elderly and the
disadvantaged, and we seek desperately for some
leadership in dealing with the ongoing challenge of
keeping our hospitals running. Some of them are
closing. Keeping our libraries open. Some of them
are closing. And our streets safe.
The people of our region are
benefitted by being represented by elected officials
who can develop an understanding of the issues that
affect their lives and the lives of the other
members of their community. It makes no sense to
combine disparate populations that do not share a
community of interest and it works in a disservice
in our citizenry to do so.
The residents of this area
face important challenges in the coming years, and
the decisions that your task force makes will have a
dramatic impact on their lives for the next decade.
I strongly encourage the task force on demographic
research and reapportionment to rise above their
partisan politics, and I know it's difficult, and
configure the 130th Assembly district so that it
provides effective representation to the members of
our community. I thank you for your attention.
MR. SKELOS: Are there any
questions? Thank you. Robert Slocomb.
ROBERT SLOCOMB: Good
morning. My name is Robert Slocomb. I would like
to express my concern of all things over the
environmental correctness of redistricting. On one
map I saw the west side of the lake, and it was
Conesus Lake, was in one district and the east side
was in another. In a more representative down the
road it was a shown that the 147th district included
all of Conesus Lake.
In any event, I would like you
to consider the following. Districts that contain
an environmentally sensitive area such as a lake,
pond, river, wetlands need to be represented by one
person if possible. I speak of Conesus Lake again
where four towns control the watershed, each with
different rules, regulations at Livonia, Conesus,
Groveland and Geneseo. Some have been progressive
and some have been less than progressive. They have
recognized this problem over several years and have
tried to work together because of the lake
association.
The lake needs tender loving
care. The lake is tightly ringed with houses. Over
one half are year-round homes. The uniform
treatment of the watershed is essential. It's a
source of water for some towns and some homes.
Fishing is deteriorating. The
weeds are making the lake unswimmable in many
places, and there are no-swimming warnings in
certain parts of the lake for the first time this
year. And I can speak to that because I've been a
resident or a summer resident of that place for
sixty years.
As I say, this is
unacceptable. I know it's easy to use rivers, lakes
and natural bodies as dividing lines, but lakes
cannot divide themselves. They are one body, and we
should do our best to protect them. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
MR. PARMENT: Just one
question. So I understand specifically, the lake
you mentioned, was it Conesus Lake?
ROBERT SLOCOMB: Yes, it is --
MR. PARMENT: Is that
bordered by Canadice on one side or have I got the
wrong lake?
ROBERT SLOCOMB: You've got
the wrong lake.
MR. PARMENT: Livonia,
Geneseo.
ROBERT SLOCOMB: That is
correct.
MR. PARMENT: So at this time
that lake is all in one district?
ROBERT SLOCOMB: That's
correct.
MR. PARMENT: But the lake
that is somewhat south and east of there is on the
border?
ROBERT SLOCOMB: Exactly.
MR. HOPPE: That's the county
line.
MR. PARMENT: Again the
county line situation.
ROBERT SLOCOMB: Just one
thing to consider when drawing these lines that I
think environmentally protected sensitive areas
should be protected.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you very
much. Virginia Benedict.
VIRGINIA BENEDICT: Good
morning. I'm Virginia Benedict, and I'm speaking
today as a resident of Ontario County. First I
would like to thank you for this opportunity to
voice my opinion and for all the opinions here
today. However diverse they may be, that's what
it's all about. It's about the voice and views of
the people.
I am here to express my
opposition to the proposed redistricting for the
Assembly; in particular, to those lines as drawn for
Ontario County. The initial reapportionment has a
divided Ontario County into three separate
districts. I'm looking at these districts. It
appears that no attention has been paid to basic
demographics, nor has there been an attempt to keep
lines contiguous and municipalities in intact.
We have been lumped into
districts with Monroe, Wayne, Seneca and Cayuga
Counties, and as it stands now, each of the three
portions of Ontario County will be in the minority
in each of these districts. We will, therefore,
take a back seat to all of these other communities
when it comes to obtaining funding from Albany.
We have developed a
cohesiveness over many, many years, and, with the
proposed splits, stand to lose a great deal.
Ontario County as the seventh largest in the state
is one of the few counties in upstate that has
experienced a growth in population; a six percent
growth over the last ten years. We will most
certainly continue to experience growth for many
reasons; one being that with the expansion of the
main thoroughfare from the thruway to our region,
also the recent additions on thruway denoting
tourist attractions in our area and also an
increased emphasis on tourism.
We have become a destination
for tourists in upstate, and with the tourist
appropriations built in the 2001, 2002 budget for
separate upstate and downstate tourism council
conducting tourism programs, tourism will continue
to increase in our areas. And of course the
interests and needs of communities also must be
taken into consideration. They are specific and
unique to each community. We should not divide but
rather keep those common interests and issues
together within a community.
Tourism, including the lakes
and wineries, agriculture and growth itself are the
main issues facing Ontario County as the future
unfolds. We should not have our voice diluted over
the next ten years. We need to put politics aside.
This is not about the Democrats or the Republicans
or someone's job in the Assembly, but rather the
people of Ontario County and our needs.
Redistricting should be a
non-partisan process without regard to incumbents,
although I know historically that has not been the
case. It is not about who represents us. What it
is about is the fact that Ontario County needs a
strong voice in Albany. We need one voice in
Albany. Thank you.
MR. PARMENT: Not so much a
question, but this question has come up probably now
in five or six speakers who have talked about this
question; the question of communities being whole
and being divided. I would just point out for the
record that the Assembly plan as presented has the
benefit of having more counties whole than is
currently the case. And in your specific area the
surrounding counties are almost entirely whole.
The problem that we come to
eventually is that someone has to be divided up, and
perhaps we've divided up the wrong counties because
there was some testimony from the St. Lawrence
region that they would rather see the river specific
district than a county specific district. But in
this general area, we have united Steuben, Gates,
Schuyler, Chemung, Seneca, Wayne, and the problem we
come to is eventually we need to balance the
population, and so a county unfortunately becomes
divided among more than one district.
I point that out not -- you
just happen to be here. I point that out to the
entire audience. We do have that problem. Thank
you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you very
much. Jack Driscoll.
JACK DRISCOLL: Good morning.
My name is Jack Driscoll. I'm the Monroe County
legislature, 13th legislative district. I have the
privilege of representing the Town of Henrietta.
Like most folks when the plan first came out, you
look at it from the parochial point of view as to
your legislators and what is the impact on your
individual town, and I wasn't too happy with that.
But worse than that is when I
got going through the plan, I became truly alarmed
at the direction that, that this particular plan --
and I'm referring primarily to the Assembly plan --
where it was going. Alarmed enough that Senator
Dollinger will probably attest to you that I can get
very direct, and in this statement I'm going to get
very direct because I think this, this direction is
alarming.
I'm appalled by the proposed
plan. It is blatantly political. A redistricting
plan should reserve districts drawn to provide
effective representation based on similar interest
and need of the voters. This plan does not do that.
Fair and effective representation has been
supplanted by partisan gerrymandering.
For instance, the current plan
forces twenty-two incumbent Republicans into a
primary against each other, an additional two
Republicans are moved into traditionally Democrat
districts currently represented by Democrat
incumbents. This is not fair and effective
representation. It is a blatant attempt to shift
more votes to New York City and underrepresent
upstate.
The outcome of this political
assault could be a loss of thirteen Republican
legislators. It should be noted that there are no
Democratic incumbents forced into primaries. The
current Assembly is ninety-seven Democrats and
fifty-three Republicans. Under this plan, this
excessively partisan plan, the count could be a
hundred and ten Democrats and forty Republicans.
The most insulting aspect of
this plan is the proposal to create an open seat
while forcing our local Assemblymen into a contest
with each other. This is a redistricting scheme,
not a plan that represents the principles of one
person, one vote. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Questions?
MR. DOLLINGER: Just one
comment. Jack, you were just as advertised.
MR. PARMENT: Something to be
said for consistency.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you very
much. Ruth Danis or Danis. I'm not sure.
RUTH DANIS: I am not envying
your task after listening. I'm speaking as a
Democrat with a small D as well as a large D. I am
primarily speaking about the 28th Congressional
district prior to whatever decisions you come up
with. But my statement also applies to Assemblyman
Robach's district and the fundamental rationale that
underlies redistricting.
I also remember my experience
as a poll watcher, goes back decades, with Ed Koch's
reform group in the village and how impressed I was
with the local D'Sappio leader who knew personally
the background of each of the nuns from the convents
and all the apartment dwellers that were in his
district. I do not think telecommunications is
going to replace that kind of political involvement.
I'm going to skip the first
paragraph. The current configuration of the 28th
Congressional district has worked extremely well for
the greater Rochester metropolitan area because we
have had a representative who was able to make
principled and informed decisions on matters that
affected the common welfare in addition to
addressing the needs and wants of local citizenry.
It is essential for a
representative at times to take positions which rise
above partisanship and challenge constituents to
acquiesce in the sharing of resources or accept the
dictates of conscience. We can do this in the
Rochester Monroe County area because we are one
community. A representative needs to be situated in
a locale that invites dialogue.
I'm delighted that James
Madison was noted before. I note his paper number
ten in the Federalist papers again; quote, small
factious units are more susceptible to oppression
and prejudice. Parcelling out the 28th
Congressional district will invite the wrong type of
competitiveness. Homeland security requires local
connection to national issues; security that
consists of an informed citizenry who are willing to
make sacrifices when they understand why.
It is more likely visible,
vocal and courageous representatives will win the
public trust when they are elected by members of a
distinct community. No one group is slighted in
this type of mix. Democracy requires a give and
take of electoral politics, but it also needs a
recognizable center that acts as a ballast which can
be used to help citizens reach consensus or level
challenges.
Citizens should have a place
of our own, a wonderful idea written about by a
Benjamin Barber in his book by the same title. And
I had to refer to that because many historians are
now being accused of plagiarism. Buffalo, Syracuse
and Rochester each require their own Congressional
district to ensure representative democracy
prevails. Dividing these districts would be
destructive. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you very
much. Any questions? Nathan Lyman.
NATHAN LYMAN: Good morning.
My name is Nathan Lyman. I've been a lifelong
resident of upstate New York. I live in Orleans
County which is a rural county to the west of
approximately forty-eight thousand residents, about
the same size as a number of the other rural
counties in Western New York. I've been a
prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office and now
am just a small town country lawyer.
I've been on the board of
directors of the local chamber for twenty years,
village trustee representative of a number of
municipalities and am currently a commissioner on
the Western Erie Canal Heritage Corridor Planning
Commission. I'm here to voice my concern and dismay
about the proposed Assembly redistricting.
In the March 2nd, 2002 edition
of the Democrat and Chronicle, the headline reads, A
Ghost District Stirs Political Spirits. Its
appearance seen as part of state political
gamesmanship. It then goes on to talk about how the
proposed redistricting disproportionately shifts
seats downstate, creates a ghost district where
there is no incumbent while at the same time pitting
a number of assemblymen, primarily Republicans,
against one another by merging the political
boundaries of their districts.
Article one, section one of
the New York State Constitution reads that no member
of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived
of any of the rights or privileges secured to any
citizen thereof.
When you became legislators,
you took an oath to support and protect the
Constitution of the State of New York, not just the
voters in your party. The proposal discriminates in
favor of urban areas. No where in the Constitution
does it say that the urbanly diverse have a greater
right of franchise than the rurally dispersed.
