P A N E L
LEWIS HOPPE
Co-Executive Director
ROMAN B. HEDGES
Member
CHRIS ORTLOFF
Assemblyman
WILLIAM PARMENT
Assemblyman
Co-Chairman
SENATOR DEAN SKELOS
Co-Chairman
MARK BONILLA
Member
SENATOR RICHARD DOLLINGER
Member
DEBRA LEVINE
Co-Executive Director
LIST OF SPEAKERS
FRANK LEWIS
RABBI DAVID NIEDERMAN
MARGARET FUNG
JONATHAN BING
FRANZ LEICHTER
MICHAEL LANDAU
DANIEL MAIO
SUSAN CHULENGARIAN-TIROTTA
MONIQUE DENONCIN
BATYA LEWTON
SHIRLEY FINEMAN
JOEL KAPLAN
SHIRLEY PETERSON
JANAI NELSON
DALIA SOTO
LEE KYRIACOU
HECTOR RODRIGUEZ
FAYE LEVINE
JOE HASLIP
MARK TREYGER
FIRA STUKELMAN
PHYLLIS GUNTHER
MAYRA LINARES
ANGEL LAPAZ
MIMI MINIE
SIDNEY SCHATZMAN
DON LEE
RABBI CHAIM A. WALDMAN
RAMON BODDEN
HARRY STEINER
GUILLERMO LINARES
ESMERALDA SIMMONS
CARLOS VARGAS
MARVIN COTTON
KAY ROBERTS DUNHAM
KEN DIAMONDSTONE
MARC LANDIS
ROY WASSERMAN
SEAN SWEENEY
STEVE STRAUSS
MICHELLE SCOTT
MARGERET HUGHES
MARISOL ALCANTARA
RAQUEL BATISTA
EDUVIGIS FRIAS
GNECIA RIVAS
ALTAGRACIA CEPIN
RAYSA CATILLO
JAVIER ZAVALA
VICTOR BERNACE
ALAN FLACKS
PETER LAU
PAUL WOOTEN
SAVONA BAILEY McCLAIN
SENATOR SKELOS: My name is State Senator Dean
Skelos. I am the co-chair of the New York State
Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and
Reapportionment.
The purpose of this hearing today is to listen to
you the public about the proposed and I underline the
word proposed lines that have been made public for your
review. We have had approximately five or six hearings so
far throughout the state. We will be having a hearing on
Long Island on Monday and a hearing in Albany on Tuesday.
Then we will take your testimony, review it and I am sure
throughout the state there will be certain changes made
based on that testimony. Again the task force has not had
a formal vote on any aspect of this plan.
What we will do when we come up with final lines,
we will then have a formal meeting of the task force,
vote yes or no on the proposed lines. If the vote is yes
the proposed lines will be put in bill form and sent to
the entire legislature for their review. Basically the
legislature will vote yes or no as they do on other
pieces of legislation. If it’s approved it will go to the
Governor for his signature or veto. If he signs it then
it will be sent to the justice department for their pre-
clearance and review.
I am delighted to have all of you here today. I
would ask that we keep testimony to five minutes or
under. If you wish to submit testimony that will have the
same weight as oral testimony. We have right now at least
70 witnesses so we would ask that you keep it to five
minutes as we have had elsewhere so that everybody will
have the opportunity to be heard. The task force will be
here as long as everyone who is here, if there is anyone
here who wishes to testify. The five minutes rule is
more for your convenience than for our convenience. My co-
chair is Assemblyman William Parment.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Welcome. This is about the
twentieth public hearing I believe that we’ve held on
this topic throughout this state. The sixth public
hearing since we presented plans as I believe. We will
have two additional hearings on these proposed plans. One
in Long Island and one in Albany next week. We hope to
then bring a plan to the full Commission Task Force as
the Senator indicated for a vote and make a
recommendation to the full legislature. We are looking
forward to your testimony. It’s nice to be with you here
in Manhattan.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. A member of the task
force Senator Richard Dollinger. Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you very much Senator
Skelos. I am Richard Dollinger. I am a State Senator from
Rochester. As everyone as both Senator Skelos and
Assemblyman Parment have noted this is about the
twentieth hearing we’ve had on this topic. The purpose of
today is just for us to listen and get a response to the
lines that have been proposed by the chairs.
I just want to emphasize as Senator Skelos did
that there has been no task force vote on this plan as of
yet. None of the six of us, not one of the six of us have
cast a yah or nay vote.
This is a proposal that by statute emanates from
the two chairs who offered this proposal to the task
force. The vote of the task force and certainly the vote
of the full legislature and eventually a signature from
the Governor all are in the future. This is your
opportunity to respond to the proposals that are on the
table. Give us some additional thoughts. Things that
might have been missed. Things that need to be corrected.
I look forward to the testimony. Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Dollinger. Also a member
of the task force is Assemblyman Chris Ortloff.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Thank you Senator Skelos
and my colleagues. This is a public hearing and we want
to hear from you. I am Assemblyman Chris Ortloff. I come
from just about as far north as you can get without
becoming a Canadian. I live in Plattsburgh. The upstate
region is near and dear to my heart. Towns like
Walensburg and Essex County.
The only thing that I would like to add to what
you already know looking at the maps, is that for the
past six to ten months we have heard often at these
public hearings sometimes in the public press and the
media about the census and the gain in population in the
city of New York. First of all I think the administration
of the city and the census volunteers back in 1999 and
leading up to 2000 deserve a gold medal. There is no city
in the country that found more unlisted addresses prior
to the census than did New York. As a result of which
your enumerated population in 2000 jumped by almost a
million people. That’s impressive. Clearly those people
were there prior.
However, the city was not the only part of New
York State to gain population. Upstate also gained. Not
as much, Long Island also gained. Not as much.
The misconception that I would like to address
briefly before we begin is that because of the impressive
work on the census that the City of New York is entitled
to all the new seats in congress, in the Senate and in
the Assembly.
Over on the wall here, I hope all of you can see
it. The pillar may be in the way. Are the actual census
figures for the three recognized regions of the state?
The higher number, 8,214,000 is the population of the 55
counties north Westchester and north. The middle number
8,800,000 is the population of the five counties of New
York City. The 2,750,000 is the population of Nassau and
Suffolk taken together. Next to them in red or blue are
the appropriate numbers of Assembly seats that go with
those populations.
As we deliberate today you will note that the
Assembly majority in their draft plan has actually
apportioned to more seats to the City of New York 65 of
the 63 to which the city is nominally entitled. I just
want to throw that out for all to see right now and
hopefully bear in mind.
Upstate has had New York City in it’s heart and
in it’s prayers for the last six months. We have given
blood. We have given money. We have given prayers in
grateful consideration to your sacrifices. The people
that I represent have asked me to represent to you please
don’t take all of our Assembly seats away from us. We
deserve better treatment than that. Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. Also a member of the
task force, a new member of the task force is Mark
Bonilla.
MR. BONILLA: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Mark Bonilla. I am a practicing attorney. I
have been practicing just short of ten years. I practice
in virtually every area of the law ranging from criminal
law to personal injury, landlord tenant and the like. As
the Senator mentioned I am the newest member. My
background is my parents are both from, born and raised
in Puerto Rico. I have been in New York State all my
life. I am delighted to be here. More importantly I am
delighted that this Senate majority has chosen to point a
minority to this task force and has recognized the need
for diversity on this task force and in this process. I
am anxious to be here in taking your suggestions and your
concerns. Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Another member of the task force
is Roman Hedges.
MR. HEDGES: It’s very nice to be here with you. I
look forward to hearing from you over the course of the
day today. It’s good to see both familiar and new faces
here. As I said I look forward to hearing from you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much. Again as I
mentioned we have seventy witnesses as of now and that
list will grow so if we can keep it to five minutes it
will be appreciated by all in attendance. Our first
witness is Frank Lewis.
MR. LEWIS: Good morning. My name is Frank Lewis
and I am here today to comment about the redistricting
process itself and the results of that process so far.
Ten months ago I appeared before this
distinguished body during the first round of hearings for
the districting process. At that time I made several
recommendations regarding the process of public input for
the redistricting exercise based upon my previous
experience of public outreach, input, evaluation and
utilization with the New York State, City and county
districting processes throughout the past twenty years.
Some of these recommendations have been adopted. Some
have not.
The education and outreach of this body has not
measured up to the historic standards set by the 1990 to
1991 New York City districting commission which I work
for. To be fair I know that this body has had to deal
with the once in a lifetime cataclysmic event that took
place literally in it’s backyard on 9/11. However, even
allowing for this context there are still some actions
that could have been taken that would have made a
difference.
For starters the publicity effort for this round
of hearings and the public input process was willfully
inadequate. I only came across the announcement in the
public media on page 50 of the New York Sunday Daily News
and only because my mother pointed it out to me.
More importantly the scheduling of this current
round of hearings is a clear regressive step back from
the general evolution towards more public input in the
redistricting process. By scheduling all hearings during
the working hours you are placing a clear burden on
citizens who wish to practice democracy.
On a personal level my being present here today
is at a personal cost. Due to my battling ailments for
diabetes in recent months I have been forced to use up
all of my paid compensation time at work. Any time I take
off from work at this point is without pay. This is why I
will be forced to leave right after my testimony. If this
hearing was held after 5:00 in the afternoon it would not
have been a burden. From my personal perspective this is
a small cost to pay for democracy. However, I realize
that not everyone could make the sacrifice I made. The
practice of democracy should not be treated as a
privilege with a price tag. It should be and is a God
given right.
The task force has done an invaluable service by
making the PO94 Census Tiger Data and a Vote and
Enrollment Data files available from their website and
for free. However in order for the public to truly
evaluate the recently released plans of both houses, one
or both of the following should have and still can be
done.
Create one. Creation of party membership files
of the proposed districts along with actual votes from
key recent statewide elections, Gubernatorial and Senate.
Two. Release of the census block to district
assignment listing files for both proposed plans.
Doing this will allow the public to evaluate the
GO political dynamics of each plan. Grant it this is
something that some politicians may feel uncomfortable
doing. But this is a type of information, this type of
information will inevitably make it’s way into the
accessible public domain. Many times from a political
point of view it is wiser to ride an inevitable wave than
fight against it. In this case it happens to be a wave
propelled by the continuing evolution of our living and
breathing democracy. By not having this additional data
available to the public for evaluation it is like giving
someone a car to drive without the steering wheel.
Democracy deserves a better ride.
Now let me turn to the results that have come out
of this process so far. First in the case of the
Assembly I will look at the proposed plan through the
prism of African American community representation. On
the whole the plan maintains a progress that has been
made in the representation of the community with an
estate legislature of the past decade.
However, it is in the Assembly plan that we
submitted to that fall, we demonstrated how a new
district can be created in the southern region of
Brooklyn based upon unification of a community of
interest in the Canarsie, Flatbush, Flatlands area.
As far as the state Senate plan is concerned
there are several troubling issues associated with it.
First the assumption of a 62 seat Senate is questionable
at best. In addition the process of informing the public
of this change in the assumption was a badly flawed one
that flies in the face of the progressive movement over
the last several years towards public access and input
into the districting process. The time to inform the
public of a change such as this is not on the day of the
proposed plan release but well before hand.
In addition there is a serious question as to why
this change wasn’t forwarded to the justice department
for approval.
Second, it is obvious from looking at all the
population deviation of the districts that a conscious
effort was made to set all New York City districts above
the mean districts size and the upstate districts below
the mean district size. What bothers me is that this is
the latest manifestation of a foolish, regressive and
repressive vendetta that upstate leaders have had towards
New York City since the early days of our country. The
only difference compared to the last century is that
instead of Irish, Italians and Jews being looked down
upon it’s blacks, Latinos and Asians. The task force
needs to be aware of its historic role whether they can
appreciate it or not.
When I worked for the New York City Districting
Commission I attended several hearings and heard the song
of democracy alive and well. Yes it may have been sung
in keys that may be different from those of a hundred
years ago. But there can be no doubt that the spirit and
the hunger of the latest wave of immigrants that
rejuvenate our city is just as strong. It is the task
force historic duty to recognize this.
To that end the state Senate plan fails to take
advantage of the possibilities outlined in alternatives
that the majority coalition of redistricting
professionals, Latino Voting Rights Committee, et al.
have endorsed. Particularly the possibility of a
Dominican majority district in the Bronx Manhattan.
Within this all alternative the districts that were drawn
are just as viable as those within the proposed Senate
plan in addition to being more compact.
Furthermore, by increasing the Senate size there
is a dilution effect on representation of people of
color. Our alternative plan shows that you can draw as
many and better black districts and more Latino districts
within a 61 seat frame work. Because the task force has
failed to make available the assignment listing file for
it’s plan, there is no way that anyone in the public can
evaluate the proposed plan using a voter enrollment data
made available.
However in this sense District 21 is suspect from
my semi-intuitive prospective. This area of Brooklyn
contains a significant amount of variation along the
dimensions of voting age, U.S. citizen population as well
as its registration rate. Frankly speaking on a racial
geographic historic basis the differences are stark.
Finally I would just like to say that the
numbering sequence in Brooklyn is rather awkward
particularly going from 22 to 25 between Brooklyn and
State Island. It can only be a source of confusion and
impede the process of public input.
Thank you very much and if you excuse me I have
to go back to work.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. The next witness is –-
Debra you wanted to mention something I believe?
MS. LEVINE: Frank just in response to your
statement. The track block assignment list for all
proposed districts have been released and there have been
people who have come in and requested it and we’ve gladly
given it to them. So if you would like and you have time
–-
MR. LEWIS: It’s on the website right now?
MS. LEVINE: Can you download, you can download
the districts. I’m sorry I’m not sure. I know you can
download the districts. Frank if you would like we’ll
make sure we get out the CD Rom to you today. Or you can
go upstairs and pick it up.
SENATOR SKELOS: I wish to point out that in terms
of advertising the hearing, the task force spent
approximately $145,000. We’ve advertised in the New York
Daily News, the World Journal, the Caribe News, the
Journal News, the New York Post, the New York Times, Sin
Town Newspaper, Staten Island Advance, Amsterdam News,
Korean Times, Oye --
MS. LEVINE: A Hispanic newspaper for those who
don’t know.
SENATOR SKELOS: Korean Central Daily News, El
Diadio Newsday and the Observer. I should also point out,
unfortunately Mr. Lewis left, that his criticism of the
Senate majority and upstate leaders I would point out
that Senator Bruno has appointed the only minority member
of this task force, Mr. Bonilla. His parents as he
mentioned are from Puerto Rico. If we want to go back in
history Warren Anderson who was the majority leader when
New York City was facing it’s bankruptcy it was the
Senate majority that joined in to make sure that New York
City was bailed out at that time to get back on their
feet.
Our next witness is Rabbi David Niederman, United
Jewish Organization of Williamsburg. Good morning Rabbi.
RABBI NIEDERMAN: Good morning distinguished co-
chairs and members of the task force, New York State
Legislative Task Force for Reapportionment. I appear
before you as a representative of the Jewish Community of
Williamsburg as well as a concerned citizen. My name is,
as stated before, Rabbi David Niederman.
I am the President of the United Jewish
Organizations of Williamsburg which represents
approximately 40,000 Jewish residents in south
Williamsburg. Our organization is a non-profit
organization which assists, provides direct services to
people who have no other means and depend on social
services. It also advocates for policy changes beneficial
to the community and the city as a whole.
I appreciate the fact that we have this
opportunity to talk. As a child of immigrants I say only
in America can we really have a chance to speak to the
body who make the laws and are ready and happy to hear
what we have to say.
I should say that the proposed changes troubles
us very much. Our ties to the east side goes back many
years ago. When my father of blessed memory and my mother
came to the United States after fleeing the Holocaust and
losing three siblings, it was the Jewish community of the
east side that embraced us. It was the Jewish community
of the east side that helped us. My parents and
thousands, ten of thousands of others to help to them to
establish their lives in New York.
It’s from there that some of them migrated as we
have done to Williamsburg, others to different parts of
the city. However, we still have family and our roots are
still together. We share not only the fact that we have
families on both sides of the East River, but we share
our religious beliefs. Our traditional adherence to the
religious and cultural values.
More than that our bond has strengthened also on
civic, when we work together on civic issues. We were
both threatened with the humongous proposed incinerator
that would have been a tragic mistake and would have been
detrimental to our children. Thank God my grandchildren
that I do have today. It was our combined efforts,
Williamsburg and the lower East Side that were both
threatened by the proposed incinerator. Because if that
would have happened the taxi commissions would have
reached both of our communities. It is that ties that
have resulted that that incinerator was not built. And
that we now, we and the great community on both sides can
breath some fresh air.
We for the past decade, we have been represented
by Senator Connor. Senator Connor has been sensitive to
our collective voices as one community of interest. And
we are extremely concerned that that should be diluted.
We know that the various forces and in different
directions. Limited resources different. Special
interest and different interests in general.
So if we stay together as a community we believe
we will prosper and we will continue to be able to raise
our children and children’s communities as healthy
American citizens contributing to the city as a whole.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Any questions? Thank you Rabbi.
Have a good Sabbath.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: My only question Mr.
Chairman is can I have that to use as an alarm clock?
SENATOR SKELOS: Margaret Fung.
MR. FUNG: Good morning my name is Margaret Fung.
I am Executive Director of the Asian American Legal
Defense and Education Fund. AALDEF is a 28 year old
organization that protects the civil rights of Asian
Americans through litigation, advocacy and community
education. In the area of voting rights we worked on such
issues as the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act,
bilingual ballots, electoral reform, anti-Asian voter
discrimination and redistricting.
On March 13 at the task force hearing in Queens
our staff attorney Glenn Magpantay presented our analysis
of the proposed State Assembly and State Senate
redistricting plans and their impact on Asian Americans.
Our testimony focused on how the proposed Senate district
plan dilutes the voting strength of Asian Americans and
other minority voters because it systematically places
overpopulated districts in New York City where
communities of color are concentrated. In addition our
statement summarized the areas in which Asian American
communities with common interests have been divided among
two or more legislative districts.
We presented to the task force a copy of our
study in which the commission Dr. Tarry Hum of Queens
College to interview more than 450 community residents in
several different Asian languages about the common issues
and concerns that they faced in their neighborhoods. It’s
on the basis of that study that we are making certain
recommendations.
First of all we do commend the task force for
recognizing that the fast growing population in Flushing
Queens constitutes a community of interest and will now
permit Asian Americans to have a fair opportunity to
elect candidates of their choice in District 22.
Unfortunately the Asian American community in
Flushing continues to be divided between two Senate
districts District 11 and District 16. While this is
obviously an improvement over the current split of this
Flushing community among four Senate districts we urge
the task force to take a closer look at these proposed
districts and their effects on Asian Americans.
In Manhattan’s Chinatown we urge that a small
adjustment to be made in the proposed Assembly district
so that Chinatown can be kept whole. We note in
particular that the Chinese American population has been
growing to the north and to the east of the core
Chinatown area. The change that they’re proposing to
Assembly District 64 is to move the western boundary at
Lafayette Street a few blocks east of Broadway. And to
remove some of the blocks from the northern boundary of
the district above Houston Street. We will be submitting
a block assignment list and the specifics of that
proposal to you.
In terms of the Senate district, proposed Senate
district 27, in Manhattan we believe that it does keep
Chinatown and the lower east side with a single district
and is an improvement over the current district lines
that split Chinatown between Districts 25 and 27.
In Elmhurst and Jackson Heights Queens, we
actually endorse the plan that ahs been submitted by the
Latino Voting Rights Committee and the Puerto Rican Legal
Defense Fund. The community here in Elmhurst and in
Jackson Heights is a mix of Chinese, Filipinos, South
Asian and some Koreans. Many of them share common
concerns with Latinos on immigration issues, language
access to services and education.
In the district proposed by the Latino Voting
Rights Committee there is an alternative plan that would
include another Assembly district in Queens with a large
Latino population around 42%, a large Asian population
35% in Elmhurst and Woodside. We thing this would reflect
the shared concerns and common needs of the Asian
American and Latino communities.
Similarly in Sunset Park we endorse the Latino
Voting Rights Committee Plan in Brooklyn for the
Assembly. Right now we do note that Sunset Park residents
believed that they shared much in common with the Latino
population. Sunset Park is divided between Assembly
districts 51 and 48. We hope that the task force will do
it’s best to keep Sunset Park whole.
We have submitted other written remarks to you
and we will be glad to work with you in the future to
assure that Asian Americans receive meaningful
representation here in New York City.
Thank you very much.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much for your
testimony. Are there any questions? David Galarza from
the Latino Voting Rights Committee. Guillermo Linares
former Councilman. Jonathan Bing, Democratic State
Committeeman 73rd A.D.
ME. BING: Good morning. My name is Jonathan
Bing and I am the New York State Democratic Committeeman
for the 73rd Assembly District on Manhattan’s East Side.
I thank the New York State Legislative Task Force on
Demographic Research and Reapportionment for the
opportunity today to speak on the proposed redistricting
of the 73rd A.D. I would also like to thank the Assembly
members from districts neighboring the 73rd, Adam Clayton
Powell IV, Pete Grannis, Steve Sanders and Dick Gottfried
and their staffs for the time they have devoted to
discussing these redistricting issues with me, and
further acknowledge the efforts of 73rd A.D. District
Leaders, Arthur Schiff and Larry Rosenstock for their
efforts in protecting the interests of the 44,000
constituents whom I currently represent in the
redistricting process.
Today I expect the task force will receive
requests from many concerned citizens to alter the
district lines that affect them. I am however not here
to make a request of that nature. Instead I commend the
task force for the new district lines it has drawn for
the 73rd A.D. and ask that the lines be accepted as they
are currently proposed.
My family has lived in what is currently
designated as the 73rd A.D. for over 40 years. My late
grandparents raised my father on 58th and Park. I was
raised on 85th and Madison. My parents now live on 83rd
and Park and I currently reside at 47th and Third. Along
with serving as State Committeeman I am also a member of
Community Board 6, chair of CB’s Human Services Committee
and a director of the Turtle Bay Association. Thus, I
care about this district deeply.
The 73rd A.D. unifies groups of citizens from
Turtle Bay and Sutton Place to Carnegie Hill who work
very hard to make their neighborhood safe and clean and
who tirelessly struggle to preserve the balance between
economic development and historic and neighborhood
preservation. Further, the District follows the natural
daily patterns of many of its residents who live in the
Northern part of the 73rd A.D. on the Upper East Side and
work in Midtown in the East 40’s and East 50’s.
The proposed district lines improve the current
district by making the 73rd A.D.’s population more
diverse. In fact, the proposed lines increase the
percentages of African-American, Hispanic, and Asian
voters in the district. Further, the proposed lines make
the 73rd A.D. more economically diverse by adding
residential buildings such as Ruppert-Yorkville Towers
and the Isaacs Houses to the District. The task force’s
proposed new lines for the 73rd A.D. are not only
reasonable but they broaden the constituency in a manner
that will benefit those who reside in the district and
the elected officials who currently represent these
residents.
In closing, while this topic is not before the
task force at today’s hearing, I wish to add briefly
that the residents of the 73rd A.D. benefit greatly by
being represented solely in Washington by one member of
the U.S. House of Representatives, Fourteenth
Congressional District Representative Carolyn Maloney.
The Assembly District has traditionally been represented
by one member of Congress and the proposed district lines
in fact strengthen the unity of interest of the 14th C.D.
by adding not only residents of buildings such as the
Isaacs Houses who need a strong voice in Washington but
also Representative Maloney’s local district office to
the 73rd A.D.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify
today with regard to the 73rd Assembly District.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much. Are there
any questions? Nelson Castro, Northern Manhattan
Democrats for Change. Is Mr. Castro here? Esmeralda
Simmons, Center for Law and Social Justice. Is she here?
Former Senator Franz Leichter.
ME. LEICHTER: Good morning. It’s a pleasure
always to see some of my former colleagues. I wanted to
testify today. One I have an abiding interest in
reapportionment since I still bear the scars of two
reapportionments that obliterated districts I represented
and coincidentally put my residence one block outside of
the district I was most likely to run in. Maybe I should
have taken the message. I can only say now that I am out
of public office. I wonder why I fought so hard to stay
in. But I did enjoy my years in the legislature and my
service with all of you.
I am concerned about some aspects of the
reapportionment plan and that’s really why I am here
because it affects an area that I represented and that’s
the west side of Manhattan and Morning Side Heights. As
I look at the proposed 31st Senatorial District it really
seems that what it has done is take a traditional
coherent community the west side and Morningside Heights
and it sliced it, it diced it, it minced it. Frankly it
mutilated it. It now finds that it’s in three different
Senatorial Districts. I think that is unfortunate. I
think it’s a real disadvantage to that community I think
it fails to meet the standards that are generally
applicable to reapportionment of compact, contiguous and
protective of community of interest.
Also having represented northern Manhattan I want
to point out that that area is also sliced up. It
unfortunately has been really since the 1982
reapportionment. Originally I represented all of northern
Manhattan. That should be one district. Over many, many
years prior to 1980 it was. I think the difficulty as you
look at the Senate lines is that by creating a strange
district, the 34th Senatorial Districts, you have had to
short change other communities in northern Manhattan
which is a predominately Latino community. Mainly
Dominican. Should be and could be created into one
senatorial district.