Simply because people upstate live a little further
away from their neighbors does not mean that they
have fewer rights as citizens.
My Main Street may not be Wall
Street but it contributes in many and different ways
to what makes New York great. I don't see too many
rows of orchards or fields of corn growing on Wall
Street, and the depth of the macadam makes it a
little tough to plow and seed on Park Avenue.
While agriculture is the
second largest industry in the state, this does not
mean that our friends in agriculture and the upstate
businesses that support them are second-class
citizens as this proposal makes them out to be.
My grandfather was an orchard
farmer. In 1948 in Orleans County there were
eighteen hundred family farms. There are now fewer
than two hundred. Land that was once tilled now
lies fallow. Jobs that were once here feeding our
citizens have relocated to other states. A 1964
survey of Orleans County businesses showed the
presence of the food industry in Western New York.
Liptons, Heinz, Birds Eye, Hunts food, now all gone.
If rural areas are deprived of
effective and knowledgeable legislative
representation by the people who understand the
challenges that rural counties face, this government
will condemn the state's second largest industry and
those in that industry to a cycle of decline and
ruin. Without fair legislative apportionment, it
will be more and more difficult for you in the
legislature to appreciate the daily struggles being
dealt with by upstate citizens, particularly in the
rural counties.
The economic revitalization of
the 1990s missed much of Western New York. State
mandates did not. Densely populated areas tend to
have higher per capita incomes. What may seem like
small potatoes to those from a wealthy urban area
may seem the whole crop to those out in the rural
counties. As Agri-business was forced to relocate
due to competitive pressures in large part
attributable to ever increasing taxes and mandates
the burden to support those higher taxes and
mandates in the rural counties fell on those left
behind.
Many of these mandates have
led to orchards like my grandfather's being removed
because the high cost of real property tax began to
exceed the returns obtainable from the crops that
are grown on them.
Some will say this is just
global economy, and that the strong will survive.
Our Constitution says that the aid, care and support
of the needy are public concerns. It does not limit
this provision to the New York metropolitan area or
to the unemployed. Our small family farms that are
under stress are also matters of significant public
concern, and they are entitled to effective
legislative voice.
As relates to the few
legislative districts left in the upstate area under
this proposal, there appears to be a distinct
pattern of grouping denser populations with rural
populations crossing established governmental lines.
This again has the effect of disenfranchising the
rural populations, or at the very least reducing the
likelihood that their legislators will have a full
appreciation of the contributions and challenges of
rural living.
Redistricting should not
divide established political subdivisions, splitting
villages into different districts. People who live
out in the country know that when you live further
apart you probably need to speak up a little bit to
be heard across the yard. Intentionally separating
those neighbors further by gerrymandering
legislative districts to quiet their voices as
citizens is just plain wrong.
In the 1820s for a time the
Erie Canal ended in my home town of Albion. Upstate
was the edge of a new frontier, and we were a
significant part of the engine that made New York
the Empire State. Over time many leaders outside of
upstate came to view the canal, and by extension,
upstate as irrelevant.
One of the wonderful lessons
reinforced in me during my time as a canal heritage
corridor commissioner is that the Erie Canal, and by
extension, upstate is not irrelevant and still flows
through Albany and feeds New York City. Along the
way it supports business with water resources,
provides communities with opportunities and gives
our citizens a sense of pride in their heritage.
Proper redistricting should do
the same thing. Proper redistricting should support
equal and proportionate representation, provide all
New York residents the full and fair opportunity to
have their voice be heard and give everyone the
sense that their government is fair and just and not
as the media would tell us, just a matter of
political gamesmanship.
You, as elected
representatives, are called to a duty higher than
the morals of the marketplace or smoke-filled back
rooms. For if our government is not fair and just,
and is just an exercise in political gamesmanship,
how can you be expect the people to respect the rule
of law if you do not?
You will learn what our farmer
friends already know, that you reap what you sow.
These proposals for redistricting should be
reconsidered and appropriate adjustments made to
fairly and fully allow upstate residents a voice in
their government. And whatever new proposals come
forward should be done in a fashion that allows a
realistic opportunity for the parties to organize
and for their candidates to run viable campaigns.
Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Questions?
MR. ORTLOFF: Mr. Lyman,
you've made a very eloquent case for the, for the
American system of representative government. I can
tell you that in the Assembly, a hundred and fifty
members, when a member rises to speak about a matter
in which, or of which he has personal experience,
knowledge or expertise, everyone listens. In other
words, it isn't all hot air. It isn't all political
rhetoric.
When an area is represented by
someone who knows the facts, knows the conditions,
he is able, or she is able to gain and earn the
attention of all his or her colleagues. But if, as
you say, we rip that asunder and we create people
who are elected simply because they're in one party
or another, not necessarily because of where they're
represented, then that is threatened.
But I want to raise really
your, your concern to a more immediate and practical
level. You're speaking to one member of the
legislature here, the chairman, Mr. Parment, who
authored this plan. I can tell you right now I
don't intend to vote for this plan, so the speaker
can't count on my vote to pass it. I don't believe
there are any of the fifty-three Republican members
at this point who are prepared to vote for it, so he
can't count on those votes. Nor can he pass it with
the fifty-eight Democrat members from New York City,
the primary beneficiaries of this plan.
He needs the votes of Democrat
members from the areas of the state, Long Island and
upstate, which are harmed by this plan. He needs
upstate Democrats to vote against upstate for this
plan to pass. So I would suggest with all sincerity
that the argument you're making here today directed
at two members of the Assembly be deliberately,
carefully, consistently and persistently applied to
all the upstate Democrat members.
I notice some of my Republican
colleagues here in the room. I don't see any of the
upstate Democrats here in the room. And I'll
suggest why. Because they know they're going to
vote against upstate for this plan, and they don't
want to show their faces in this room. So rather
than wait for them to come to you, go to them. Let
them know, ask them. Are you going to vote for this
plan? Put them on the spot now before it's too
late. Will you do that?
NATHAN LYMAN: Absolutely.
MR. ORTLOFF: I had to put my
statement in the form of a question.
MR. DOLLINGER: While you're
doing that, Mr. Lyman, I want to continue Senator
Ortloff's point. This plan will not become law
without a vote of the New York State Senate. That
vote will be on the Assemblyman plan and on the, the
Senate plan. And the one difficulty that I think
everybody needs to realize is that as much as
Assemblyman Ortloff's argument is against the
Assembly Democrats because they'll have to vote for
this plan, I'm going to have a vote on it, so will
Senator Skelos, so will the Republican members of
the Senate from upstate.
And I would point out that the
governor of this state is either going to sign this
plan or veto it. And the difficulty is that as much
as I understand the, the issues raised by
Assemblyman Ortloff, which I think are legitimate
from his perspective and the perspective of upstate
members of the Assembly, they are also going to be
voted on by upstate members of the Senate and by the
governor. And certainly if the governor thinks this
plan is unfair to upstate, I'd assume he vetos it.
If he signs the plan, I assume because he thinks
it's the right plan for the State of New York.
And I would suggest,
Assemblyman Ortloff, that you and your colleagues in
the Assembly minority who believe this plan may be
inappropriate for the State of New York, that the
debate is not just with your colleagues in the
Assembly majority, but frankly, it should go to the
New York State Senate, the upstate members of the
Senate and the governor himself.
This is a plan that can only
become law with a majority vote in the Senate, a
majority vote in the Assembly and the signature of
the governor. I don't know what the governor is
going to do, but I assume if he signs this plan,
he's concluded that it's the right Assembly plan for
New York, as he will conclude that the plan before
him is the right Senate plan for New York.
So I would just suggest that
any advocacy on these plans pro or con goes beyond
just the drafters of the plan, whether it's Senator
Skelos or Assemblyman Parment, but this is really a
debate about who votes for what plan under what
circumstances. So I wouldn't stop by just going and
knocking on the doors of the upstate Democrats of
the Assembly. I'd go knocking on every door
including the one that's on the second floor of the
capital.
NATHAN LYMAN: Senator, I did
not limit my comments and pointing the finger just
to, to one party. I was neutral in the message that
I bring as a citizen, and I'm not here on behalf of
any board or any commission. I'm here as a citizen.
The message I bring is that if redistricting is left
in the hands of nothing but political partisanship,
I don't see how you can expect the citizens in the
State of New York to respect the rule of law.
And so what my message is is
neutral, and it's on the record, and hopefully the
members of the Senate and the members of the
Assembly will read the record and understand that
we, the citizens sitting out in the country, want to
have effective representation in accordance with the
Constitution.
MR. DOLLINGER: And I agree
with you, Mr. Lyman. I hope -- I didn't mean to
suggest that your statement was colored by
partisanship. I heard you say that this is a
Democratic with a small D issue about representation
which I think is -- as I think Assemblyman Ortloff's
point. These are all parts of the very legitimate
political debate about the future of this state, as
the future of this state will be impacted by the
process of reapportionment.
It is I think from my point of
view the most critical thing we do once every ten
years, and that is decide what the composition, what
the district's members are going to run and look
like and what communities of interest they'll
represent. And I did not interpret yours as having
a partisan sheen on them.
I just suggested that those
who want to advocate for these plans or advocate
against them, every one of us is going to -- at
least the elected members who are members of the
Senate and Assembly, will be casting at some point a
yes or no vote on some version of the plan. It may
be this one, it may be a modified plan, it may be a
modified plan beyond that. But this is all about
the members who are elected, not only having a say
on this task force but having a say when the bill
comes to the floor.
NATHAN LYMAN: Mr. Chairman,
I have one suggestion in furtherance of the
suggestion of Senator Dollinger, and that is, as has
been previously stated, your website is somewhat
difficult to access.
However, if you were to put
into place a bulletin board which would allow
citizens to place in it their public comments, I
think that you would be able to effectively reach
out better to the population than by scheduling just
seven hearings spread throughout the state.
Bulletin boards are a fairly common medium for the
distribution of information. The Internet is a
wonderful vehicle, and I think that you could
promote better citizen participation if you were to
put that in place.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you very
much. Lloyd Kinnear.
LLOYD KINNEAR: Good morning.
I don't have an outline speech prepared as so many
of the speakers before me have, but I looked at
every ten years --
MR. HOPPE: Move the
microphone.
LLOYD KINNEAR: I look at the
redistricting that is done every ten years based on
the census as sort of like going to the dentist.
It's something we don't look forward to which means
somebody's going to be hurt.
I concur with Assemblyman
Ortloff up there that it's a matter of fairness of
the apportionment that's happening. The numbers
that you see do not represent what this plan is
trying to -- what this plan is trying to provide
right now.
I lose representation here in
upstate New York at the expense of more
representation in New York City. As a farmer in
Ontario County, I would prefer that I get one vote
and my vote is represented in Albany. Ontario
County is one of the fastest growing counties in
upstate New York. In fact, it's one of the fastest
growing counties in all of New York State. There is
a syncopated march of urban sprawl coming out of our
cities and into our rural areas, and we deserve fair
representation for that.
We are currently going through
regional planning in our county and to divide us up
into three different representative areas under the
Assembly plan would not be good for Ontario County.
We need continuity at this time. Some people have
said that with more representatives through the
three representatives in the county, we would
receive more representation in Albany. I don't
think that would be true because we would wind up on
the minority portion of each one of these Assembly
districts. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Glenn Gardner.
GLENN GARDNER: Good morning.
My comments this morning are in regards to the
proposed removal of Mr. Joe Robach as the State
Assembly representative for the community of
Charlotte in the City of Rochester.