Unfortunately I realize we are dealing with a
process which is fatally flawed. To have the legislature
do the reapportionment is not a way that we are going to
get anything else incumbent protection both on the Senate
and the Assembly side. Which of course we have in the
plans that are before us. I appreciate at this point the
legislature under the constitution must do the
reapportionment. But hey guy s I know it’s a big feast
for both the Assembly and the Senate but try to show some
restraint.
In all seriousness I think there is no more
virtue in the Assembly plan that there is in the Senate.
Let me put it another way, no more vice. I appreciate
what Assemblyman Ortloff said. It seems to me really that
the people of the state of New York are being short
changed by this process and by these lines. Let me say I
have had many years of serving with Senator Skelos and I
don’t think I ever convinced him and I am not sure I am
going to this time but hey you never know.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much Franz. It’s
great to see you. Any questions?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just one comment.
SENATOR SKELOS: The first time Franz that you
have been under the limit.
MR. LEICHTER: I am amazed myself.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Don’t worry Franz I talk over
the limit al the time up there. I just want to say I
think the west side has been able if not superbly
represented for the last three years by Senator Eric
Schneiderman. But for the 25 years before that there was
no finer voice in the New York State Senate than that of
my friend Franz Leichter.
SENATOR SKELOS: Carlos Vargas, East Harlem Common
Ground. Jackson L-E-D-D-S. Marvin Cotton, BTA School
District 110. Larry Sauer, Community School Board 3.
Michael Landau.
MR. LANDAU: Good morning distinguished members
of the commission. My name is Michael Landau. I am the
chairman of the Council of Orthodox Jewish Organizations
of the west side also known as West Side COJO. We are an
umbrella organization representing the interests of over
20 local schools, synagogues and social service groups.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you this
morning.
Amongst its various activities the West Side COJO
represents the interests of our members with regards to
issues that relate to the many administrative,
legislative, and executive agencies that affect the well
being of our constituents.
The overwhelming majority of our members are
located between the upper 60’s to the lower 100’s and
from Central Park West to Riverside Drive. Predominately
within the 31st Senatorial District.
The West Side COJO is very unique, in that we
have been able to create and maintain a coalition of all
the Orthodox Jews in our neighborhood ranging from the
Ultra-Orthodox to the modern Orthodox as well as being an
integral component of the social and political makeup in
the overall upper West Side community.
One of the reasons for our success is the very
nature and historical social fabric that has given the
west side such a venerable and envied reputation, as one
of the most desirable places to live in New York. I
believe that one of the key ingredients that has created
and sustained such a cohesive community has been the
consistent and clear political representation that has
always defined our neighborhood.
The ability for any community to continue to grow
and flourish is undoubtedly a function of its leadership.
The upper west side’s unique, complicated and sometimes
fragile social and economic fabric requires the dedicated
attention of people whose past, present and future are as
intertwined and involved as that of the people who reside
within.
We believe that the Jewish community in the upper
west side is a significant minority voting group as
referred to in the voting rights act of 1965, and whilst
I am sure that there has been no specific intention to
dilute the voting power of our constituency, none the
less the reality of the current redistricting plan will
have that effect as a significant number of our
constituents live between 65th and 79th streets as well
as living east of Broadway.
I do not appear to you in a Democratic partisan
capacity as I myself am a proud republican, however,
there is clearly an injustice to our community in being
split between the two new districts.
In conclusion, I would like to recommend to the
community that the border to the 31st Senatorial District
be relocated to 56th Street in the south and extend to
Central Park West in the east. Such a boundary will
ensure the continued and comprehensive representation of
the Jewish community in the upper west side.
Thank you very much.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. Any questions? Thank
you very much. Daniel M-A-I-O.
MR. MAIO: Good morning. Give Manhattan a
downtown Senator. My name is Daniel Maio. I was the
republican candidate for Manhattan Borough President last
year. I testified also last week against the proposed
27th Senator District which overlaps Brooklyn and
Manhattan from currently one-third of Manhattan and two-
third Brooklyn to two-third of Manhattan and one-third
Brooklyn. Also at that same time I also testified not to
break up the residential communities of Independence
Plaza North in Manhattan which is very close to Ground
Zero. Actually it is near Ground Zero, two blocks away
from it and also Fairgate Houses near the Navy Yard to
which the current proposed boundary crop right through.
This week is the sixth month anniversary of
September 11th. We are still uncovering bodies. The main
programs for business and residences bills 14th Street
and I am sure there will be more coming down the road to
help out some of the people that are victims of that
event. There are also many more questions as to air
quality, reconstruction, redevelopment and other issues
that will still need to be addressed. If not sonly today,
for months, for years and perhaps this decade down the
road.
What elected representative do these people turn
to? Currently downtown Manhattan is represented by two
Senators. Marty Connor form Brooklyn Heights and Tom
Dwayne which lives in midtown south. What I would like to
propose is give Manhattan a true downtown Senator. You
are already two-thirds of a way there. If you just
include the SoHo district, the village and perhaps part
of Chelsea you have a whole downtown Manhattan Senatorial
district from 14th Street south.
Now since the reality is that politics plays a
role in redistricting, let me present this from a
political view. If you have a downtown district Tom
Dwayne cannot run. Well he could run if he wants to in
Manhattan but Marty Connor cannot. We had earlier this
morning Rabbi Niederman testified that in a current line
you are taking away Williamsburg away from their Marty
Connor. They want Williamsburg given back to him. Also
during last week’s testimony in Brooklyn you hear a lot
of people in Brooklyn really want Marty Connor more of
him there. So if you have a downtown district Marty
Connor cannot run in Manhattan. Thus you are giving a
true chance of a no incumbent district. Making election
in November much more interesting. Now Senate district
one starts at Montauk in Long Island. And, Senate
District number 62 ends at the Canadian border near
Niagara Falls.
I urge this Senate to reconsider Ground Zero also
as another district starting point. Give downtown
Manhattan a true downtown District Senator. Chairman
Skelos please give downtown a true downtown Senator.
Assemblyman Parment give downtown a true downtown
Senator. Assemblyman Ortloff please give downtown a true
downtown Senator. It hasn’t been represented before. For
a long time it has been split. Senator Dollinger give
downtown a downtown Senator.
Thank you very much.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much. I will
consult with Senator Dollinger about that. Thank you very
much. Vikki Townsend. Is Vikki here? Susan last name T-
I-R-O-T-T-A. Welcome.
MS. TIROTTA: My name is Susan Chulengarian-
Tirotta. I am a lifelong resident of Bay Ridge Dyker
Heights communities in Brooklyn. The proposed Senate
Districts are like the 1962 Mets, amazing.
The Brooklyn part of the proposed 23rd Senate
District strings together bits and pieces of Sunset Park,
Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, Borough Park, Bath Beach and
Bensonhurst and attaches them to Coney Island and part of
Brighton Beach.
We have heard of districts described as
gerrymanders, bullwinkles and other fanciful animals but
the proposed 23rd Senator District is so absurdly shaped
that it defies zoological comparison. The fragments of
Borough Park, Dyker Heights and Sunset Park would be
connected by way of a four mile long unpopulated corridor
along the Belt Parkway to a fragment of Bath Beach and
Bensonhurst. And then by way of another two miles of
highway to Brighton Beach and Coney Island. It is
apparent that no thought has been given to the interest
of these neighborhoods. No attempt has been made to
create compact, coherent districts that would enable the
people to work with their neighbor and elected
representative in pursuit of their common interests.
Similarly, the proposed 22nd Senate District
would attach most of Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, Bath Beach
and Bensonhurst by the way of several one block wide
corridors to pieces of Gravesend, Sheepshead Bay,
Gerritsen Beach, Marine Park and Old Mill Basin. Again,
the proposed district is extremely non-compact and has no
basis in any common interests or history among its far
flung neighborhoods. Its residents are treated not as
citizens, but as counters in some bizarre board game.
When you stand back and look at the larger
picture you can see the real contempt this plan shows for
the people of Brooklyn, Staten Island and all of New York
City. All the proposed districts in New York City lower
Westchester and Rockland are overpopulated. While all the
upstate districts are under-populated. The effect is to
dilute the voting power of all the people of New York
City and its northern suburbs.
The proposed Districts 10 through 38 have enough
population for 29.69 districts. You round that down to
29. The proposed districts 39 through 62 have enough
population for 23.31 districts. You round that up to 24.
If the kids in 6th grade used that method of rounding
off, they’d flunk arithmetic.
New York City’s population grew by 9.4% during
the 1990’s, much faster than the state as a whole.
Meanwhile upstate grew by just 1.2% much slower than the
statewide rate of 5.5%. By overpopulating all the
downstate districts and under-populating all the upstate
districts, you are trying to repeal the census.
I do not make this appeal for Senator Gentile.
If anything you have been too generous to him. He now
has one district. In your proposal he can easily win
reelection in two districts, either the proposed 23rd
District or the proposed 22nd District.
I make this appeal for my neighbors and for all
the people of this great city. It’s time to go back to
the drawing board.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. Questions? Kay
Robert Dunham. Nancy Walby W-A-L-B-Y. Helena Matthews.
Monique D-E-N-O-N-C-I-N. Welcome.
MS. DENONCIN: Good morning. My name is Monique
Denoncin. A French name. I hope you understand my accent.
I strongly oppose the proposed redistricting
which would carve all of Vinegar Hill and one-third of
DUMBO out of the current 52nd Assembly District. This
surprising rearrangement of district lines excludes from
the district just a small amount of residents, 358
according to the 2000 census. I do not see how this tiny
cut would benefit anyone. Please note that the proposed
Senate District 27 keeps our three small neighborhoods
together.
Fulton Ferry Landing, DUMBO and Vinegar Hill are
three contiguous neighborhoods along the northern
Brooklyn waterfront. Our ties are not only geographical
but historical as well. These facts are clearly
illustrated in the newly released Neighborhood History
Guide of Fulton Ferry Landing, DUMBO and Vinegar Hill
published by the Brooklyn Historical Society. You were
all given the guide last week by one of my neighbors.
Three and a half centuries ago Brooklyn began
here on our shore, with scattered settlements which later
developed into a densely populated and industrious
riverfront. Today, long after the decline of the
industrial era, our three communities are being
revitalized and our connections are stronger than ever.
Through our similar vision and our ability in resolving
common issues, we have successfully helped to create the
Brooklyn Bridge Park. Together with Community Board 2,
we have developed a 197a waterfront plan.
Our strong awareness of our rich history, and our
desire to preserve it, was rewarded by the designation of
two historic districts. Fulton Ferry Historic District
in 1977 and Vinegar Hill Historic District in 1997. In
2000 DUMBO was listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The DUMBO Neighborhood Association is
now hoping for a historic designation as well. Through
our natural ties and common political support our two
neighborhoods jointly work on other issues such as
waterfront access, air quality, sanitation, etc. Our
Assemblywoman Joan Milman together with her staff has
played a big part in our struggles and our achievements.
Your objective is no doubt to create a functional
city. Therefore small communities which are working
together in harmony should be able to do that now, as
well as in the future. I would like to ask us to please
help us achieve that goal.
Thank you for your time.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. Ken Diamondstone.
Alan Flacks. Is Alan here. Batya L-E-W-T-O-N.
Welcome.
MS. LEWTON: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for having the hearing. I agree with everything
that former State Senator Franz Leichter said. My name is
Batya Lewton and I represent the tenants at 315 West 86th
Street.
We are grievously upset that in the present
redistricting plan our State Senator Eric Schneiderman
would no longer represent us.
I am going to skip the next paragraph. You have
my statement.
Senator Schneiderman knows our community and is
not only very responsive to our needs but has provided
outstanding leadership on issues that are important to
his constituents on the west side.
Please, please reconsider this proposal. Keep
Senator Schneiderman’s district intact. Thank you.
I have also have a statement if I may from
Madeline Polayes President of the Coalition for a Livable
West Side.
Honorable members of the redistricting panel. I
am Madeline Polayes, President of the Coalition for a
Liable West Side. The Coalition for a Livable West Side
formed in 1981 as a grass roots all volunteer community
based environmental organization whose 8,254 members care
about the city and protecting a healthy environment.
The Coalition for a Livable West Side is aghast
at the redistricting proposal which would split the west
side community into three Senate districts.
Senator Schneiderman is an outstanding State
Senator who serves his constituents with great
distinction. He has provided great leadership on issues
important to the members of Coalition for a Livable West
Side. The rationale for changing Senator Schneiderman’s
district lines is unfathomable. The new lines would
splinter geographically linked neighborhoods.
Redistricting should be about reinforcing
geographically linked neighborhoods not splintering them.
We implore you to alter this plan and keep
Senator Schneiderman’s district lines as they are
presently constituted. His constituents need him.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much. Congressman
Gregory Meeks. Joel Kaplan. Is Mr. Kaplan here? Shirley
Fineman.
MS. FINEMAN: Thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you. I am here as the Executive Director of
Bensonhurst Council of Jewish Organizations and a
lifelong Bensonhurst resident. The proposed Senate
Districts for Brooklyn are a disaster. There was no
attempt to create compact, coherent districts that would
enable people to work with their neighbors and elected
officials in pursuit of their common interests.
For example the proposed 22nd Senate District
Senate District would attach most of Bay Ridge, Dyker
Heights, Bath Beach and Bensonhurst by the way of several
one block wide corridors to pieces of Gravesend,
Sheepshead Bay, Gerritsen Beach, Marine Park and Old Mill
Basin.
Likewise the Brooklyn part of the proposed 23rd
Senate District strings together bits and pieces of
Sunset Park, Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, Borough Park, Bath
Beach and Bensonhurst and attaches them to Coney Island
and part of Brighton Beach.
The fragments of Borough Park, Dyker Heights and
Sunset Park would be connected by way of a four mile long
unpopulated corridor along the Belt Parkway to a fragment
of Bath Beach and Bensonhurst. And then by way of
another two miles of highway to Brighton Beach and Coney
Island.
Black and Hispanic communities would also be
divided with Coney Island in the proposed 23rd District
and nearby Marlboro Houses in the proposed 19th Senate
District. None of this makes any sense.
While the need is clear to include part of Staten
Island with Brooklyn to get the right district
population. The part of Brooklyn to be included in the bi-
county district should be the part closest to Staten
Island geographically and most similar in character. The
Brooklyn Staten Island district ought to include Bay
Ridge, Dyker Heights and the western part of Bensonhurst.
It’s crazy to extend the corridor for several miles along
the Belt Parkway attaching Staten Island to the Mitchel
Lama hi-risers of Brighton Beach and Bensonhurst as well
as to Coney Island and Sea Gate.
Residents of southern Brooklyn will be the real
losers if this plan becomes law. We are treated as if we
were numbers in a computer or pieces in a bizarre board
game rather than real live people living in real
neighborhoods with real interests about which we care
deeply. Bensonhurst would be divided before four state
Senators. What vote would we have?
Also why are you considering an Orthodox seat?
We already have an Orthodox Senator for the last seven
years, Senator Seymour Lachman (ph). He is the first
Orthodox Senator in thirty years. Please reconsider this
plan.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much for you
testimony. Any questions? Mark Landis. Is Mark here?
Carmen Quinones. Roy Wasserman. Is Roy here? I’m sorry
your Mr.?
MR. KAPLAN: Good morning. My name is Joel Kaplan
and I have the privilege of serving as the Executive
Director of the United Jewish Council of the East Side.
The council is the umbrella organization representing the
50 Jewish communal institutions, synagogues, schools and
social welfare clubs on the historic lower East Side of
Manhattan.
The council is a well respected thirty year old
not for profit social service agency. Among our programs
are home care services for upwards of 650 clients,
housing for nearly 200 senior citizens and special needs
populations, assistance with entitlements, immigration,
and the provision of 350 hot nutritious lunches to
seniors every day. Amongst our staff we speak five
languages, so that virtually everyone who comes for help
can be helped in their native language.
I am here this morning to object strongly to the
proposed amputation of our sister community of
Williamsburg Brooklyn from our shared State Senatorial
district. We have worked together and quite successfully
with the Williamsburg community over the years on such
projects as blocking the construction of the resource
recovery plan and mitigating the negative environmental
impact of the Williamsburg Bridge reconstruction.
For although we are separated by the East River,
we are in essence contiguous communities joined
inextricably by the bridge forever more.
While we of course share many common demographic
characteristics with the Jewish community of
Williamsburg, the lower east side and Williamsburg as
communities are quite similar. Williamsburg and the
lower east side both contain sizable Jewish and Latino
populations, many immigrants and avant-garde cultural and
artistic populations and institutions.
It is because of these shared characteristics
that it makes much sense that the same elected officials
represent both of our communities. Any proposal to sever
our natural ties, by splitting one community from the
other would be ill advised. We need a single voice in
Albany to represent our shared concerns.
We join with the Williamsburg community in
requesting that these natural bond not be broken.
Thank you very much.
SENATOR SKELOS: Questions? Shirley Peterson
Lower East Side Democratic Club.
MS. PETERSON: Good morning gentlemen. Good
morning Ms. Levine. My name is Shirley Peterson. I am
from the Lower East Side Democratic Club. Also I am from
the Two Bridges LaGuardia Advisory Committee in the lower
east side. I wanted to speak on the behalf of Senator
Martin O’Connor. We need him desperately. I want to read
a few things from here to the members.
The senator majority senator’s plan is
discriminating and illegal because it is over-populated,
all of the districts in New York City southern
Westchester and Rockland thereby eluding the voting
powers of all residents of the entire region. It
increased the size of the Senate from 61 to 62. Thereby
reducing the portions of the senator, I’m a little
nervous excuse me, the Senator Districts in which the
majority groups, voters can elect representative of their
choice. And, diluting the voting powers of the majority
group voting to statewide.
It fails to create the additional compact,
Hispanic majority districts that could be easily be
created in northern Manhattan and Bronx thereby diluting
the voting powers of Latino voters.
All the proposal districts in New York City,
lower Westchester and Rockland propose Senate districts
from 10 through 38 are over-populated while all the
upstate district proposal Senate districts between 39 and
62 are under-populated. The effect is to dilute the
voting powers of all the people in New York City and it’s
northern suburbs. The proposal districts from 10 through
38 has enough population for 29.69 districts. The
proposal rounds that down to 29. The proposal districts
39 through 62 have enough population for 23.31 districts.
The proposal rounds that up to 24.
It is questionable whether the procedure conforms
to the laws of the United States and New York State. It
is certainly violating the laws of (inaudible). I am
asking these questions because we desperately like to
keep Senator O’Connor in our district. He helps everybody
black, white, Spanish, Italian, Chinese whatever in our
group. Help us keep him in the office and help us with
our community affairs.
Thank you. Are there any questions?
SENATOR SKELOS: No. Thank you. Janai Nelson,
NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund. Welcome.
MS. NELSON: Good morning task force committee
members. My name is Janai Nelson and I am an assistant
council at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund.
LDF’s comments focus particularly on the need to consider
and well settled legal authority for considering race or
ethnicity in the process of redistricting in order to
avoid diluting minority voting strength in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment or Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, and in order to avoid retrogression
of minority voting strength in violation of Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act.
In addition to our comments address certain
serious procedural concerns in how the current New York
State redistricting process has been administered to
date.
The Legal Defense Fund has been a pioneer in the
efforts to secure and protect minority voting rights and
had been involved in nearly all of the precedent setting
litigation relating to minority voting rights over many
decades.
In preparation for this decade’s redistricting
cycle the Legal Defense Fund has been very active across
the country and is active in New York educating voters
and elected officials about redistricting standards and
the need to ensure that the redistricting process is fair
and the need to create plans that provide all voters with
an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
The Legal Defense Fund will remain vigilant throughout
the redistricting process to ensure compliance with the
Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution.
In fulfilling your redistricting
responsibilities, the task force must be cognizant of
it’s role in ensuring that the voting rights of New
York’s language and racial minority voters are not
violated. The rules governing redistricting and your role
in protecting minority voting rights has evolved since
the last redistricting. Over the years (inaudible) Shaw
v. Reno, the courts have clarified the criteria for
creating districts designed to ensure that minorities
have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their
choice.
The courts have recognized that those drawing
district lines are always aware of where people live and
usually know their race and identity. Race is thus always
a part of a redistricting process and being race
conscious or aware of race during the redistricting
process is not itself a violation of the law. Also,
states must be race conscious enough to make sure that
redistricting plans they create do not dilute minority
voting strength and a redistricting plan will not
necessarily be held invalid simply because the
redistricting is performed with consciousness of race and
because or because the state intentionally creates a
majority minority district.
The most recent Supreme Court decision on this
subject Easley v. Cromartie is very instructive.
Cromartie clearly indicates that if a jurisdiction draws
district lines to fulfill partisan political objectives,
the fact that a large number of residences of the
district are also members of a racial minority group does
in and of itself render the district a racial
gerrymander.
Because Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
protects voters from any election procedures that deprive
them of an effective vote because of their race, color or
membership in a language minority group, states and local
jurisdictions are legally required to avoid diluting
minority voting strength during redistricting. IN fact,
the need to avoid minority voting rights dilution is a
compelling justification for creating majority minority
district and helping to protect the district from
constitutional attack. The Supreme Court and several
district courts have endorsed the principle that
jurisdictions have a compelling interest in complying
with the Voting Rights Act during redistricting and that
complying with the Act is a defense against
constitutional attack.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits
enforcement or administration by covered jurisdictions of
any voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting or
standard, practice or procedure. As you know three
counties are subject to Section 5 clearance and will be
affected by any statewide redistricting plans.
In closing I would like to note that the Legal
Defense Fund was very disappointed to learn that there
were no hearings scheduled in the evenings or on the
weekends after much out cry from the New York community
that those sorts of hearings would be necessary. We just
want to have on the record that we were very disappointed
with that. And, also the untimely notice that the Senate
districts have increased without giving community members
an opportunity to weigh in on that process.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Questions? Thank you. Dalia
Soto S-O-T-O. Lee Kyriacou.
MS. SOTO: Hello my name is Dalia Soto. I am the
chairperson of FROZE. Plus I am a member from
(inaudible) Advisory Board and other organizations.
Note that in Manhattan, the Bronx, and southern
Westchester there are currently three Senate districts
with Hispanic majority and two Senate districts with a
black majority. There should be four Senate districts
with a Hispanic majority and two Senate districts with a
black majority in this region.
Thank you very much.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Lee Kyriacou.
MR. KYRIACOU: Good morning. Thank you for the
hearings. Do you have published material in front of you?
If we bring statements do you have them or –-
MS. LEVINE: We’re taking the statements at the
back and the numbers are given to them.
MR. KYRIACOU: Afterwards?
MS. LEVINE: Yes. It just makes it easier.
MR. KYRIACOU: It effects how I describe what I
want to describe.
MS. LEVINE: If you would like to give them
something that’s up to you but we prefer to take it.
MR. KYRIACOU: That’s fine. My name is Lee
Kyriacou. I am a city councilman at large for the City of
Beacon, Chair of the Beacon Democratic Committee. I was
an Assembly candidate in 2000 for the old 96th Assembly
District. I also speak on behalf of the Beacon City
Councilwoman Eleanor Thompson. She is Beacon’s first and
only African American elected official. She now holds my
old ward seat which she ran in an won. Beacon City
Councilman Steve Gold as well as other elected officials
in the City of Newburgh, City of Poughkeepsie as well as
other parts of the Hudson Valley. It’s tough for us to
all come down here for the hearings. There weren’t any in
the middle of the state.
Please consider a reapportionment plan that keeps
the three small cities of Poughkeepsie, Newburgh and
Beacon with populations of 30,000, 29,000 and 14,000
respectively together. Common history and community link
these cities.
If I could just take a moment since you don’t
have a map in front of you which I have included.
Basically the small cities of the Hudson Valley run up
and down the Hudson like small pearls on a string of a
necklace. Beacon and Newburgh are opposite each other on
the Hudson about 60 miles north of here. The City of
Poughkeepsie is about 15 miles north of that. The City
of Kingston –-
A VOICE: We have the maps.
MR. KYRIACOU: Oh you do? Okay. I will stop.
Thank you. Economically these and other small cities up
and down the Hudson face the same fundamental issue of
economic redevelopment. Like other small cities along the
Hudson and throughout the northeast there were once
regional hubs for population, jobs and wealth. Today,
however, such cities are smaller in population than their
surrounding communities, poorer and require more
services, and have smaller tax bases, higher crime,
higher unemployment and often times fewer job
opportunities. Yet if we could focus enough on these
cities they are small enough to turn around. We are doing
so in Beacon. In fact slowly but surely these communities
will redevelop but having collective representation will
help.
Culturally these cities are Hudson’s Valley’s
melting pots. According to the 200 census data that
combined percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in
these cities of Poughkeepsie, Newburgh and Beacon are
respectively somewhat less than 50%, over 70% and some
went under 40%. These communities have the majority of
the diversity of our counties. No other community
excluding prisons comes close to that level of diversity.
You will note when you see in the proposed district that
includes Beacon and Newburgh one community, one of the
towns Fishkill has a substantial minority population.