My name is Glenn Gardner, and
I'm a twenty-nine year resident of the community of
Charlotte and attended both number forty-two school
and Charlotte High School in that community. I am
currently a board member of the Charlotte Community
Association, Ontario Beach Park Program Committee,
co-chair of the Neighbors Building Neighborhoods
Committee and an active member of the local Kiwanis
organization.
I mention all these
affiliations because in order for these
organizations to function effectively in the
community, they require the full cooperation and
support of the entire community including all
elected officials at the local and state levels.
Mr. Joseph Robach has served
this community and supported these organizations
with honesty and integrity for more than ten years.
As you know, the Robach legacy extends back further
with Joe's father having represented this area for
seventeen years, and the fact that Joe Robach was
born and raised in Charlotte, because of this Joe
has a relationship with our residents that goes
beyond mere representation. He is part of our
community family.
I mention honesty and
integrity because these are two important attributes
that Joe Robach has brought forth in all of his
dealings with Charlotte. As constituents, we look
for our elected officials to participate in all of
our activities and when called upon, to help resolve
issues or provide guidance. Mr. Robach demonstrates
role model behavior in all of these areas and would
be sorely missed if the proposed redistricting plans
were to be implemented.
It is with great admiration
for Mr. Robach's leadership abilities that I
strongly urge you and the task force to support our
community by retaining Joe Robach as the 134th
legislative district's representative to the
community of Charlotte. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Any questions?
Thank you very much. William Travis.
WILLIAM TRAVIS: Good
morning, gentlemen. My name is William Travis. I'm
from the Town of West Bloomfield in Ontario County.
Currently we're in the 129th Assembly district. I'm
also a president of the West Bloomfield Volunteer
Ambulance, Incorporated. And as part of that and
other community organizations that I work with, I
know people throughout the County of Ontario.
We've worked very hard in
Ontario County to, to unify and work together for a
common purpose. Our current assemblyman was born
in, in Honeoye and now lives in Canandaigua and he
understands Ontario County. In the redistricting
program that you have in place at the moment, the
Town of West Bloomfield along with Honeoye, Bristol
South Bristol and Naples and Canadice would be
hooked in with towns like Henrietta and Pittsford.
To say that we have nothing in
common with Henrietta and Pittsford is an
understatement. We are trying very hard not to
become a Henrietta or Pittsford. Also we have
twelve hundred voters in West Bloomfield. Henrietta
has twelve thousand voters. We are not only going
to be the tail on the dog, but we're going to be the
tip of the tail on the dog when it comes to
representation that's effective representation for
us.
We simply don't have the
voting power of a Henrietta or a Pittsford where we
do in Ontario County. The representatives we have
now, Brian Kolb and Michael Nozzolio, have taken our
causes to heart and we have been struggling, fairly
represented by them, and to split us up into three
sections is to essentially cut our power in thirds.
And in, in the western half of Ontario County,
albeit small towns like mine, we aren't going to be
represented at all.
I can tell you exactly why our
county is being cut into thirds. Three years ago
there was a special election by Craig Warren, our
representative that became a judge. The New York
City Democrats poured two hundred thousand dollars
into our county trying to buy the 129th Assembly
district seat. We spent -- the Republicans only
spent sixty thousand dollars, and ultimately the
Republican won, and he's been an exceptional
representative for us.
And now since the Democrat
majority is drawing the lines here, guess what? It
was no surprise to me that suddenly the powerful
unified County of Ontario is suddenly diluted into
three districts where they're going to be the
minority no matter what happens. This is simply
pure power politics. It's despicable. It's
undemocratic, and, and frankly, I'm angry about it.
This is -- this should not happen.
We deserve to have fair
representation instead of minority representation in
three different places. We're one of the fastest
growing counties in the, in the state. We're, we're
on the leading edge of a number of, of projects that
it's going to increase our economic well being in
our area. We deserve to have a strong voice for us
in Albany. And Brian Kolb and Senator Nozzolio have
been that for us, and I think it's just despicable
that we're being cut up because the voters of
Ontario County didn't agree with the downstate
Democrats. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Any questions?
Thank you very much, sir. Kenneth Warner, Rochester
Building Trade Council. Is he here? Terence
Spencer will be next.
KENNETH WARNER: Good
morning. My name is Ken Warner, and I'm here on
behalf of the sixteen thousand working men and women
in this community who depend upon the construction
industry for their livelihood and the Rochester
Building and Construction Trades Council. I
appreciate the opportunity to come before you this
morning. I have a few remarks.
I too am here to talk about
Assemblyman Joe Robach's situation in the community
of Charlotte. I intend to keep my remarks
particularly short this morning, in part because I'm
not sure I understand all the intricacies of
redistricting, and in part because I also recognize
the sound of my voice can, as Senator Dollinger will
attest, lead others with the desire to leave the
room or with their papers or go to sleep.
But even though I don't know a
lot about redistricting, I do know about
neighborhoods, working families and people. And I
know that the hundreds of union families in the
Charlotte neighborhood in northern Rochester deserve
good representation in our state legislature. For
decades that representation has been ably provided
by a member of the Robach family; once the father
and now the son.
It's no secret that Joe Robach
is a good friend of organized labor, but he's a
great friend of all working families, and I want to
be here this morning to urge that you continue Joe's
representation of the Charlotte neighborhood. He is
their neighbor, he is their advocate and he is their
friend. He has a unique connection with the folks
in Charlotte, and he is clearly the best
representative for that community. I urge you to
reconsider and continue his representation there.
Thank you for your patience.
MR. SKELOS: Any questions?
Thank you.
MR. DOLLINGER: Just a
comment. Ken, if you could just go back to the
microphone for one second. The history of Rochester
as a community, for those of us who grew up here and
were here for a long time, involved a, you know, a
city with about three hundred fifty thousand people
in the mid '50s, which has, through a number of
factors, shrunk in size to a city of two hundred
twenty-five thousand people. And there's been a
migration out to the suburbs.
And at least it's my sense,
and that's why I'd just be interested in the point
of the view of the migration of families in which
the head of a household is a union member, whether
you have any information about the pattern of
migration in the northwest portion of Rochester into
Greece, into the adjacent community, because it
certainly seems to me -- I've represented Greece for
a decade -- that many of the families who live in
the suburban tracts that were built in the '60s and
early '70s in Greece migrated out of the Charlotte
community. Do you get that sense?
KEN WARNER: I definitely do
that get sense, and I think you have to view -- and
I would urge people to view that area as one
community, because there are those connections
between the people that are in Greece and the people
who are in Charlotte. That goes back generations.
I think you're absolutely right.
MR. DOLLINGER: Okay.
Thanks.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you very
much. Terence Spencer. Bill Carpenter will be
next.
TERENCE SPENCER: Good
morning. My name is Terence J. Spencer. I live in
the Town of Williamson in Wayne County, and I
appreciate the opportunity to express my views here.
The real question is not how to draw new districts
but why we still have them at all.
Districting is the only voter
manipulation apparatus left from the time of
property ownership requirements, sex and color
discrimination and the poll tax. Later distorting
influences like large campaign donations and free
spending lobbyists are under attack, but we still
tolerate these arbitrary geographic units. At first
they were not even equal. The Supreme Court didn't
require that reform until 1962. The unfortunate
result has been increased gerrymandering.
Both major parties this year
proposed gerrymandered maps of the New York
legislature body each dominates designed to enhance
their control. Who suffers when they invent
Congressional gerrymanders eliminating two seats?
It will likely depend, as it did ten years ago, on
incumbent congressman's contributions to state
campaign committees.
Only a tiny fraction of
contests at any level are now competitive. So
Congress requires and the court approves
gerrymanders which address social problems. The
court even sees nothing wrong with drawing lines to
assist incumbents or protect partisan advantage.
Nothing wrong.
The great Republican
experiment in representative government launched by
our founders was supposed to avoid both the
injustice of oligarchy and the dangerous
impulsiveness of democracy by trusting the people to
select the best and wisest.
If it hasn't quite worked out,
that is not the founders' fault. Special interests
have always twisted the electoral process to serve
their own ends. The resulting corruption has in
turn led to populist and progressive cures,
sometimes worse than the political diseases.
Petition generated
initiatives, for example, are even more vulnerable
to manipulation by the powerful than our candidates.
A better way to realize the founders' vision is
eliminating districts altogether. If candidates
were elected at large, they would represent areas of
political opinion and possibly even geography
delineated by the voters themselves. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Questions? Thank you very much. Bill Carpenter.
Is Bill here? Dick Calabrese.
DICK CALABRESE: Good
morning. I'm the supervisor to the Town of Gorham
and I represent Ontario County. A lot has been said
about Ontario County. A lot of that I had written
down, so I won't bore you with all of that. But I
would like to bring up four or five different issues
here.
One thing that hasn't been
said is that Ontario County has a population of a
hundred thousand people. That's almost enough to
make a district. You have divided Ontario County
into three districts, leaving us the minority and
all three districts. You put us into three towns of
Monroe County that would make that a majority. We
would never have a representative in Ontario County
that we could elect.
Also Ontario County is
predominantly agriculture, and to mix us with Monroe
County's three towns that has very agricultural and
no voting power for our county in that district
would be a disaster.
Also, I'd like to point out
the fact that redistricting is a hard job. I
realize you got to have a hard time when you go back
and listen to all of this, but we must look at it in
a non-partisan way. I'll give you an example how we
in Ontario County operate.
We operate in a bipartisan way
every day. We have a Republican majority in our
board with a Democratic chairman. We attack the
issues. We don't look at parties. We have business
to do. And I also would like to point out that we
have one of the few counties with Nassau County that
have had job growth in the last ten years. So I
urge you to keep Ontario County whole.
And we can -- you can divide
it to the east and the south to get the hundred and
twenty-three or hundred and thirty thousand people,
but we need to keep Ontario County whole. It's an
agricultural county. We have tourism. We do have
industry. The argument that you have three
representation will help you is a false argument
because we'll never be able to elect somebody to
represent us. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Questions?
MR. DOLLINGER: Just one.
Mr. Calabrese, and I appreciate your comments, and
we've heard a number of times about counties and
communities not having the political wherewithal
when they're in the minority when because of
reapportionment, they end up with only a small
portion of the district. I'm always reminded of
that. We have a neat little example of that right
here in the Rochester Monroe County area.
In the 1992 Assembly
reapportionment there was a district created that
included Pittsford and Mendon and Henrietta and Rush
I believe in Monroe County and then Livingston
County and part of Allegany County. And that was a
district which had about two-thirds of the
representation in that district, I think, based on
the 1992 numbers came from Monroe County. And it
would have been easy for someone in Livingston
County to say we'll never elect anybody, all the
population is in Monroe County.
And along came a guy named
Jerry Johnson from Livingston County who won the
Republican primary and then won the election, and
that seat has continued to be held to this day by
someone from Livingston County.
So the mere fact that a county
is apportioned with a larger population neighbor,
the voters can be very fickle, Mr. Calabrese, as you
well know as an elected official, and sure enough
they may actually decide that they like somebody
from the smaller county, and they get a good
candidate, and sure enough, a district that by the
numbers, so to speak, would have a Monroe County
representative for the last decade has been
represented by a Livingston representative.
Sometimes those voters may have more insight than we
give them credit for.
DICK CALABRESE: I appreciate
your comment, but may I dispute that?
MR. DOLLINGER: Absolutely.