It’s driven by three correctional facilities. Noth9in
else. Those communities, Beacon and Newburgh are
distinctly different than the communities in the proposed
100th District which are Fishkill, East Fishkill, I’m
blank on the rest, LaGrange and Newburgh.
The old 96th Assembly District included the
cities of Poughkeepsie, Newburgh and Beacon in a single
district, with the three cities representing half of the
population of the district. The proposed reapportionment
plan puts the City of Poughkeepsie in one district and
the cities of Newburgh and Beacon in another. As a
result these small cities lose their collective ability
to draw attention, resources and representation.
Please keep the three small cities of
Poughkeepsie, Newburgh and Beacon together in some
fashion. If you cannot do so then please don’t isolate
those cities from the adjacent cities, small cities. So
if we can keep those cities together in some way I firmly
believe that helps the representation of those
communities.
Thank you very much.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: If you were to rank the
priorities in combination of these three cities, you
would rank the combination of Beacon and Newburgh as more
meaningful than perhaps the combination of Beacon and
Poughkeepsie?
MR. KYRIACOU: That’s a tough question. The way
counties work, counties focus attention around the county
seats. In many respects Beacon is connected to
Poughkeepsie because we are in the same county. However,
Beacon and Newburgh are directly adjacent to each other
by the river, crossed by a bridge and our economies are
in some respects also linked. It’s a tough call on how to
split those. They are close enough together to be linked.
You may not be able to do it on the east side of the
river without splitting up towns. But you can certainly
do it on the west side of the river. It turns out as
well Peekskill is just down the road going in the other
direction. It’s a hard call.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Let me just point out to you
that combination that meets the requirements of eh state
constitution would require that we link Poughkeepsie,
Floyd, Marlboro, Newburgh, the City of Newburgh, Bacon
and the Town of Fishkill. The combined populations of
those communities exceed the deviation that is permitted
to us under the federal constitution for deviation from
top to bottom in our plan in regard to federal
constitutional requirements. That said would it be
preferable to link them even though it would require a
subdivision of the City of Poughkeepsie?
MR. KYRIACOU: That’s again a difficult call. My
own perception and again it’s driven by being a city
representative is that the city’s are the ones that
require the help more so than the towns in the Hudson
Valley. My preference would be to keep cities together. I
appreciate the numbers you are putting on the table. The
current 96th District has exactly the same communities
but excluding the Town of Fishkill and including the Town
of Esopus. That meets the numbers. The current 96 is
well within the deviation. You don’t need the Town of
Fishkill to connect Beacon and Newburgh. They are
connected directly by the bridge. You could easily add
for instance the Town of Plattekill which has a
significance Hispanic population if you don’t add the
Town of Esopus. You don’t need to add the Town of
Fishkill to do it. If you are doing it because you are
seeing the diversity statistics for the Town of Fishkill
they are driven by the prisons.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: (inaudible) an interesting
question about contiguousness. Fishkill has strip of
land between Beacon and the river that basically keeps
Beacon from butting the river. It’s my impression though
that the bridge does land in the Village of Beacon. So
Beacon and Newburgh are connected by a bridge. It’s an
interesting question and whether it’s contiguous or not.
MR. KYRIACOU: I am not sure that whether Fishkill
somehow reaches around the Hudson or not. Beacon was
carved out of the Town of Fishkill. I can tell you now
that the current 96 has the City of Newburgh and the City
of Beacon connected without Fishkill. So somehow that was
considered acceptable in the past. I can’t respond to
your question but that may be the case. I just don’t
know. It wasn’t’ the case with the old 96.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Can I just ask you a couple
of questions? You said you were an Assembly candidate.
MR. KYRIACOU: Yes.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: So you would know the
district as imminently as anybody except the other
candidate. You were which party?
MR. KYRIACOU: I ran as a democrat and an
independence.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Where did you do better?
MR. KYRIACOU: I represented the City of Beacon. I
won the three cities of Beacon, Poughkeepsie and
Newburgh. I have worked very hard on the economic
redevelopment of Beacon which has shown dramatic
successes and I ran on the platform of trying to do the
same for the larger small cities. I think that message
was very well heard by those cities and an important part
of what they need.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: You make the point that the
cities of Newburgh and Beacon are connected by a bridge.
It is also true that Poughkeepsie is connected across the
river through the Town of Lloyd by a rather substantial
bridge?
MR. KYRIACOU: Yes sir.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Do the people in Lloyd
regard themselves as linked to Poughkeepsie as much as
say the people in Hyde Park?
MR. KYRIACOU: I think to a large degree. I think
there is a substantial commuting population from Highland
that comes simply across the bridge. I think your point
is accurate that there are connections across the river
and there are connections within the county. It is much
as the same question that your colleague asked about
Beacon being more connected to Poughkeepsie or more
connected to Newburgh. It’s a mix of the two. I don’t
feel competent to say which is heavier. It certainly is
both.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: If the Town of Esopus were
not available because it were needed to make another
district whole and the Town of Fishkill were included I
would just like to follow up on Mr. Parment’s question,
then the only easy solution to the overage in population
and it’s not much. I think is probably in the order of
6,000 to 7,000 people over.
MR. KYRIACOU: That’s right.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I guess if I read Mr.
Parment well and we have worked together well for almost
a year now, I think I would suggest on behalf of all the
task force that in light of the fact that that may be the
only desirable solution, only available solution because
of other exigencies it might be in your interest to try
to offer the task force a suggestion of which 6,000 or
7,000 people in the City of Poughkeepsie you would
recommend, how you would recommend us making that
division. Not that we are going to but sometimes you can
see the way things are headed and it’s prudent to have a
suggestion in case.
MR. KYRIACOU: I can say two things. Again I am
not a representative of the City of Poughkeepsie so I
can’t make that remark. I can say it more on the City of
Beacon. You are right I did run for the area. I know the
area relatively well.
The first remark and it’s directly responsive
would be instead of Fishkill you could use for instance
the Town of Plattekill. The Town of Plattekill has a
substantial Puerto Rican population which keeps it
community wise much like the City of Newburgh. Its
ethnicity is not driven by a correctional population
which is what is going on in the Town of Fishkill.
Discounting the correctional population in the Town of
Fishkill it is much like East Fishkill. It is not like
Beacon or Newburgh. So that you may have some other
options. If you don’t and you may be in that position, it
would seem to me that Poughkeepsie splits north and south
in many respects. The south side of Poughkeepsie is a
more educated, more affluent section of town. The
northern portion is more an inner city. It is a poorer,
more diverse part of the community. You may be able to
find some lines there.
What’s interesting on a personal side from my
Assembly race is I won both sides of the city. So, it’s
not relevant from the perspective my personal side. But I
suppose the city does split for more of a poorer inner
city portion and a more affluent educate portion to the
south side of the town. There is a ward on the far south
east side of town, the eighth ward which is furthest from
the city and probably more a like a town in some
respects. You might be able to find lines there. I don’t
particularly encourage it but I wanted to give you a
direct answer to your question.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Thank you.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Elsa Figueroa. Is Elsa
here? Hector Rodriguez.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. My name is Hector
Rodriguez and I am Chairman of the Town of Plattekill
Planning Board and president of the Plattekill Democratic
Club. I am a lifelong resident of the Hudson Valley and
work extensively with minority communities in
Poughkeepsie, Beacon and Newburgh on economic
development, planning and environmental issues. I also
speak on behalf of Newburgh City Councilwoman Elsa
Figueroa-App, Newburgh’s first and only Latina elected
official, County Legislator Mario Johnson Dutchess
County’s first and only African American elected county
official as well as other elected officials in the Cities
of Newburgh and Poughkeepsie.
I come before this board not only as a resident
of the Hudson Valley and a concerned citizen for our
riverfront cities, but also as Latino who recognizes the
importance of empowering a community that is growing in
importance and as an activist in the African American
community in Poughkeepsie. It is my hope that this body
here this morning will take these comments and this
prospective seriously as it debates the proposed
reapportionment plan that divides rather than unites the
three urban waterfront centers of the Hudson valley.
Reappportionment as a result of the 2000 census
has affected communities throughout the country, state
and local levels. The processes and considerations of
the communities of the mid and lower Hudson Valley are
not much different than what you are dealing with here
today. How to ensure fair and equitable representation in
our legislative bodies? The very lifeblood of American
representative democracy.
I have seen a few of these reapportionment
processes over the past year and a half and would like to
share that experience with you here.
Last year in Westchester County, New York City’s
neighbor to the north, the fastest growing portion of the
county was in the City of Yonkers in which the Hispanic
and Latino population was now the dominant population in
the southern sections of the city. As part of its
commitment to true representation the county board of
legislators working together with community organizations
and activists designed a Hispanic opportunity legislative
district to meet the growing needs of a diverse community
and a recognition of this community’s importance to the
future of the county. No matter who won the election for
county legislator the Hispanic community would with one
voice have say in who represented them.
As a result of this far sighted approach the
board of legislators encountered few roadblocks and its
reapportionment plan was approved and implemented the
same year. That means that they ran on the new lines that
they had drawn earlier in the year. I feel privileged to
say that I was part of that reapportionment process.
I would like to contrast this experience with a
process that is now on going in Rockland County,
Westchester and New York City’s neighbor to the north
northwest. Again in the mid Hudson Valley. Where there
are increasing problems because of decisions made to
divide communities of color like Haverstraw and Spring
Valley. As a result of not consulting the public or
working with key decision makers and without significant
community input there has been created a more
confrontational process that is far more uncertain than
its neighboring Westchester and which may now involve
legal actions by the NAACP and the Puerto Rican Legal
Defense Fund.
I give these examples because they illustrate the
two direction in which the current state legislative
reapportionment plan can go. Either by taking into
consideration local needs and desires that give a voice
to all members of affected communities or to take a more
heavy handed approach which not only creates divisiveness
but also creates more roadblocks to implementation of the
redistricting. It is my hope that this body will decide
on working with the communities of Beacon, Newburgh and
Poughkeepsie.
These cities face similar challenges of economic
revitalization and environmental degradation from poor
decisions in the past. They all have special needs that
separate them from their sister sprawling suburban
communities which while closer geographically share very
little in common with the urban centers. The proposed
plan does not take these realties into consideration.
The reapportionment plan dilutes the voice of the
minority communities and the urban dweller that share
more in common with other waterfront communities of the
mid Hudson. The old 96th District recognized the
importance of linking these common areas and concerns
together to form a unique district in the Hudson Valley
that gave a greater say to urban communities without
being drowned out by their wealthier suburban neighbors
who don’t share the same needs.
If you leave here today and remember but one
thing please keep Poughkeepsie, Newburgh and Beacon
together. Don’t drown out the one voice the African
American, Latino and urban communities of the Mid-Hudson
have left.
Thank you.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Mario Johnson. You spoke
for him all right. Jonathan Jacobson. Faye Levine.
MS. LEVINE: Good morning to all the task force
members. Thank you for this opportunity. I would like to
introduce myself. I am Faye Levine. I am speaking as an
individual as a resident of the Sheepshead Bay area of
southern Brooklyn. Professionally I am the Director of
Social Services of the Jewish Community House of
Bensonhurst in south western Brooklyn. I will be echoing
some of the remarks of the previous speakers and adding
some of my own. So hopefully you will take our concerns
with you.
I am here to urge the task force to reject these
proposed new State Senate District lines for Brooklyn.
Please draw new lines. These proposed lines serve to
divide communities with strong local identities and
commonalities of interest into separate Senatorial
Districts. My own immediate neighborhood presents a clear
example of a neighborhood divided.
The proposed 22nd Senate District includes the
western communities of Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights and a
small part of Bensonhurst. A narrow corridor of blocks
in my neighborhood which is only one block wide for
approximately a half mile then serves as a connector. The
western neighborhoods are then strung to pieces of
Gravesend, Sheepshead Bay, Gerritsen Beach, Marine Park
and Old Mill Basin which are on the other side, the far
south eastern side of the borough. These communities are
very distant from one another. If the basic goal of
legislative apportionment are that the districts should
be compact contiguous and have a basis in common history
than the proposed lines for the 22nd District do not meet
these goals in any way.
Furthermore, the proposed plan divides my
immediate area into three Senatorial Districts. In
southern Brooklyn the streets are in the avenues as they
go from north to south, are in alphabetical order. I
live on East 12th Street, south of Avenue Z. I would be
in the 19th district. My neighbor who lives one block
away on East 12th between Y and Z would be in the 22nd
district. My friend that lives one block further north on
Avenue X near East 12th would be in the 25th district.
One cannot fail to see the confusion that would reign and
the fragmentation that would occur as community residents
attempt to work together to seek governmental responses
to their local concerns.
A review of the proposed 23rd senatorial district
again shows the neighborhood of Coney Island and pieces
of Brighton Beach and Bensonhurst string together by the
Belt Parkway with pieces of Borough Park and Sunset Park.
These disparate pieces are added to sections of Staten
Island. The proposed 23rd district is also very much non-
compact and the interests and needs are quire different.
The logical community oriented approach would be
to keep Coney Island, Brighton Beach. Manhattan Beach and
Sheepshead Bay in one Senatorial District. These
contiguous waterfront communities have along history of
jo9int concerns and efforts. Dividing these neighborhoods
as currently proposed only dies a disservice to our
citizens, dilutes future efforts to address community
problems and in effect is a statement to the public that
neighborhood needs are not of primary interest in
redistricting.
In conclusion, I respectfully urge this task
force to reject the proposed Senate district lines and
draw new ones that take whole communities into account.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Joyce Hackett. Is Joyce
Hackett available? Vitaly Sherman. John Quinn. Savona
Bailey-McClain. Juda Eisner. Sean Sweeney. Joe Haslip.
MR. HASLIP: Copies were left with staff in the
front for your information. I didn’t know if the panel
wanted additional copies at this point. I wanted to open
by saying yes my name is Joseph Haslip and I serve as a
Democratic District Leader in the 70th Assembly District
Part D which covers the communities of Morningside
Heights and West Harlem. You have prepared remarks. What
I basically just want to paraphrase in saying and I am
going to surprise you by being brief.
Of all the complaints you guys are getting today
regarding your lines, what I basically came here to do is
praise you. Because if the proposed district which is
call the 30th Senatorial District which is currently the
29th is drawn perfectly. It retains the contiguous and
cultural integrity of the communities as they are put.
And the expansion which were made to the south and to the
east also build upon the natural communities for which
the district now takes in.
I basically came by to tell you keep things the
way they are. I know you are not going to hear a lot of
that today so I thought I would come by and do it so you
hear it at least once.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Marion Clever. Mark
Treyger.
MR. TREYGER: Good morning. My name is Mark
Treyger. I am from Bensonhurst Brooklyn. A member of the
Progressive Democratic Club. Good morning to all the
members.
To get straight to the point nobody has the right
to play politics at the expense of people’s lives and the
welfare of a community. Viewing the newly proposed
district lines for the 22nd State Senate District is very
much disturbing. It was almost as if a kindergarten child
lost control of his or her pencil and began scribble
scrabbling. Each zig and zag of the outlines proposed
divides friends, neighbors and even relatives and
deprives them of having one solid individual leader.
Currently, I clearly know who my district leaders
are. I have a forceful district team in Assemblyman Bill
Colton and State Senator Seymour Lachman. The new lines
would completely disturb the whole flow of community
orientation. Communities such as mine in Bensonhurst
would be torn apart amongst multiple officials. Why do I
have to scrabble around figuring out who represents me?
How am I supposed to organize a community group if
another official represents the person around the block
from me? To be very honest as a young and active member
in my community it is unconditionally disturbing to see
the core of retribution expressed clearly through the
redistricting process.
The proposed district also encompasses different
and large respective communities, from Sheepshead Bay to
areas of Bay Ridge. All reflect many different
communities in need of many different necessities. The
official will be torn apart amongst the attention driven
communities hence not being able to give special
attention where needed. Every need of every area in a
district must be thoroughly met by the elected official.
Under the new lines it is heard to see how the official
will be able to meet every single challenge and need a
community may bring to his or her attention.
I ask you to please end the politics of political
revenge. The welfare of communities is at stake in all of
this. It comes down to the people in those communities.
Not a pencil and a map with a revenge driven mind.
Assemblyman Ortloff mentioned before how his
constituents don’t want to lose their district leaders.
The same goes for Bensonhurst.
Thank you.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Fira Stukelman.
MS. STUKELMAN: Good morning. My name is Fira
Stukelman. I am Holocaust survivor. I represent The
Russian community. Community who lives in Brighton
Beach, Sheepshead Bay, Marine Park, in all our district
21st. I think this is something unbelievable, unfair,
what is going on today. Community this is family. This
is our life. I am in America only ten years. I appreciate
community because community help us. Help us with English
language. Help us to raise our people. Help us to go to
the synagogue. Help us to be in Jewish center. Help us
in Manhattan Beach, Memorial Park, Memorial Day where it
was killed 6 million Jewish people. Community it’s very,
very important.
Brighton Beach has 15 streets. 7 streets will
belong to Staten Island. Seven streets will belong to
Canarsie and Starrett City. How can you do this? You
have a lot of old people, senior citizens, (inaudible).
When will they see their Assemblyman? When? Never,
never they will receive any help. Governor Pataki please
don’t sign the papers. Please save all of our
communities. We came today for justice. God Bless
America.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Phyllis Gunther.
MS. GUNTHER: Good morning everybody. I am the
Democratic District Leader in the 67th Assembly District
Part A. There is a mistake on the listing. I am not only
speaking about the issue of the southern half of the
Senate redistricting lines. I am now in the 30th Senate
district area and I am asking you not to break up the
upper west side. Both the community school boards starts
at 59th Street and Community Board 7 of which I am a
member start at 59th Street. That’s been contiguous now
for at least 40 years for the entire time that I have
lived on the upper west side. I have been an activist
along with my husband who was a state committee person
for 24 years and on the community board for 19 years.
Unfortunately dieing on his way to the community board
meeting. We sent our children to the public school. And
were instrumental in pairing the two southern most
schools P.S. 191 and 199 in order to integrate them
racially and socially and economically so that I have
been involved, we have been involved for the 40 years. It
seems to me you should not break up. It’s a small area I
am talking about. It should not be broken up. I thank you
for your time.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Malin Falu. Edward Garcia.
Peter Lau. Steven Strauss. Michelle Scott. Mayra Linares.
MS. LINARES: Good morning. My name is Mayra
Linares. I am the Assembly District Leader for the 72nd
District in Washington Heights, northern Manhattan. I
would like to first thank the New York State Legislative
Task Force for affording me my opportunity to testify
today.
I am here today representing and expressing my
district’s concerns and outrage on this proposal.
According to the New York City and the 2000 census
northern suburbs which consist of lower Westchester
County, Rockland County have increased in population by
9.4%.
At the same time the census bureau has reported
that undercounts of this district has occurred due to the
low participation of the census. This means that the 9.4
increase in population is probably lower than the
population increase in reality. In the upstate district
the population has increased a mere 1.4%. However, the
republicans feel it necessary to open a new district
upstate rather than one in New York City. Does this make
any sense or is it only discriminating against the people
in this overpopulated district?
New York City is already getting the short end of
the stick. New York City and northern suburbs have a
population count that would give us 29.69 districts.
This number is rounded down to 29 districts. On the other
hand the upstate population count gives us an estimate of
23.31 districts which in turn is rounded up to 24
districts. The math is elementary but the results are
absurd.
As a member of the youth in my community I feel
we need to show we have a voice in this matter. As their
leader I feel it necessary to make our voice heard. We
cannot and will not stand for this proposal. Our
community is congested. Our district is overpopulated and
we are lacking representation. This problem can be
remedied by adding a much needed district in a needy
area. Not by discriminating against it.
Thank you.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Would you just tell me again
what Assembly district you represent?
MS. LINARES: The 72nd Assembly District
Washington Heights area Part A.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: And your remarks were
directed to that area in the Assembly plan or the Senate
plan? I wasn’t sure.
MS. LINARES: The Senate plan.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: The Senate plan. Okay. Thank
you. Margaret Hughes. Maria Siarra. Ydanis Rodriguez.
Victor Bernace. Miguel Palacios. Radames Rivera. Ramon
Garcia. Marisol Alcantara. Manuel Mendez. Angel Lapaz.
MR. LAPAZ: Good morning. My name is Angel Lapaz.
I reside on 32 (inaudible) Apartment 2L, New York which
is part of Inwood in upper Manhattan. I have been living
in my community for over 13 years. My mother for over 30
years. I am a community activist. I ran for Democratic
District Leader in part B of the 72 Assembly District
last year. I work for ten years in my community as
President of a non-profit group dedicated to promoting
(inaudible) on culture in upper Manhattan.
When I work organizing soft ball games all the
teams we like naturally. (inaudible). Teams such as
Latinos will compete against (inaudible). We didn’t
separate ourselves into east west district but just
organized the games for upper Manhattan, our community.
We get people of Inwood, Washington Heights don’t think
of ourselves as part of two or three separate districts.
Just as part of one community in upper Manhattan.
I would like to protest the scheduling of this
meeting on Friday at 10:00 when the vast majority of the
community is working and cannot come here to voice their
opinions. I am here to support the (inaudible) that keeps
the upper Manhattan community unified on creative
districts or minority community that share common needs.
I believe that upper Manhattan should not be split in
different areas when we can treat ourselves as a common
community. For example, as proposed the senator plans to
split upper Manhattan into three different districts not
making an effective (inaudible) district.
Moreover, this spanning community in upper
Manhattan is being confined in one Assembly district,
72nd. Our community is then split further between
district 70, 71 and 69 not giving us a voice anywhere
else but the 72. This is injustice. Please give
community needs priority over district shape. Don’t
(inaudible) the voice of my community. We are here
because we care of upper Manhattan.
Thank you very much for your patience.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Raquel Batista. Mimi Minie.
MS. MINIE: Good morning. My name is Mimi Minie
and I reside up in Washington Heights, northern
Manhattan. I don’t have a written statement. I do say
that I object the proposal. It is showing us that our
district is going to be divided. I think that what Mayra
Linares says about the population of our community
growing shows that we do need some representation. I
strongly urge for this proposal to be rally looked at and
see that we do need representation.
Thank you.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Donnys Sanchez. Francisco
Chapman. Sidney Schatzman.
MR. SCHATZMAN: I would like to just say good
morning to the distinguished members of the task force. I
want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to
testify this morning. I am Sidney Schatzman. I am a
resident of Harwa Terrace, it’s a Mitchel Lama co-op in
the Gravesend section of Brooklyn. I am presently on the
senatorial 22nd district. That is Senator Seymour
Lachman’s district. I am on the board of directors of
Harwa Terrace and the Executive Vice President of
Assemblyman Bill Colton’s Progressive Democratic Club.
Senator Lachman has been our State Senator for seven
years. He has served our community superbly and we
certainly do want him to continue as our State Senator.
Unfortunately under your redistricting proposal
my segment which is presently the 22nd Senatorial
District looks more like a cooking manual the way it was
sliced and diced. I will go into detail shortly. My
development Harwa Terrace has been put into the
senatorial district 19, the new Senatorial District 19.
Here is Harwa, here is the new district. Almost to the
end of that wall. It’s non-compact, and has very few
common interests in terms of my development and my area.
Additionally going slightly five minutes to the
right we have Waterview and Cottello Towers also Mitchel
Lama co-ops like myself. They were put into the proposed
23rd Senatorial District. Which was described to you
earlier. However it extends form Staten Island through
Dyker Heights, Bay Ridge, parts of Coney Island,
Bensonhurst, Brighton Beach and Sea Gate. Very diverse
and a very wide spread district.
The point that I want to make I am going to show
you in an example. Senator Lachman was the chairman of a
transportation committee. They wanted to revamp the B
line. That’s in our entire area of Brooklyn. He chaired
that committee when they were doing reconstruction on the
Manhattan Bridge. This train impacts my entire community
in terms of people going to work. Very emphatically they
cut out the stop to Grand Street which affected the
entire Chinese community in my area which is very
diverse. As a result of his efforts, thank God, they have
revamped it basically to the way it was with very
inconvenience to the riders as opposed to a one hour
extra trip, it’s only ten extra minutes.
I am sure the way you have divided up the
community now my development in district 19, Senatorial
District 19 the other parts of my district to district
23. Coney Island and minority areas to district 23 as
well. That would never have been effectuated had the new
redistricting taken place with a graphic example.
What I am asking all of you now to reconsider is
to keep my community as other communities in Brooklyn
with common interests, population diverse such as my own
and put them and maintain them in the community as we now
have them and preferably under our present State Senator
Seymour Lachman who as I said has done an outstanding
job.
I thank you very much. Do any of you have any
questions?
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Be Akselrod. Mr. Akselrod?
Edward Ma. Te Revesz R-E-V-E-S-Z. Councilman Angel
Rodriguez. Don Lee.
MR. LEE: Good morning. My name is Don Lee and I
am a member of Community Board 2 in Manhattan.
Considering redistricting happens only every ten years, I
along with many my fellow citizens and Community Board
members are extremely disappointed that the redistricting
process is voter unfriendly and in many ways not
conducive to open public participation.
I grew up and attended the public school system
in the neighborhood of lower Manhattan which is better
known for its political apathy than its history and
contribution to the city. I also work and live in lower
Manhattan with my wife. This working class neighborhood
is called lower east side and Chinatown. Its because
this alleged political apathy elected and appointed
government officials as well as public utilities have
used it as an excuse to ignoring the needs of these
communities. I think the problem is more than political
apathy. The fact is that our community is divided at all
levels of representation including community boards.