DICK CALABRESE: You're
dividing Ontario County up in three ways, not two
ways. There would be a big difference if this is
only two ways, but when you divide it up three ways,
you're taking away everything. You're just
stripping us.
I'm here to say I'm not
worried about who's going to represent me, whether
it's a Whig, a Democrat or Republican. I'm not
worried about that. We'll take care of that. All
I'm worried about is Ontario County is going to be
represented in Albany by the hundred thousand people
that we have. And the way it's been drawn right
now, I can guarantee you that we won't. Thank you.
MR. DOLLINGER: Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you, sir.
Jack Richter, supervisor of the Town of Victor.
JACK RICHTER: Good morning.
Thank you. As supervisor of the Town of Victor, I'm
here to speak to you on the Assembly district
alignment and the way it's proposed, and continuing
with the Ontario County representation, I assure you
it will be brief and perhaps with some levity at the
same time if you so allow.
I did hear Assemblyman
Ortloff's introduction regarding the Titanic, and I
apologize for only being one of the chairs on the
deck. And I also heard Assemblyman Parment's
comments about the difficulty of which counties get
divided and which don't. And the task you have
before you is huge; however, I felt it necessary to
come here and clarify perhaps my testimony when I
spoke to you last time that you were in Rochester.
And my testimony included
comments about the fact that the Town of Victor was
the only town of sixteen towns and two cities, the
only town not in the same Assembly strict, and I
referred to it as being the odd man out. I also ask
that you make Ontario County whole.
Well, you got it half right
because I'm no longer the odd man out and I won't be
lonely anymore because you've given me some other
Ontario County towns to be in the same Assembly
district. But I just want to reemphasize the second
point that I had made last time, and that is we
would certainly appreciate your consideration for
making Ontario County whole.
As the board of supervisors,
we twenty-one supervisors do serve impartially,
non-partisan, as Supervisor Calabrese indicated.
That seems to be the location where we have the most
need for lobbying representation from our
assemblyman -- assemblymen at this time. If it's at
all possible I'd ask you to reconsider that,
understanding the need that some counties have to be
split. Thank you very much for your patience and
your time, and good luck.
MR. DOLLINGER: Just one
thing. I'd just like to thank the supervisor for
his testimony the first time. I think it's edifying
to us to hear from the people on the ground about
the relationships with their districts. I think
your testimony when you talked about your
relationship with Assemblyman Koon and how it has
been a good relationship, a productive one, but
because of regional and community of interest
reasons, you were more comfortable lying with
another -- with the rest of Ontario County.
Frankly, that's just the kind of testimony I think
is most beneficial to us, so thank you.
JACK RICHTER: Thank you,
Senator, and my feelings are the same today, and I
didn't reiterate that as I did earlier.
MR. DOLLINGER: It's not who,
it's where.
MR. ORTLOFF: Supervisor, I
thank you, too. I want to clarify my allusion to
the deck chairs on the Titanic. I wasn't -- I would
not for a minute suggest that the shape or
arrangement of the deck chairs on any boat, much
less the ship of state, was unimportant.
My suggestion was that because
there's a gaping hole in the bottom, the ship is
listing. And furthermore, this has now become a
game of musical chairs because someone has come
along in the night and taken one of those deck
chairs away, and the problem of trying to figure out
which one of the upstate members to kill off is
exceedingly difficult and probably results in a lot
of these crazy lines that you see. If we had our
seat back, I think your job and mine would be a
whole lot easier.
JACK RICHTER: Thank you for
that clarification, and I accept that. I consider
it very important to be a chair on the deck, and I
appreciate your levity. Thank you.
MR. PARMENT: Thank you. The
next witness is Blair Horner with William Andrews on
deck.
MR. ORTLOFF: Mr. Chairman,
I'm going to have to excuse myself. Long before
this meeting was scheduled, I scheduled a meeting of
a board of which I'm the chairman in Plattsburgh.
And that, that obligation is going to require me to
leave in just a moment. So if I disrupt the
proceedings by my leaving, I apologize. And if I
miss important testimony, I assure you I'll read it
tomorrow when we get to Brooklyn. Thank you.
MR. PARMENT: Mr. Ortloff, on
your long drive back to Plattsburgh --
MR. ORTLOFF: I'll fly.
MR. PARMENT: -- think about
the problem on the Titanic that was exacerbated by
the ice flow was that there weren't enough life
boats, as I recall.
MR. ORTLOFF: That's exactly
right. You see you've created these life boats with
these empty districts, and in taking the chairs
away, you've created one too few life boats. Thank
you so much, Mr. Chairman, for helping complete the
analogy.
MR. DOLLINGER: Are we
shooting a feature film here, gentlemen?
BLAIR HORNER: That's an
extremely tough act to follow.
MR. DOLLINGER: But you'll
try to follow it.
BLAIR HORNER: Since I'm here
anyway. Let me just summarize my testimony. You
already have some sense of our view on this, but let
me once again reiterate that by summarizing our
testimony that we had asked in the summer that the
task force accomplish two goals. One is to have an
open process. Essentially we've had a closed
process.
Secondly, that you maximize
the number of competitive districts. We think that
we've received an overwhelming number of districts
that are controlled by one political party or the
other in terms of the districting. And we argued,
as we mentioned in our testimony, there were two few
hearings the first time around hearings. There are
too few hearings the second time around. They've
all been during the day, and that makes it extremely
difficult for the ordinary citizen to participate
and express their point of view.
I was heartened to hear that
you might be having another hearing, but to be
perfectly honest, one additional hearing in the
capital district probably doesn't do it for us.
Also the website we found to
be inaccessible to all but the most knowledgeable
and hard working, and hard working members of New
York. I was interested in some of the comments made
about a bulletin board, a way for citizens to have
access, but also urge you to consider, unless you've
done this and I don't know about it, using your
franking privileges to do a statewide mailing to all
of the constituents and alert them to the hearing
process because it is incredibly important and
people need to know what's going on.
On the issue of competitive
districts, we think that the better citizen input,
even if you add some, does not supplant the need for
more competitive districts. I reiterate the
findings that we have in our testimony. The current
district lines, two hundred and eleven districts,
twenty-nine of them have closed enrollments. On the
proposed district lines of two hundred twelve, there
were only thirty districts that are competitive.
Since you're not holding
hearings or at least not any scheduled hearings for
the vast upstate region between Rochester and the
Bronx, we thought that we would add kind of that
regional summary for you in terms of the
competitiveness. Of the sixty-two Senate Assembly
districts in the greater upstate area outside
Western New York, I will define that, only seventeen
are competitive. Fourteen Assembly -- of the
forty-five Assembly seats, fourteen of them are
competitive; of the seventeen Senate seats, only
three.
In our analysis you
deliberately design districts as much as possible
that enhance one-party control in as many districts
as possible. Your skillful use of time tested
incumbent detection tools, cracking and packing
districts to dilute the minority and secure the
majority are inimitable to the public's interest in
a democracy.
As a result, NYPIRG proposes
the plan and urges the task force and the
legislature to can the plan and designate instead an
independent entity to develop a new one.
Just two reactions to other
comments earlier. When the league testified, there
was a discussion about the Herkimer hat on the Abe
Lincoln for Senate district 51. Just to make it
clear to the members of the audience, said district
51 not only covers Herkimer, but covers the Hudson
Valley all the way to Ithaca, one.
And secondly, Assemblyman
Ortloff's comments that the league was only
commenting on the census, he didn't talk
specifically about her comments, but NYPIRG's
comment and he league have issued joint memoranda on
the issue and analysis on the issue that talks about
both. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
MR. PARMENT: Blair, I don't
want to prolong it because we can talk about this
privately, but I did want to point out to you, my
discovery looking at the graphics that you passed
out yesterday, as I understand your determination of
what is competitive and what is not competitive,
graphically, on your little schematic, my
understanding is that you would say that those areas
that are gray on the schematic are the ones that
could be competitive.
BLAIR HORNER: Those are the
voter tabulation district areas that have
enrollments that are roughly equal.
MR. PARMENT: Right.
BLAIR HORNER: The more red
the district, the more Democratic. The more blue
the district, the more Republican. Clearly
depending on how you put the various colors
together, it really wouldn't matter, is -- you can
have blue areas right next to red areas. It doesn't
have to be merely red.
MR. PARMENT: Well, in this
particular schematic you pictured a pretty sizable
part of what I would consider to be Western New
York, and there are obviously two, perhaps three
very Democratic areas, and the rest of it is pretty
much Republican and there are a couple of gray
areas. And when I look at your gray areas compared
to what you say is competitive, it seems to me that
we've created competitive districts in the gray
areas according to your analysis, and I just pointed
it out because that's how the graphic struck me
after I had the opportunity to review them.
BLAIR HORNER: The maps don't
show population intensity, so you're right. You
look at upstate New York and there's a giant blue
spot on the map. You look at downstate, which I
guess we did not hand out yesterday, obviously in
the City of New York and some areas in the suburbs,
it's much more red.
But I'll give you an example.
Assembly district 131 is an oddly shaped district
that kind of wraps around Assembly district 133. So
Assembly district 131 is by our definition not
competitive. In other words, the enrollment between
Democrat versus Republican is more than -- greater
than ten percent.
Now, that oddly shaped
district I understand you have some towns together
and all that and state Constitutional issue, but it
doesn't have to look like the jaws of life. It
could easily have been designed a different way to,
in fact, make that district more competitive and
arguably would have been able to make other
districts next to it more competitive, as well.
But your point is, you know --
I agree that again some parts of upstate New York
there are, you know -- if you just look at it in
terms of pure color, since we don't have population
density information, would look like what you're
saying, but you clearly have some control in both
the Senate and Assembly.
I mean, again, Senate
districts -- not to pick on anyone in the room, but
Senate districts 56 and 55 are, based on our
analysis, not competitive. They're right next to
each other. You could make them both competitive.
MR. PARMENT: Let me just
respond to your "jaws of life" comment. I like that
description. I think you probably know a great deal
of that particular silhouette, that you call it, the
plan is a response to the Voting Rights Act, and the
requirement that's imposed on us to consider the
creation of majority/minority districts, and of
course in the core area of Rochester this plan does
suggest a district that is a majority/minority
district that is a historic district and a
continuation of a district.
And so this particular jaws of
life is a second response really to that pattern of
settlement that is something that we need to, to
consider in regard to the Voting Rights Act, and
perhaps a subsidiary to it, the first derivative of
it, but, in fact, the map does have the influence
of, of our need to consider under the Voting Rights
Act a creation of a majority voting district.
BLAIR HORNER: I certainly am
not going to argue that you shouldn't follow the
Voting Rights Act. There is other Assembly
districts in other parts of the state; Assembly
district 106 compared with the Assembly district
108, the capital district area both next to each
other, both not competitive.
I don't think there's voting
right issues in 106, but I mean, 1 -- yeah, 106.
But again, our argument isn't that you violate the
US Constitution, or that you violate the state
Constitution, just that you maximize the number of
competitive districts. We think you could have done
more in that area than has turned out.
MR. DOLLINGER: Blair, in
your discussion about competitive districts, have
you used voter enrollment numbers?
BLAIR HORNER: We have only
used voter enrollment.
MR. DOLLINGER: Have you done
any analysis of what happens if you throw the
independent voters into the mix?
BLAIR HORNER: No, actually,
this is -- I admit voter enrollment data is a crude
tool. I think yesterday Senator Parment said that
he didn't use voter enrollment information. I
assume that some voter information was used. I
guess maybe it wasn't voter enrollment.
From our perspective looking
at independents wouldn't help us be able to figure
out -- again, from our crude perspective, we don't
have the same access to the information that the
task force does and the majorities do, the
independents, because you don't know where the
independents are politically, and so this is our
best tool that we could come up with.
MR. DOLLINGER: Have you had
any access to the political trend data; the
elections and the results of the elections?
BLAIR HORNER: No. That's
beyond our capability to deal with. If we had more
money we could do it, but --
MR. DOLLINGER: It's my
understanding that information is available, and it
has been made available, and I'm not -- I'm not
suggesting that you had to do it. I'm just -- and I
know that the resources wouldn't be available, but
the difficulty with just the political enrollment
data is that it may suggest one result while full
analysis -- and again, I understand the limitations
that NYPIRG has, but full analysis of the voter
trend data which includes people jumping over party
lines, where independents come down gives you in
some cases a picture, a picture that differs from
the analysis --
BLAIR HORNER: Those are all
good points. We certainly agree with that. If we
were able to do more, we would certainly have done
that. But again, in our first testimony last summer
I pointed out that in the last twenty years
twenty-five incumbents have been beaten in the
general election.
So it leads us to conclude
that our analysis, though crude, does reflect what
is actually going on, which is the majority in both
houses are doing what they can to maximize their
power in both houses and protect their incumbents,
which we would expect the majority in both houses to
do, and one of the reasons why we argued that
non-partisan redistricting commission should be
making these lines up. But I think the crude tool
does point out and does at least illuminate to some
extent why it is -- one of the reasons why it is
that we have such a staggeringly high
reelection rate.
MR. DOLLINGER: Just one
final question, so -- I know we hear lots of
discussion about non-partisan this and that. How do
we get a non-partisan redistricting commission?
BLAIR HORNER: There's two
paths to go. One would be to amend the state
Constitution and take the power of redistricting
away from the legislature and empower it either to
the courts or to an entity chosen in some fashion
that would be as non-partisan as possible.
MR. SKELOS: Can I just
interrupt? The people in the State of New York do
not opt to have a Constitutional convention.
BLAIR HORNER: They chose in
1997 not to.
MR. SKELOS: So that would
have been an opportunity perhaps to amend it, but
the people in the State of New York opted not to
have a Constitutional convention.
BLAIR HORNER: That's exactly
right.
MR. SKELOS: They felt
basically that the way things were operating in the
State of New York was okay and the Constitution did
not need to be amended.
BLAIR HORNER: I would agree
with you up to the last clause, that they thought
everything was so hunky dory.
MR. SKELOS: I'm not saying
everything. I'm just saying basically that the
Constitution did not need to be amended.
BLAIR HORNER: So that is
certainly what happened. The voters rejected the
opportunity for a Constitutional convention for lot
of reasons, some of which may be this.
The second way to do it would
be for the legislature to follow an Iowa law, which
is to create a non-partisan redistricting task force
which is prohibited from using voter affiliation
information in any form in terms of drafting lines,
and the legislators went from thumbs up or down on
the plan, and that those appointees are -- according
to Iowa, are individuals who have technical
expertise, but are not affiliated in any discernible
way with the majorities in either house or parties.
So there's two ways to go. The second one is what
we had urged you to do.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
MR. HEDGES: One additional
question. In your analysis is the state
Congressional configuration that is currently in
place, is that meeting your test for
competitiveness?
BLAIR HORNER: We have not
looked at that.
MR. HEDGES: I would urge you
to do so because that was a plan drawn by a state
court --
BLAIR HORNER: I would
gladly --
MR. HEDGES: -- and obviously
meets your needs, and I don't think it would show
anything different.
BLAIR HORNER: Whether or not
the courts drafted the lines with an eye toward
competitiveness, I don't know, but I would gladly
take a look at the Congressional lines.
MR. HEDGES: I think you'll
find that they consciously chose not to rather to
reflect seniority because that maximizes New York's
power in the Congress.
BLAIR HORNER: And that is the
court's prerogative to do that. There's nothing
illegal about looking at incumbency and seniority in
the Congress, but that's not what we think is right.
What we think is right is that we have more
competitiveness groups and not fewer, but we'll
gladly look at the Congressional lines and as best I
can within the constraints I have try to have some
comments for you the next time I see you.
MR. PARMENT: Blair, one more
point. You mentioned the 106th in terms of the
majority and minority Voting Rights Act. The 106th
does have an element that addresses the Voting
Rights Act in that river type districts along the
river cities, small cities, but the African American
population, City of Troy and City of Albany are
deliberately kept together in this proposal to
provide the opportunity for that community to, to
vote in one voice. And it does create perhaps an
awkward division of the City of Albany, but the
division is based on our attempt to respond to a
concern of the Voting Rights Act.
BLAIR HORNER: All right.
MR. SKELOS: William
Andrews, and Robert Heineman will be next.
WILLIAM ANDREWS: My name is
William Andrews. I'm and professor of political
science emeritus at the State University of New York
College at Brockport. And I'm active in civic
affairs in the Village of Brockport and the Town of
Sweden.
And I want to start off by
saying I don't envy you gentlemen your task.
Redistricting is very difficult. And I've heard a
lot of intractable problems this morning, and I
haven't heard any very easy solutions. So I'm going
to give you a small simple problem, and I'm going to
propose a small simple solution.
And I'm here to support the
position that the Town of Sweden belongs in the
139th district rather than in the 134th Assembly
district principally on the grounds that it forms a
more logical and cohesive community of interest with
its neighbors to the north and west than it would
with those to the east especially, especially the
Town of Greece that would dominate this new 134th
district.
And I, I hasten to add that
it's not because we don't want to have Joe Robach
representing us. We've heard many good things about
him, and I agree with them entirely. He's a
graduate of the department of political science at
Brockport that I founded in 1967, and I respect and
admire him, but the problem is that he would have
unnecessary difficulty representing adequately our
town at the same time that he would be doing justice
to the interests of a city the size and character of
the Town of Greece.
To place us in the same
district as the Town of Greece would be comparable
to putting us to bed with a gorilla. Greece is many
times as populace as Sweden. It abuts the City of
Rochester and is very intimately integrated into
that metropolis. It has almost nothing in common
with the Town of Sweden. On the other hand, the
Towns of Hamlin and Clarkson immediately to the
north of us, which would remain in this new 139th
district, are very much a part of a community of
interest with Sweden.
Brockport is a market center
for residents of those towns. They shop at our
Wegmans and at our Wal-Mart and our Ames and on our
Main Street. They send their children to the
Brockport Central Schools, and many earn their
livings at the college and other employers in
Brockport. They support the same recreation
commission and the same public library. Clarkson is
part of the Brockport postal and fire and ambulance
districts and so on.
In innumerable ways those
towns form a single community. Those three towns
also have much more in common with their neighbors
to the west in the proposed in the 139th district
than they have with their neighbors to the east.
They and the other two towns on the west edge of the
county have a much more rural character than have
the dominant areas of this new 134th district. They
are much more independent than the City of
Rochester.
Brockport has a viable
downtown business district. Sweden has its own
economic base; the college, agriculturally based
industries and farming. Unlike Greece it is not a
satellite of Rochester.
Of course these district lines
must be redrawn to account for the population
changes. However, a more logical and reasonable
solution in my opinion would be to place the Town of
Parma in the same district with Greece. It adjoins
that city. Some of its children attend Greece
schools.
The Town of Parma is much more
a bed reach suburb for Greece and Rochester than is
the Town of Sweden. Moreover, the new 134th
district would be much more compact with the
inclusion of Parma than it would with Sweden. When
you look at the map over there, it looks like Greece
is reaching out and grabbing Sweden and pulling it
into its orbit.
MR. HOPPE: And none of the
countries in between complained?
WILLIAM ANDREWS: Well,
nobody from Spencerport is here. I'll leave it up
to them to complain.
MR. HOPPE: That was none of
the countries.
WILLIAM ANDREWS: The
countries?
MR. PARMENT: Sweden and
Greece.
WILLIAM ANDREWS: Oh. Don't
ask -- I'm also a Village of Brockport historian
emeritus, so don't ask me to explain where the name
Sweden came from. But Greece and Sweden, I get your
joke. I'm sorry. I'm a little slow.
In any case, I have a simple
solution. Place Parma in the 134th district and
Sweden in the 139th district, and don't worry about
all the other countries in between, and you will
maintain the integrity of the communities of
interest of both of those towns and the principal
geographic compactness. Thank you very much.
MR. SKELOS: Robert Heineman.
Next will be George Barry.
ROBERT HEINEMAN: Thank you
for giving me this opportunity to speak. I'm Bob
Heineman, and I'm currently an Allegany County
legislator and professor of political science in
Alfred University. I shall address my remarks today
to the proposed redistricting plan for the New York
State Assembly.
I believe that there are
serious Constitutional difficulties with this
proposal. First, I think it likely that the courts
will find problems with the plan's use of the ten
percent leeway that the courts have in the past
allowed in terms of plus or minus five percent
deviation and districts of absolute equality.
Obviously uniform equality is neither possible nor
justified.
It is my understanding that
the courts have allowed deviations of five percent
above and five percent below the mean size of the
district. There are, of course, practical reasons
for such variation. If an area has had low
population change, it negates the need to go to the
expense and efforts of redistricting. Geography may
be such that extraordinarily large districts can be
avoided. Slight deviations may enable better
representation to minorities. Other small
variations from the norm may be justified by the
need to preserve local government boundaries.
It seems highly unlikely,
however, that the courts will look favorably on the
deliberate use of this margin of flexibility to
specifically disadvantage one area or one party.
Consistently large districts in upstate New York and
the smaller districts in the downstate area appear
to be an attempt to do exactly that.
Second, this proposal carries
a heavy partisan flavor. It's strange credulity to
think that it's been by pure chance that almost half
the Republicans in the Assembly have been placed in
redrawn districts in which two incumbents have to
run against each other.
This outcome is even more
egregious which it is understood that the Democrats
already outnumber their opposition two to one in the
Assembly. In our area, for example, one incumbent
placed in such a district literally lives on the
town line separating the contested district from a
new vacant district. His house is in one district
and his farmland is in the vacant district.
Courts, of course, have been
uniformly reluctant to enter into the partisan
thicket. But I believe that this total package with
its misuse of deviation percentage and its
discrimination against rural and small upstate New
York may invite rigorous judicial scrutiny.
Finally, the plan does place
the interests of upstate New York at a disadvantage.
As a legislator from a small rural county, I witness
every day the fact that our interests differ
substantially from those in the large metropolitan
downstate areas. And I need only mention here the
issues of gun control, highway funding, health care
delivery, property tax exemptions and volunteer
emergency services. This plan places us at an even
greater disadvantage.
I was in the audience at the
Supreme Court when the landmark case of Baker v Carl
was argued. As many of you know, it was that case
that the court first ruled that state legislative
district must be equal in population. The refusal
of states to act have resulted in malapportionment
that unfairly disadvantaged urban and suburban
areas.
Today we seem to have come
full circle. Through conscious manipulation of
district lines, we are now at a proposal that
unfairly burdens the small cities and rural areas.
My opinion is neither approach is equitable or
Constitutionally acceptable. I urge you to
reconsider this proposal. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Questions? Thank you, sir. George Barry, and Marie
Poinan will be next.
GEORGE BARRY: Yes. I'm
George Barry. I live in the 19th ward. I'm a
member of Common Cause, and a strong advocate of
Jeffersonian democracy. Accountability to the
voters should be the prime consideration of New
York's redistricting committees.