Likewise the lack of support and the problems voters in
our community continue to encounter on Election Day are
major contributors to what is perceived to be political
apathy.
The lack of representation contributed to the
uneven and unfair distribution of attention, resources
and funding to our community. The continue decay of
Columbus Park, the 20 and counting years to repair the
Manhattan Bridge, the continue take away of community
spaces for unwanted institutions like detention centers,
jails and drug rehab centers and an example of having the
garbage pick up only once a day on weekends in Chinatown
are examples of this neglect. It is an outrage that the
last meaningful community development project in
Chinatown was Confucius Plaza of more than 20 years ago.
Likewise the Public School 124 according to its principle
Mr. Cooper was built entirely by private funds.
While political participation is important, equal
and more important is the need to define districts that
can truly bring people of common interests and needs
together. Our community has been divided for far too
long. I urge the task force to ensure that the
constituents that are of similar demographic interests
and economic status growth patterns and needs are kept
together and not divided.
I urge the committee to reexamine and to readjust
the boundaries of the proposed 64th A.D. and the 27th
Senate District.
The recommended changes for a proposed 64 A.D.
are the following. I urge the task force to examine
perhaps removing the area south of Chambers Street and
that of the Grand Street housing on the far eastern part
of the district to another A.D. And substituting by
expanding the A.D. northbound.
My recommendation are based on the following
observations. The growth of Chinatown and the lower east
side will continue to move north. The residents in the
area north of the current districts are of similar
economic status and likewise social, economic,
educational and transportation needs.
The other point is that the various organizations
have already factually made the determination that the
area south of Chambers Street is not similar to any other
part of lower Manhattan. For example New York City
Partnership study and its grant program is limited only
to the area south of Chambers Street. Likewise the
welcome to downtown promotional campaign is also limited
to the area south of Chambers Street just as the
Reconnect to Lower Manhattan campaign sponsored by the
Downtown Alliance.
Point three is the Grand Street Residential
complex is an established community that is more similar
to the residents of Peter Cooper Square and Stuyvesant
Town. One more minute.
The recommended changes for the proposed 27th
Senate district is that to connect the current district
to that of Sunset Park in Brooklyn instead of the
Financial District. Clearly the growth of Sunset Par and
the 8th Avenue area is the extension of Chinatown and the
lower East Side. The private commuting vans that runs
between these communities, the lights manufacturing
facilities, garment industries and food suppliers clearly
demonstrate the similarities of interest, employment,
patterns and needs.
The redistricting process is designed to bring
communities together and to ensure proper representation.
It benefits the city and each community. As our
community continues to be more active in the political
process let’s make sure that the new districts will allow
for the election of representatives that can truly speak
and work for each of our diverse communities.
Thank you very much.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Rabbi Chaim Waldman.
RABBI WALDMAN: Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to address you today. I am the chair for the
(inaudible) community of Greater Bensonhurst. What we are
here today is to express some concern regarding the newly
drawn senatorial lines. We were splendidly represented by
Senator Seymour Lachman. We are connected to the same
senatorial district as our brothers and neighbors in
Borough Park. We have one unified voice.
What has been happening now according to what we
see on the proposed new senatorial lines that we will be
split in three different ways and into three different
communities. That will greatly undermine our voice in the
legislator. What people believe is that our elected
officials are representatives of the people from their
communities. If we will be split the way we are we won’t
have a unified voice to anyone to turn to and therefore
the elected senators who ever may be will not be able to
represent us as well.
What we hope and pray is that these lines that we
see now are what it says on top of it, proposed lines and
you will take into advisement our concern the concerns of
the constituent and work it out that Bensonhurst should
be able to be still connected with the same state senator
as Borough Park and more like what it was before.
Than you very much for your time.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Ramon Bodden.
MR. BODDEN: Good morning. I actually live in
164th Street in upper Manhattan. During many years I
have been a community activist in the Dominican and
Latino communities. I am also a well known journalist.
For those who only have a limited knowledge of the area
located between 151st and Marlboro Hill it is obvious
that that community whose majority is of Latino descent
but when you can find other ethnic groups has brought
social economic and common base and those groups living
together have functioned very well through decades.
To create three different Senatorial Districts
would only serve the cost of (inaudible) and the
weakening of that prosper community. We need a strong and
clear voice in the city and state government. We need a
united senatorial district. We shall struggle by all
possible legal means against that unfair proposal.
Thank you very much.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Harry Steiner.
MR. STEINER: Good afternoon. My name is Harry
Steiner. I am not here at the invitation of Senator
Lachman. I am the President of the Strong Owners of
Bensonhurst which is 135 store owners which equates to
$215,000,000 in commercial property that I am in charge
of. I live in Bensonhurst 65 years.
The object of sometimes to learn a lesson is to
look back and understand our history. We have
fragmentation whereby Councilman Otto who I voted for,
even though he is a republican and I forgive him to get
him into office because I felt he was the man. I vote for
the man and not the party. There was an (inaudible) that
helped.
I have commercial property at 2300 86th Street
that came under Councilman Otto’s jurisdiction. My home
being at 2035 83rd Street came under another Councilman’s
jurisdiction. Somewhat confusing.
One of my tenants had a problem getting a permit
from the Limousine Department thanks to a Howard Foyer an
appointee nonetheless. I tried to intercede on my
tenant’s behalf. Sending faxes over to Otto’s office was
like whistling in the wind. He had as satellite office I
recall being at 18th Avenue. When I went there on six
different occasions, once only once did I find some one
there, actually there by the grace of God.
Now here we are we are going to take a Senator
who is revered in Bensonhurst by (inaudible) as I told
you we have $215,000,000 in encompass. We are going to
fragmentate our area. For what purpose and to what end?
We have Russians coming in. We have Chinese coming in. We
have Muslims coming in. We have Jewish people here and
Italians. How are we going to get proper representation
by Councilman (inaudible) office was in Staten Island.
Every time you try and call out to make an
appointment with Councilman Otto, NYU graduate, it was
ridiculous. You could never get an appointment with him.
It was like trying to get an appointment with the
President of the United States. I think it would have
been much easier. Here again you have a good Senator. He
is doing a good job. The same goes quite simply if it
works don’t fix it.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: That completes our list of
scheduled speakers. People that have signed up. Does
anybody else wish to speak at this time? You’re on the
list? Okay. You know what I am going to do I am going to
run through the list of people that weren’t here that way
we can do it in an orderly fashion. David Galarza G-A-L-
A-R-Z-A. Guillermo Linares.
MR. LINARES: Good afternoon. My name is
Guillermo Linares. I am Deputy Public Advocate for the
City of New York and former New York City Council Member
of District 10 in northern Manhattan.
I would like to thank the New York State
Legislative Task Force for affording me the opportunity
to testify today.
To being I would like to express my dismay over
the short period of time that was allowed for community
participation in these important hearings. To make
matters worse the time of the day that was selected made
it practically impossible for the majority of people to
participate.
Eleven years ago New York City was engaged in a
redistricting process following the 1990 census. Along
with many representatives of my community I participated
in a hearing like this one urging the redistricting
commission to establish a new city council district that
would allow for the new majority in northern Manhattan to
elect its own representative. That district was created
and in 1991 I became the first Dominican American elected
to higher office in the United States.
Today, I appear before you to request the
approval of a non-discriminatory plan which calls for the
creation of a new Senate district encompassing Washington
Heights, Inwood and Marble Hill in northern Manhattan and
the Highbridge section of the west Bronx.
I want to register for the record my strong
opposition to the proposed redistricting plan. This plan
violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The
Senate majority’s plan fails to create the additional
compact district within the Hispanic and specifically
Dominican majority that could have been created in
northern Manhattan and the west Bronx.
Instead the proposed Senate plan would have
northern Manhattan scattered among three Senate
incumbents. Each of them representing only a small
portion of their respective districts.
For example Senator Olga Mendez would represent
the eastern portion of Washington Heights while the bulk
of the population in her district is in East Harlem and
the south Bronx.
Senator David Paterson has the southern section
of Washington Heights while the vast majority of his
population is in Central Harlem.
Senator Eric Schneiderman has the western portion
of Washington Heights all of Inwood and Marble Hill while
the majority of the population of his district would be
in the Westside of Manhattan and the Riverdale section of
the Bronx.
With this fragmentation of northern Manhattan and
will all due respect to all three Senators, under your
proposed redistricting plan the community will not be the
central focus of attention. In addition none of these
incumbents would be put in jeopardy if the areas of their
district in northern Manhattan were to be removed.
In a moment of crisis such as the disturbances in
Washington Heights resulting from tensions between the
community and the police in 1992, the blackout of two
summers ago, the World Trade Center terrorist attack, and
the tragedy of Flight 587, the community must be able to
step forward with its elected, religious, civic and
business leadership to provide the appropriate response.
Denying the community the opportunity to elect its own
elected representatives to the state Senate would
undermine its ability to face its challenges and to
improve its condition.
The state Senate redistricting proposal
previously submitted to the task force by the Latino
Voting Rights Committee of metro New York and other
prestigious institutions demonstrate that an additional
compact district with a Hispanic majority could have been
created while preserving the existing Hispanic and black
majority district in a more compact form than at present
and abiding by other objectives redistricting principles
such as one person one vote, contiguity, compactness,
preservation of existing political subdivisions,
preservation of communities defined by actual shared
interest and all of the requirements of the federal and
state constitution. I am almost done.
The Hispanic Federation issued a report released
March 12th, this week 2002 on Latino Participation in New
York City which reflects Washington Heights, Inwood and
Marble Hill experiencing the largest gain in Latino
registration in any neighborhood in the city. The two
Assembly districts covering the area, the 71st and 72nd
have increases of 9,413 and 17,940 respectively. In fact
the 72nd Assembly district now ranks as number one
district with Latino registered votes after being eighth
just ten years ago. It is evident in this report that
Latino participation particularly Dominican’s in northern
Manhattan have experienced a dramatic rise which is one
more reason for creating this new Senate district.
I am presenting the task force with a copy of the
Hispanic Federation report to serve as evidence of the
increase political participation in the northern
Manhattan and west Bronx communities as well as in the
City of New York.
In conclusion, the state legislature should
create a compact Hispanic district in northern Manhattan
and the west Bronx. Should the legislature insist on
enacting this deeply flawed and discriminatory proposal,
Governor Pataki should exercise leadership by vetoing it.
And should that not occur, we would be prepared to take
this matter to court.
Once again thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
SENATOR SKELOS: Esmeralda Simmons.
MS. SIMMONS: Good morning or I should say good
afternoon. I am the Executive Director of the Center for
Law and Special Justice. Today though I have given you
written testimony I will attempt to sysinically present
our case to you as to why we believe that there have been
serious errors made by your task force in the manner in
which it has conducted the redistricting. Secondly
giving criticism and comments on both the Senate and the
Assembly plan.
In regard to our general objections. At the last
hearing you had in New York City, particularly the
Brooklyn hearing I testified on behalf of the Center for
Law and Social Justice in regard to what type of
dissemination we thought the task force should give to
the general public. I am happy to say many of the things
that we suggested such as electronic (inaudible) things
we have suggested have not occurred. I will speak to
those which are more pertinent. Specifically the
proposed lines that have been disseminated electronically
have not been readily accessible in hard copy form. Since
there is such a thing as a digital defy that does greatly
affect communities of color and protective class members
we feel that the lack of having accessible hard copy
copies of the plan you have proposed have prejudiced all
of those people who are interested in the plan.
Secondly the lack of availability of the
assignment lists for the various districts that you have
proposed have also prejudiced any type of real assessment
of the plans that you have made and make comparisons of
those plans to other plans exceedingly difficult if not
impossible.
The third thing I would like to state which is
general in nature is that we are very distressed by the
fact that you have not as yet released the congressional
lines. I know this is not a new comment to you. But the
failure to release the lines and to have the hearings for
the congressional lines concurrent with the Senate and
Assembly lines is also detrimental to all New Yorkers and
obviously to New Yorkers in the protected classes and
covered territory under the voting rights act.
We now would like to turn our attention to what
we believe has been the retrogressive affect of the
Senate plan as proposed. The Senate plan dies create 62
districts. First obviously the fact that it was not
noticed to the public that there would be 62 rather than
61 districts gave all folks who attempted to submit plans
an erroneous presumption as to the nature of the
districting that was going to take place. Leaks and
information in the press does not equate to official
notification by your task force of the fact that you are
attempting to use 62 seats, draw 62 seats for the Senate.