Examination of the plans that
they presented reveals that that wasn't even a
consideration. I will skip the next part because I
concur with NYPIRG, as does Common Cause, and I
agree myself that it is -- the plan is unfair. It
prevents most of our citizens from even fairly
discussing the issues in front of them.
We're told that democracy
reigns in Albany. In truth, we're given a
plutocracy ruled by a triumvirate; the governor,
leader of the Assembly, the leader of the Senate.
Our state's arcane and secretive system demands that
our legislators serve them, and the corporate
lobbyist, the fat cats who buy the government by
bribery, coerced by the elected officials. I'll
point out the continue fund raisers during the
legislative systems -- legislative session on which
only the fat cats are invited.
To the ensure continuation of
the plutocracy, the new lines make certain that
eighty-six percent of the seats will occur without a
fair opportunity to discuss the issues. And the
minority party in each house cannot even introduce a
bill, and minor parties are effectively outlawed.
Meanwhile, an apathetic
citizenry allows an aristocratic few to make -- to
elect their representatives. No wonder over half of
the potential voters are cynical and won't even
exercise their right of suffrage, even though they
have the power to change the system.
Finally, I say let's scratch
this whole system, have a new look at legislative
districts, hopefully by a non-partisan group and get
rid of this plutocracy preservation plan that we
have in front of us.
MR. SKELOS: Is Marie here?
John Noble will be next.
MR. HOPPE: I believe he
left.
MR. SKELOS: Robert Colby
will be next.
MARIE POINAN: Good
afternoon, gentlemen. While I can't speak in broad
brush strokes in terms of redistricting, I can only
speak to my corner of the world which is the
Charlotte neighborhood which is the currently the
23rd ward of the City of Rochester and the west side
of the Genesee River.
Just by way of clarification,
I was born on the west side of the Genesee River. I
now live on the east side of the Genesee River, and
it is a natural dividing line, but I'm here to speak
primarily about the redistricting of the 134th
district which is Assemblyman Robach's district, and
Charlotte naturally represents the western part of
the Genesee River.
Historically speaking, the
Port of Charlotte existed from 1805, founded by
President Thomas Jefferson. It was at that time
part of the Town of Greece. Those of us who have
contact in Charlotte, I am now a business owner in
the Charlotte neighborhood, consider ourselves a
village within a city on the west side of the
Genesee River. And that's why I'm here to speak on
behalf of Assemblyman Robach.
Since I own a business in the
Charlotte area, I am a current member and a past
officer of the local business association known as
the Harbor Merchants Association. I have had the
opportunity to work with Mr. Robach on many
occasions, and he has always been a vital and vocal
part of the many impending changes, revitalization
of, and economic development at Ontario Beach Park,
the Port of Rochester and along the Genesee
Riverfront.
I have also had the pleasure
of serving with Joe as a member of Mayor Johnson's
harbor advisory subcommittee on economic development
and tourism during 2000, 2001.
Our committee consisted of a
group of enthusiastic and committed volunteers who
participated in the planning process envisioning
session to identify and implement strategies that
would draw new business and tourists to the harbor
area in Rochester.
Joe was specifically chosen to
be a part of this subcommittee because of his
long-standing personal commitment to a long overdue
emphasis to Rochester's greatest natural resource,
its waterfront. To deny him the opportunity of
seeing the fruits of his labors over these many
years would be an unfortunate loss both for him and
the community which he has so diligently
represented.
As a lifelong resident of the
area which he now represents, Joe is intimately
involved in the community, as was his father, Roger,
before him. He knows his constituents as both
friends and neighbors. He is a long-standing
members of the Ontario Beach Park Program Committee,
another all-volunteer organization within the
Charlotte community that sponsors free events and
concerts that occur at the park in Charlotte.
He attends monthly meetings
and lends his support in whatever way it is
necessary. The very fact that the historic 1931
bathhouse at Ontario Beach Park bears the name the
Roger Robach Community Center speaks volumes about
the affection and trust with which the Charlotte
community regards the Robach family and their
dedication to this area.
I do hope this task force can
find a solution that would realign this legislative
district in such a way as to allow Joe Robach to
continue to be our representative. Joe Robach not
only listens to, he also cares about his
constituents, not just as their legislative voice,
but as their friend, and we would feel his loss in
the Assembly for years to come in the Charlotte
area.
I, for one, would personally
miss his keen insight and his dedication to the
issues which have faced us over the past years.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity of
bringing our concerns of the neighborhood to your
attention. Once again, I do not live in his
district.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
MR. PARMENT: One question.
Would you hazard to describe the southern boundary
of Charlotte for me?
MARIE POINAN: As it stands
now, it butts up against the 10th ward which is
Maplewood which is also a part of Joe's district.
His district includes Charlotte, part of the
Maplewood community. I can't tell you the
southernmost boundary.
A VOICE: I think it's Dryden
Park.
MARIE POINAN: But the
Charlotte community has always been not only the
23rd ward, but historically been a part of the Town
of Greece. We have an 1822 lighthouse which is the
symbol for the Town of Greece.
So even though we are
affiliated with the City of Rochester, we still
consider ourselves a village within the City of
Rochester. So it's bad enough that we would be
losing from four down to three representatives for
the city. I just personally have reason to be here
to say that historically that district belongs as
part of Greece. And since we can't do all of the
waterfront as one district the way you're talking
about the St. Lawrence River, which obviously makes
sense, that would make Irondequoit, Greece and
Charlotte all one district, since that hasn't
happened, the natural dividing line of the Genesee
River should remain in place, and Charlotte should
be part of the western district.
MR. PARMENT: Dryden Park
would be the southern --
MARIE POINAN: That's not part
of Charlotte. Charlotte is the 23rd ward and Dryden
Park is the 10th ward.
A VOICE: The southern line
of Charlotte is the railroad up there by the --
MARIE POINAN: North of the
cemetery. I don't how detailed your map is. The
23rd ward starts north of Riverside at Holy
Sepulchre cemetery.
MR. PARMENT: Basically
you're talking the 23rd ward.
MARIE POINAN: The 23rd ward
is considered Charlotte, yes.
MR. DOLLINGER: Can I just
follow that up? When the city annexed Charlotte --
MARIE POINAN: Much to our
dismay.
MR. DOLLINGER: -- what was
the northern boundary of the city prior to the
annexation?
MARIE POINAN: Well, it moved
historically speaking from Dryden Park, it moved to
Ridge Road. Then when George Eastman wanted to
build Kodak Park, that was part and parcel of the
reason why a lot of Charlotte became part of the
City of Rochester.
MR. DOLLINGER: So the
annexation to your knowledge occurred in two phases;
first from Dryden Park to Ridge, and then it picked
up the second parcel in the second wave of
annexation?
MARIE POINAN: Right. Ridge
Road, and then it went north from there to the
cemetery, and then eventually from the cemetery to
Lake Ontario. In 1916 we all became part of the
City of Rochester.
MR. DOLLINGER: Do you know
why they picked the western boundary of the
annexation?
MARIE POINAN: That I
couldn't tell you. We were -- Charlotte was
historically a part of the Town of Greece.
MR. DOLLINGER: I know how it
moves north, but obviously --
A VOICE: They selected that
side because of the depth of the water and the
tendency for a port.
MR. DOLLINGER: I understand
that, but I'm interested in finding out why they
only went that far west. In other words, we talked
a minute ago about the southern portion of the
boundary. The western portion of the boundary of
Charlotte is the community that I represent in
Greece. If you were walking down the street, you
wouldn't be able to tell the difference where the
city ends and where the Town of Greece begins.
My question is does anybody --
do you know why they picked that Dewey Avenue
portion and then carved it back over closer to the
river, why they picked the western boundary for the
annexation, not the north or the south? I'm talking
why they only went that far west. Do you know?
MARIE POINAN: No, I couldn't
tell you that because even in terms of Beach Avenue
itself the boundary crept -- it just kept going
west, and it kept encompassing the Town of Greece
for whatever reason.
MR. DOLLINGER: Okay.
MARIE POINAN: But no
historic --
MR. DOLLINGER: Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: John Noble is
not here. Robert Colby.
ROBERT COLBY: I feel like --
as some of you up here know, I'm a farmer from
western Monroe County. I feel like this group is
becoming like the farming community of New York
State. As the evening goes on, just like our
history goes on, there's less and less of us here.
I could tell you a lot of hats
that I have wear or have worn over the years to make
me sound like I know what I'm talking about, but I
think the most important aspect is my family has
been in the location we are, and I mean within five
hundred feet since 1802.
We've been farming the same
land, seventh generation, so we have a lot of
history on why things have changed and not changed
on the western side of Monroe County, but instead of
getting specifics about where the lines are drawn
within one road or another road or within townships,
I have six points. I'll try to make them brief and
you can ask questions; six points in a more broad
brush of the proposed redistricting.
One is the upstate versus the
city district, number of representatives. The
balance of cutting up counties. I think some people
are concerned do we cut up a county a lot, do we get
more representation or do we keep counties whole.
The other one is what I call
is making ribbon districts, long narrow districts.
The other one would be use of voters registration is
a thing to consider for drawing lines. Access to
the web is another point I'd like to bring up. And
the importance of culture as a minority to take that
consideration. Let's take the easiest one first.
Everybody has been complaining
apparently -- the advantage of going at the end --
everyone is complaining about the access to the
numbers in your plans on the web. Well, I'm not
very computer literate, but I can tell you I knew
Bill Parment from other situations and I knew he was
head of this committee, so I went to his web page
provided to him by the Assembly office.
I found it very easy to get
the numbers. It just took a long time to download,
but I think the access to the web is a lot better
than what people are representing here. It was
twenty minutes long, but it was easy to get to that
page by going to Bill Parment's page and then going
back to the Assembly page. So I think that's not an
issue.
Voter registration. I don't
think voter registration is in our Constitution
anywhere about how to make districts drawn. I think
that's just somebody's personal choice at the time
of voters. I think the issue about independence, I
think a lot of people just -- especially since we
just passed a law allowing people to register or
blanks, allowing people to register when they redo
the driver's license. So I think the Democrat
versus Republican or Conservative or Independent,
the registration really doesn't reflect anything on
the community and should not be used at all.
I have a -- drawing lines in
my representations here. The ribbon districts -- my
issue is ribbon districts. I think we should try to
avoid them as much as possible. I think it makes it
hard for the representative to get from, say, Monroe
county all the way to Niagara County. And the
Senate districts you have to -- you got to cover
like that. I don't have a problem with that. I
have a very good senator, and I don't want to lose
him. And that's irrelevant. I just think
especially when you get down to some of the Assembly
districts making them a ribbon -- square blocks
would be easier or some shape like that.
Balance of county -- I think
Senator Dollinger has a good point to some degree.
If you make a district -- take a county and give
them all one county, they only have one voice down
in the Assembly. Let's say if that's all that that
person represents, where if you have three, four
assemblymen covering one county, then they got three
or four voices. So if somebody doesn't get along
personally with one of those Senate members from
your organization, like the farm grower
organization, you may find another one that can do
it.
The only concern is if you cut
a county up too much, then the county doesn't have
one representative that is the main purpose -- was
the main focus of their representation of that
district. So I think every county, if -- when
possible should have one person when the majority of
his voting population comes from one district.
But worrying about having, you
know, three versus four, as long as one of those
people have a vote with the majority of their
population base in that county I think is
appropriate. And I know that you've heard kind of
contradictory to that, but it's a balancing act, and
trying to represent a county fairly by having more
representation is better as long as it's not to the
point where nobody has center focus of that.
Now we're getting up to on my
list. The upstate versus downstate representation.
I think the best analysis of that -- I haven't been
able to really cut up the Senate's numbers to find
out if it's the same or different or what, but the
numbers over here on this chart is pretty -- is a
concern of mine.
A better way to look at it,
when I took the numbers and divided them out,
numbers are numbers. You can put them together any
way you want to and make them come out the way you
want to. A more fair way to look at it is if I was
a New York City resident, my vote was worth one, and
I'm an upstate representative, my vote was worth
less than ninety percent of that one person's vote.
In other words, if I was a
citizen of the United States going to Canada, I
could get more money for my buck, but if I was a
Canadian citizen coming to the United States, I'd
have to spend more. Well, my vote in Western New
York is not worth as much as a voter in New York
City.
Another thing I find I know
you can't have everybody have two hundred sixty
thousand Assembly district. I don't know if Channel
21 is here, but they have a game, per se, draw your
own lines. And if you abide by the rules, you can't
cut townships, you can't make every district the
same size. But there's definitely a problem when I
can go to New York City, and you got a lot of
flexibility in there and you don't -- those
districts are constantly consistently smaller. It's
a consistent pattern, and that worries me.
And then the final thing,
getting back to my roots being a farm with two
hundred years of experience of farming Western New
York, celebrating our two hundredth anniversary this
year, having agriculture input. There is some
concern about piecemealing agriculture up with
cities. This goes back to ribboning by cutting out
like Greece and reaching up to Sweden.
I live in a suburb now. Even
though I farm, my farm is in the suburbs, so I
understand I'm not going to have a majority of my
neighbors -- voting neighbors be farmers, but when
you start going out farther than me, I have a
concern that you're not representing the farming
community, as well. I think the same concern is on
the east side. I really think there's an injustice
to the lines drawn on the east side as far as
agriculture representation. That's all I have for
comments.
MR. SKELOS: Questions?
Thank you much, sir. John Piper, Office of Greater
Rochester Association of Realtors. Are you here?
George Gorman. George Gorman. Don Markham. Is Don
Markham here? Patrick Coughlin.
PATRICK COUGHLIN: Sir, good
afternoon and thank you. I was just told by the
ladies out front I've got to wait for about six more
people, so this is a pleasant surprise.
I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to speak to all of you today and thank
you for coming to Rochester. Some of you are coming
home, but it's nice to see new faces here, as well.
I know this is a very long process, but I think, I
think it's a wonderful one.
For the past thirty years
upstate New York has had fair representation in the
Assembly, and I think with our current plan, we seem
to be shortchanged a little bit as far as upstate
goes, but I realize this is a proposal. It's a
first step, and as I was putting together some
comments yesterday, I remembered that my high school
English teacher, Father Bill O'Malley from high
school said to me the only real writing is
rewriting.
In other words, you've got to
start somewhere and you work from there, and I think
this process is perfect. We have a proposal, we're
getting input, and now it's time to start redrawing
the lines a little bit.
I'm the president of the
Canandaigua Chamber of Commerce in Ontario County,
and we represent over eight hundred twenty
businesses in the greater Canandaigua area and also
outside of the city and town itself, and I think you
can probably all say this next phrase with me, and
if you'd like to join in, go ahead. Ontario County
should remain whole. That's the way that we feel.
From the chamber and the
business perspective, we've heard a lot about the
political perspective, and I want to set that aside
for a minute because there are very practical
reasons that Ontario County should remain whole;
some business reasons that we should remain whole.
To give you an indication, the
chamber's coverage area is within the City and Town
of Canandaigua primarily, but forty percent of our
members are outside of the 14424 and 14425 zip
codes. Forty percent of our members are outside of
that immediate coverage area. They're in places
like Hopewell, Bristol, places like the Bloomfields,
Victor, Farmington.
So to adequately represent our
members and their interests, we currently work with
two Assembly people, two state senators, and our
current proposal is just going to add another layer
to that legislative advocacy process, and one that
we would rather not see.
Over the past several years
there's been a concerted effort to make New York
State more business friendly. We're on the right
track. I honestly believe that. We've done a
tremendous amount of good. You look at the growth
in jobs in Ontario County, and I think somebody
alluded to that fact earlier, that we're one of the
few counties in New York State with positive growth
in the manufacturing sector and other sectors. The
proposed delineation unfortunately I don't feel, and
the chamber doesn't feel, is in keeping with that
renewed enthusiasm for making New York State more
business friendly; specifically in the Finger Lakes
area.
So we feel that keeping one
Assembly district in Ontario County would help
create more of a cohesive and a much more strong
business community, and it's going to provide a
strong voice for our business community in Albany if
we know who to talk to.
There was a comment made
earlier, Senator, that it was possible that we could
increase our voice by increasing the numbers of
representatives in the Senate in the Assembly, but
we need to have a leader. We need to rally our
business community behind one individual and, and
work with that one individual. We need to have one
leader, not three or four leaders as the case may
be.
As far as the Senate districts
go, same thing. Everybody say it with me. Ontario
County should remain whole. The city and the town
and Ontario County as an entity in itself possess a
character and identity that are uniquely Finger
Lakes. We heard a few minutes ago about some of the
issues that are facing Ontario County as a whole and
we address them better as a community.
Well, there's a certain
identity and character at the Finger Lakes that we
have, and that's exemplified through the Victorian
downtowns that you see. It's exemplified in the
rolling hills that are overlooking the Finger Lakes.
It's reflected in the vineyards and the wineries
that dot the landscape from Canandaigua all the way
through Skaneateles.
And so the western side of
Ontario County will be looking at the Senate
districts. You can see it has a lot more in common
with Geneva, Auburn and Skaneateles than it does in
places like Attica, Warsaw and Aurora.
The proposal for western
Ontario County to be folded into the 59th Senate
district doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There's
a very strong suburban influence quite honestly in
the 59th district, and although there is some
commonality in the agricultural sector of the
economy, in Ontario County our agricultural sector
is, is much more closely linked with agritourism and
wine production and the tourism industry, the wine
industry.
It makes sense that we remain
whole also as a Senate district, but if it's
impossible to do that, and I know there's a lot of
compromises that are going to have to take place
over the next several weeks, if we can't remain
whole as a Senate district, I ask you to please
reconsider and put us in a Finger Lakes Senate
district. I think it makes more sense given the
benefit of the character and the image and the
identity of Ontario County. I think that is where
we belong, in the Finger Lakes. So thank you very
much for your time, and if you have any questions or
comments, I'd be happy to entertain them.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Thank you very much.
PATRICK COUGHLIN: Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Fred Amato.
FRED AMATO: Good afternoon
distinguished legislators. It's a pleasure to be
here this afternoon, and I appreciate you coming
down here to hear what the people in this area have
to say.
My name is Fred Amato. I've
served in the Monroe County legislature since 1985,
and presently I represent the eastern parts of the
Town of Greece, and for the last ten years I
represented the entire area of the Charlotte
community. And I have experienced some of the
political -- politically motivated gerrymandering in
my legislative career, most recently when the
Republicans chopped off the head of Charlotte for my
area. I no longer have the northern section, but I
have the southern parts, and Charlotte ends at the
cemetery on Lake Avenue.
I am here today to speak on
the New York State Assembly redistricting plan,
especially the 134th district. I won't touch on the
Assembly areas. I just haven't had the time to go
in and look at what's there now. It's been brought
to my attention that the 134th district lines will
exclude the Community of Charlotte, and I call it a
community because that's the people -- what the
people in the area are.
The proposed district will
include the whole entire area of the Town of Greece
plus the areas of Ogden and Sweden. The Charlotte
area, it's the northeastern -- northwestern section
of the City of Rochester and the Charlotte community
is a unique community because it borders the Genesee
River on the east, Lake Ontario on the north, the
Town of Greece on the west and the southern
boundary, as I said, is the cemetery -- northern
part of the cemetery.
This area has been represented
by two generations of the Robach family. Since 1974
Assemblyman Roger J. Robach brought trust and
government -- of government officials from both
Democrats and Republicans in this community. This
trust continues under the leadership of his son,
Joseph Robach, who has served in this area since
1991.
Assemblyman Joseph Robach, he
grew up in the Charlotte community and is currently
living just a few miles away in the Town of Greece.
Charlotte is made up a group of moderate people. It
has one of the most concerned and dedicated
constituents that I have seen in my life. It's the
people of the Charlotte Community Association that
have input to the area of development and they
advocate for the betterment of families in their
area.
This association is dedicated
to making sure that the area is developed in a
fashion that represents the past history and the
future needs of this community. Its leadership has
been mostly registered Republicans, but they're all
dedicated to preservation of families in the
community. The leadership has always supported the
efforts of the Robach family including Roger Robach
and now Joseph Robach.
Mr. Robach has had the -- has
had and continues to have a great relationship with
the residents as a district. He is highly respected
for crusading for the needs of the community. His
experience having grown up in the Charlotte area and
the relationships that he has developed with both
Democrats and Republicans makes him one of the most
respected legislators represented here in the area.
The community deserves to continue to have
representation by someone like Roger Robach --
Joseph Robach. I'm sorry.
One, my first look at this new
district I can say that maybe the Democrats were
trying to be non-partisan, but when I look at the
recent political moves that have taken place in the
Assembly, it's not so.
Yes, Assemblyman Robach did
not support the Democratic leadership in the
Assembly, and he has paid the price by losing some
of his committee chairmanships. Does this
retribution have to continue forever? This divisive
and retribution type of attitude does nothing to
establish the integrity of all the elected
government officials. I'm also very disturbed that
the local area delegation has not stood up in
outrage that this type of retribution, which is both
childish and non-professional, will continue.
I ask that the Assembly
redistricting plan be changed to keep the Charlotte
community within the 134th district and that the
Towns of Sweden and Ogden be reviewed. It's already
recommended that Parma be included in there, and I
strongly support that, plus the area of Charlotte;
all of those communities that border Lake Ontario, a
common characteristic that people -- that are very
important to the people in that area. I want to
thank you all for coming to Rochester and allowing
us to speak before this joint committee in both the
Senate and Assembly. Thank you very much.
MR. DOLLINGER: Fred, just a
couple things, and how long -- and I know you and I
went through a reapportionment in 1991 of the county
legislature, but how long has the county legislative
district that you represent included both Charlotte
and Greece?
FRED AMATO: Only the last ten
years. It started in 1991 when we ran and just got
redistricted where I lost -- before that my entire
district was in the Town of Greece. Now what has
happened, they took out three of the northern
districts. They took the head off Charlotte and
they pushed me further into the Town of Greece
thinking that this was more Republican and they
would be able to take the seat, maybe not this year,
which they didn't take it.
So I won the race last year,
and the plans are purely political on the part of
the Republicans to try and make this a Republican
seat, which it hasn't been for a long time because
before I was there, we had, we had Ralph Bajacki,
former senator.
MR. DOLLINGER: The, the head
of Charlotte that was taken away from your district
in this reapportionment of the county, where did
that go to, Irondequoit or Greece?
FRED AMATO: Greece.
MR. DOLLINGER: The other
question that I had earlier that I asked was the
question of historically, I asked Marie historically
what, if anything, do you know about the creation of
a western border of between Greece and Charlotte or
between Greece and the city?
I guess my concern is, knowing
that area very well, you walk on the ground and you
would see communities meshing into one another, as
you are very well aware looking north on Dewey
Avenue and the Stone Road area, that all merges into
one almost indivisible community.
My question is do you know
anything about how they picked the western boundary
of the city when they did the annexation? Why they
didn't go further west into Greece?
FRED AMATO: Some of it could
have been -- and I don't know exactly. I'd have to
look at the maps from Kodak. It's possible that
Kodak might have owned that land and that the --
George Eastman at the time wanted to keep that area
as -- within the whole boundaries of the City of
Rochester. That's a possibility. I don't know for
sure that that's what happened there, but my house
is a couple streets outside of Charlotte. I'm just
west of it by a few streets.
MR. DOLLINGER: And earlier I
just asked a question about the spillover of
families in the Charlotte community into the
adjacent neighborhoods in Greece, and you've
represented this community for fifteen, twenty
years. Is that your perception, that the family
linkages on the ground are the same?
FRED AMATO: You have a lot of
commonality between the churches in the area, the
grocery stores. Northgate Plaza is someplace that
many community residents go and do some of the
shopping, although it's had some hard times in the
past, but there's a lot of things that are common.
I would say that the income
levels between Charlotte and the eastern parts of
Greece, not the whole Town of Greece, I would say
the income levels for those two areas are
approximately the same. We probably have the same
range of cost of houses in those areas, and you have
some areas that need some work, and you have some
areas that have been renovated where they're in
really good shape.
MR. DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
you.
MR. PARMENT: Mr. Chairman,
one of the things that I did want to respond to your
statement, I understand what you're saying. I think
it would be wrong for me not to put on the record
that there's no retribution against Mr. Robach in
this plan.
This plan basically results
from a combination of population problems, but
principally the fact that the four current
representatives who share a portion of the City of
Rochester's representative base have a combined
population, which is forty thousand individuals
short of the required population to make four
districts; that therefore becomes necessary to add
population to the existing four seats.
And this plan chose to do that
by adding Ogden and Sweden, Riga and Rush to those
four existing districts to bring them to the total
population requirement for four districts. And I
personally regret that Mr. Robach's district does
not include Charlotte, but I feel it would be a
logical combination of community, and continuation
of the pattern of representation would be desirable
by the people in that area, obviously, and would be
good for the community.
However, we're not really at
liberty to redistrict districts that don't have
requisite population. Despite Mr. Ortloff's claim
that this is a result of transfer of seats in New
York City, I can assure you that the problem with
Rochester population-wise is that Rochester has lost
population and the rest of the state grew in
population.
Consequently, that combination
of factors requires that the four seats that
currently share Rochester need to increase by
approximately forty thousand individuals, and we
have chosen this particular combination, and perhaps
as we move through the plan we will be able to find
another combination that would be more attractive to
the people in your community and, and particularly
in Charlotte, but I would want to reiterate once
again for the record that there was no retribution
against Mr. Robach in this plan.
FRED AMATO: I respect your
opinion, although -- you may be the one person that
wasn't trying to do anything against him, although
I'm convinced that there is retribution against him,
but I do respect your opinion.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you.
Nicki Miller. Is Nicki Millor here?
NICKI MILLOR: Good
afternoon. My name is Nicki Millor. I'm a resident
of Pittsford, and I'm speaking as a resident and
citizen of the community.
Thank you, members of the task
force, for this opportunity to present testimony
prior to your proposal to create the 130th Assembly
district. I'm a resident of the Town of Pittsford
and currently a member of the 136th Assembly
district.
When I saw the graphic image
of the redrawn district lines in the Democrat and
Chronicle on March 2nd, my immediate response was
yes, this makes sense. I'm speaking in strong
support for creating new districts. As I examined
the geographic boundaries of the proposed 130th
Assembly district, I recognized that it makes sense
to have a cohesive Assembly district geographically
which would allow the Pittsford residents and
residents of communities of similar interest to be
heard more clearly by our elected representatives.
Given that most of the
population will come from Pittsford, Mendon, Victor
and Henrietta, the proposed 130th Assembly district
will be inclusive of those residents with similar
issues and need to be well represented.
I have lived in Pittsford for
nineteen years in a neighborhood bounded by routes
96 and 64. These were corridors between the
communities of Pittsford, Mendon, Victor, the
Bloomfields, Bristol and Naples. As suburban sprawl
moves east to the south along these corridors, I'm
concerned that development of the area coordinate so
that the natural beauty of the area is not
sacrificed.
I and my husband enjoy the
recreation and resources south of Pittsford and want
these protected. We have vacationed at Bristol
Harbor and enjoyed being on the lake. My husband is
a member of the Bristol Mountain ski patrol and the
Genesee Valley Nordic ski patrol. These are units
of the national ski patrol and are volunteer
organizations. We know the terrain around Bristol
Mountain ski area, Cummings Nature Center and Mendon
Ponds Park and Powder Park. We walked the trails as
well as skied in the areas. We've even pruned trees
and cleaned up debris at Cummings Nature Center to
make the trails safer.
We've walked the trails at
Mendon Ponds Park to map out the radio frequencies
and identify areas for access routes for the ski
patrol to facilitate coordination of fire
departments to rescue injured skiers in the park.
And that is ongoing work that we need to continue to
do and coordinate the removal of persons through
Mendon Ponds Park using a cell phone.
I'll just go on the record as
saying if you get lost in Mendon Ponds Park as a
skier or hiker, a cell phone isn't going to do you
much good for help and getting rescue because it's
not the way the system works, and we have been very
active in the ski patrol and using their radio
frequency. The radios controllers have to
coordinate the effort to identify houses on the
outskirts of the parks and to get inside the park,
to remap the park so we can get people safely back
that way.
All of these wonderful
recreational areas are encompassed in the proposed
130th Assembly district. We know what the skiing
public and hikers expects from these public and
private recreational facilities and sites. We know
the kinds of assistance these sites need from the
state to maintain the level of excellence that
exists to continue to provide safe and pleasurable
recreation for persons living in the proposed 130th
Assembly district.
We applaud the improvements
made at the Bristol Mountain ski area over the last
twenty years. Skiing is a major recreational
pursuit and economic draw not only for persons who
live in the proposed district, but also for skiers
from as far away as Cleveland. Almost every weekend
five bus loads of skiers make their way to the
slopes and enjoy the skiing not found west of
Bristol until you get to the Rockies. These skiers
contribute to the economics of the area.
The growth of the malls and
marketplace in Henrietta and Eastview and
Cobblestone Malls in Victor are two anchors of
shopping and services for the proposed district.
When I moved to Pittsford almost twenty years ago
from northern California, one of the draws was the
proximity to shopping and familiar national stores
at Eastview Mall. I've enjoyed having access to
major department stores, and more recently BJ's and
Target. However, I am concerned about future growth
and the impact on traffic in the areas as well as
the loss of trees and the natural habitat for the
deer, pheasant and rabbits that live in the areas
that the malls are replacing.
For example, there is
discussion of building a new off ramp at Victor on
Route 490 to handle the traffic congestion at
Eastview Mall. So having these huge malls in the
same geographic Assembly district would make sense
to manage future growth and changes in the natural
habitat as well as the human habitat. The Route 96
corridor between Pittsford and Victor have seen
tremendous growth in office parks as well as strip
malls.
The character of this formerly
rural and residential area is being swallowed by
rapid development that although it may be good for
the economy, we need to have one voice in Albany to
represent the many constituents who live and work
and shop in this corridor and assist with the
planning and coordination of resource use and
traffic patterns.
The proposed 130th Assembly
district also includes another transportation
corridor that is rapidly changing as small
industries seek space to grow. That is Routes 5 and
20 crossing Avon, Lima and the Bloomfields to the
east and west and connecting with Route 64 and 65
through Henrietta, Pittsford and Mendon.
Routes 5 and 20 historically
was the principal highway across New York State. It
connects residents and shoppers with resources
conveniently and fairly quickly. As a person
interested in historic houses and antiques, I enjoy
driving this route to check on or check out what is
available, what is being saved and restored to
maintain the historic heritage of the Finger Lakes
area, and what is showing up in the antique
collectives that are becoming more numerous and
larger in size between Avon and Farmington.
I want to see this area
flourish economically, but I also want to see its
natural and historic charm retained so that the
Finger Lakes area thrives as a vacation destination
for New Yorkers and out-of-staters and an area that
I can take friends to visit.
Our wineries are beginning to
rival those in California in winning awards, and
it's our pleasure to show off to out-of-town
visitors. The parks, the wineries and even the
Naples grape festival are places that I and my
friends consider outstanding resources and enjoy
year round.
The area can be assisted to
develop all of its resources by being contained in
one contiguous geographic and legislative district
and having the support of the more populace
neighbors to the north of Routes 5 and 20.
I am strongly in favor of the
Assembly's redistricting plan to create the 130th
Assembly district. It encompasses a large area of
suburban and rural character with persons who are
interdependent on one another for access to the
thruway and interstate highways connecting the
residents and workers to Rochester and points east
and west in New York.
We are bound by our needs for
a strong economic base in the new industry coming to
our area, by our commitment to retain the historic
and natural beauty of the area in our towns and
villages and to enjoy the diverse recreational
pursuits to which we have easy access year round.
We need to have a unified Assembly district so that
our mutual needs can be heard in Albany. Thank you
for providing this opportunity for my voice to be
heard.
MR. SKELOS: Questions? That
completes list. For some of the individuals that
were not here when their names were called so
there's testimony that will be part of the record.
At this time does anybody wish to be heard?
GEORGE GORMAN: I'm George
Gorman. I'm the legislative coordinator of ABATE in
Monroe County, ABATE New York. I would like to
thank the task force on demographics research and
reapportionment for the opportunity to speak on this
issue of redistricting in Monroe County.
I would like to take the time
to address the issue of minority representation in
both the state Senate and State Assembly. The
census has shown a small decrease in the general
population of Monroe County. The census also shows
a growing population of blacks and Hispanics in
Monroe County. Black and Hispanic members of both
the State Assembly and the state Senate do not
reflect the population demographics of these
minorities.
While the current trend or
thought for the past twenty years is to ensure any
minority representation at this level of government
by congregating as many minorities into one district
as possible, ABATE would ask that this
gerrymandering process be stopped and replaced with
a system that would allow for the continual growth
of black and Hispanic members in both the State
Assembly and the state Senate.
ABATE asked that you -- ABATE
asks that you don't put all the minorities in one
district when the growth -- when the growing
population of minorities can elect two or more
individuals to represent their position.
And as you draw new district
lines for the state legislature, ABATE asks that you
not ensure the underrepresentation of the minority
citizens now and for ten years to come. ABATE has
long held the position that not only minorities be
represented but that minority positions and ideas be
extended the same level of consideration that all
majority positions and ideas be given. Thank you.
MR. SKELOS: Does anybody
else wish to be heard? Seeing no hands, I make a
motion to adjourn.
MR. DOLLINGER: Second.
MR. SKELOS: Thank you very
much everybody, and to our stenographer, we thank
you.
* * * * *
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF ERIE)
I, VICTORIA SKABRY, a Notary Public in and
for the State of New York, County of Erie, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY, that the proceedings were taken down by me
in a verbatim manner by means of Machine Shorthand
on March 7, 2002. That the proceedings were taken
to be used in the above-entitled action.
I further CERTIFY that the above-described
transcript constitutes a true, accurate and complete
transcript of the testimony.
___________________________________________
VICTORIA SKABRY,
Notary Public.
|
|
Back |