Going to retrogression we would like to bring
your attention to the fact that we believe the Senate
plan harms the black voters of New York City. All of our
comments that I am making here today are focused on the
New York City area. We are not speaking of upstate or
even Long Island. We believe that the Senate plan even
though it has increased the number of seats has not
increased the number of black districts that it proposes
proportionately to what we had before. I presume that
means my time is up.
I have submitted my testimony. Obviously I am
open to any questions that the task force will have.
MR. HEDGES: Just a couple of small things. The
assignment list is available if you would like to get
one. Certainly hard copies of the book are also available
if you would like to get one.
MS. SIMMONS: That’s not –- I am glad to hear
that. I am delighted to hear that. We have asked for the
assignment list before and we have been told that it is
not available. Certainly not available online. Nor have
we been told when I asked for a copy of the hard copy it
was told it was not available. We’re delighted. We’ll
take it. I hope you give it to everybody.
MS. LEVINE: Esmeralda with all due respect, I
know you for along time. As far as I am concerned I
wasn’t aware that you called the Track Block Assignment
list was made available the minute the districts were
released. Anyone who called was given a copy. I think
Luther Blake was actually given a copy but he is not here
of course and we wish him well on a speedy recovery. As
far as the books are concerned we immediately released
the book as Roman said and they are available if you call
the task force. Many people have and we have gladly given
them away along with the Track Block Assignment list.
They are also available in Albany just so you know.
MS. SIMMONS: Okay. Thank you. In that case
obviously I was in error in regard to that. I was told by
one of our technicians, not Mr. Blake that he was not
able to get the assignment sheet and someone else in my
office called about the book and was told it was not
available. I think that might have happened when you were
changing the book. We asked for it and we were told it
was not available. It was only going to be given to the
legislators.
MS. LEVINE: It was produced in Albany so my
office had to wait to receive it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Can I just ask you a question?
Can you just complete the thought that the buzzer
interrupted you on with respect to the impact of the
Senate plan on black voters in New York?
MS. SIMMONS: Certainly. Delighted. Retrogression
in our opinion applies not only to total number of
districts but also to proportional size of the, the
proportion that a protected class of the districts that
are being proposed. Obviously since according to the
plan we will now have seven Senate districts according to
our count. We had seven Senate districts before. The
total number of districts have changed. Our proportion of
those districts has obviously been decreased and we claim
retrogression.
In addition I would also like to point out that
there is dilution of black voting strength because of the
way the plan has been drawn. I am sure you are familiar
with the guidance (inaudible) that was produced by the
justice department. If you are not I would be happy to
give you the citation. 42 U.S.C.1973 C Notice Federal
Register Volume 62 Number 12 page 5412 of January 18,
2001. In that notice the justice department gave notice
to all jurisdictions covered by Section 2 that it would
Sclosely examine the process by which the plan was
adopted to ascertain whether the plan was intended to
reduce minority voting strength and where a drastic
change had not sufficiently produced sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that the plan was not intended to reduce
minority voting strength either now or in the future. The
proposed redistricting plan would e subject to a subject
5 objection.
Across the city but particularly I am focusing on
a Brooklyn area. District 19 and district 20. The way
those areas were cut changing in fact the commonality and
the compactness of black areas, Brownsville, New Locks in
addition to black areas in the northern part of central
Brooklyn. Those changes are diluting the strength of
minority voting rights. I believe, as we have already
brought litigation that we will be bringing these matters
up before the justice department and obviously before the
courts that are presently involved.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
MS. SIMMONS: Your welcome. Any other questions?
SENATOR SKELOS: Just make on comment. You have
had some very novel theories of law that you have
discussed today. I would just like to point out that when
you mentioned in your testimony that the question of 61
or going to 62 seats should have been pre-cleared by the
justice department. We’ve met with the justice
department. They indicated that they would only pre-clear
final legislation approved by the Governor and then sent
to them.
MS. SIMMONS: I understand that sir.
SENATOR SKELOS: You may have a novel theory –-
MS. SIMMONS: I understand that sir. Have you
submitted it to the justice department for pre-clearing?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well you didn’t hear what I said.
MS. SIMMONS: I heard what you said.
SENATOR SKELOS: Then you didn’t comprehend what I
said.
MS. SIMMONS: I comprehended it. I disagree with
what you say.
SENATOR SKELOS: What I said to you is the justice
department said they will not review a plan until it was
passed by both houses, signed by the Governor a d then
sent to them.
MS. SIMMONS: I understand that the justice
department does not review plans. I am not talking about
a plan. I am talking about the change. The change was a
change form 61 to 62. That was obviously contemplated by
this task force. You couldn’t have done it without
contemplating it and putting it to work. The change which
is in my testimony is what I am speaking to you. Not the
plan. Obviously you have to submit the plan.
SENATOR SKELOS: The task force right now is a
proposal. It is not a final plan approved by the
legislature.
MS. SIMMONS: We understand that sir. I also
understand that the New York State –- I am sorry
continue.
SENATOR SKELOS: If the election committee were
reviewing legislation that would potentially impact a
voting rights county there is no obligation by them to
send that to the justice department to pre-clear it until
the legislature and the Governor make the final
determination. It is not different than here.
MS. SIMMONS: With all due respect sir. Since the
New York State Board of Elections acting as an executive
agency, I understand that. Not as a legislative task
force, is required to submit all changes to the justice
department it is our contention that as an official body
of the legislature, not legislative, not the legislature
itself, but as an official body of the legislature, you
should have submitted that change. We know about the
plan. You should have submitted that change to the
justice department and further you should have noticed
everyone who was participating.
SENATOR SKELOS: Great minds like you and I can
just disagree there.
MS. SIMMONS: Exactly sir. We’ll be bringing that
obviously to the attention of the justice department just
as you claim you have.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Esmeralda can I follow up on
that?
MS. SIMMONS: Certainly. I am not trying to take
everyone’s time that’s why I was pushing back.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: You have heard my concern
about upstate versus the City of New York. It is the
contention of a number of people upstate that the
decision to apportion 65 seats to New York City and only
64 to upstate must have been made prior to drawing the
district lines much in the same way that you are making a
contention. I would wonder if I could pick your brain as
I know you probably command much higher fee than I am
prepared to pay you right now as a lawyer but –
MS. SIMMONS: I am a public interest attorney.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: God Bless you. Then I would
hope –-
MS. SIMMONS: It’s free.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Well good. It’s worth far
more than that. I respect your mind. I would like to
enlist your theory if you may and apply it as well to the
Assembly plan. It seems to me that a decision to
apportion one part of the state more votes than it is
entitled at the expense of another part of the state that
is entitled to more votes than you give it is likewise
something that ought to be subject to review by the
justice department in as much as it affects the counties
which are include in pre-clearance. Would you care to
comment?
MS. SIMMONS: Obviously I don’t think there is any
disagreement, certainly there is no disagreement on you
that it has to be pre-cleared. But the size of, I will
put it like this. The apportionment as well as the
redistricting is a change that is part of a plan within
the redistricting sense. As such it should be submitted
to the justice department after its either voted upon by
the legislator or obviously not vetoed by the Governor.
I don’t see that as a separate and distinct change the
way I see the decision to change from 61 to 62 as a
change.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I would just like to pursue
that just for a minute because I may not see you again
before this all goes to the justice department. Would
you agree with the contention that there must have been
in a portion of 65 seats to the city before the district
lines could have been drawn?
MS. SIMMONS: Obviously you have to intend to do
something before you do it. So in that realm obviously
it was determined by the task force or some members of
the task force and staff to draw such a plan before it
was actually proposed. The proposal of that plan does not
in fact go before the justice department. You cannot act
without intention. Not in this arena.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I fully understand that. It
may be, it has been contended that the, what I regard as
a malapportionment was merely the accidental result of
applying some other requirements of the law. That we
just set out to apply the Voting Rights Act and whoops
gee we ended up with 65 seats in the city. Would you
agree with that contention or would you agree with my
contention that you had to have known how many seats
before you began drawing it?
MS. SIMMONS: I cannot tell you what criteria was
in the mind of the drawers when they started to actually
do the redistricting sir. I can’t say whether they were
moving on the criteria that you claim that they state
they were moving on or on some other intention. But since
the Supreme Court seems to think that political interests
is valid, as a valid concern, the fact that they may have
moved on that and I am putting that in I am not saying
that you are putting that in, I don’t believe alone would
mean that this plan would be illegal.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Thank you.
MS. SIMMONS: Thank you very much. I’m sorry do
you have any extra copies. I might have given you more
than ten.
SENATOR SKELOS: Let’s see. Carlos Vargas. Come
on up.
MR. VARGAS: God afternoon Chairman Parment and
Chairman Skelos and members of the task force. My name is
Carlos Vargas. I am joined by Ms. Joanne Harry, Ms.
Melissa Mark-DiBerrito and Ms. Gloria Conyones (ph). We
are members of the members and supporters of Eat Harlem
Common Ground. We are today to comment on the proposed
68th State Assembly State District and 28th State
Senatorial District. We are members of East Harlem Common
Ground. A civic non-partisan association vigorously
committed to the political education and empowerment of
the East Harlem community. East Harlem Common Ground
identifies issues, gathers information and seeks to
present a global perspective on those issues to the
community. Much of our work is done through educational
forums, town hall meeting and workshops.
Over the course past six months we have been
diligently preparing ourselves to participate in the
redistricting process. First we have informed ourselves
as to the different procedures that is the role of the
task force, the use of census data, involvement of the
legislature and the community. We then shared these
concerns with the larger community. We held an
educational forum on January 19, 2002 where different
segments of East Harlem, Central Harlem and Manhattan
Valley section of the upper west side participated.
Overwhelmingly the consensus was to create an Assembly
district within the geographical boundaries of East
Harlem. We want to have an Assembly district that is
coterminous with Community Board 11, School District 4,
the East Harlem Health District, the East Harlem Services
Cabinet and the East Harlem Empire Zone.
80% of the attendees to this forum signed
petitions on January 19th expressing these thoughts, in
letters written to the Executive Directors of the Task
Force. We will provide copies to you of those letters.
We are dismayed and disappointed that the task
force has chosen to ignore the spirit of our request, and
drafted a proposed district that does not reflect our
interest.
We are here today to reiterate our request that
the proposed new political lines of the 68th Assembly
District be coterminous and inclusive of Community Board
11, School District 4, East Harlem’s Health District, the
East Harlem Services Cabinet and the New York State
Empire Zone. These are the boundaries that the East
Harlem community requested at our community forum.
Basically the lines that we have traced ourselves would
go beginning on 92nd Street and the FDR Drive going due
west on 92nd Street to Fist Avenue then north to 96th
Street. On 96th Street we move west to Fifth Avenue. On
Fifth and 96th Street we move north to 120th Street to
include Marcus Garvey Park or Mt. Morris Park. Then on
Fifth Avenue going north to 131st Street on Fifth Avenue
at that intersection move east to the Harlem River Drive.
At 131st Street and the Harlem River Drive go east to the
river to also include Randall’s Island and Wards Island.
Why do we want these boundaries? These lines
contain a cohesive unit inclusive of health, education,
economic development and city services. It would allow
state resources to be effectively drawn down to address
the needs in these areas. To divide these services among
different communities other than East Harlem, would
defeat the intent of coterminous services and commonality
of interests, indeed balkanizing the 68th Assembly
District into sub areas and would create an unhealthy
atmosphere of competition and rivalry. As a result it
would dilute and weaken East Harlem’s political power.
In conformity with the wishes expresses around
the 68th Assembly District we in East Harlem would also
like to see the boundaries of the 28th State Senate
District to be entirely inclusive of the 68th Assembly
District as proposed by us her today. Even as the
Senatorial District extends into the south and the
southwest Bronx and Washington Heights.
That is the extent of our testimony. We would be
happy to entertain any questions you may have.
SENATOR SKELOS: Do you have any questions? Thank
you very much for being here. Jackson L-E-D-D-S. Is he
here? Marvin Cotton. Welcome.
MR. COTTON: Good morning. My name is Marvin
Cotton. I live in District 1. I shop at District 2.
It’s like I have the best of both worlds. So in ways
that I think that there is no need to have, to draw
another line between the two districts, District 1 and
District 2 because we don’t need an extra leader right
now. We have enough. We have no need to have more leaders
because it’s already confusing as it is for some people
even for me.
The reason I got involved in this state or city
to come to speak for myself is because I have an eight
year old daughter. I think you guys should think about
the kids they wont have these problems that we are having
right now. I hope I am not getting you guys confused.
Because I believe that we don’t need no more
representation than one, no more an extra leader at this
moment in our district. We have, sometimes I don’t even
know who my leaders are in my districts because there are
so many. I don’t know how to say it. I am new at this
stuff so you have to give me a little time. I guess what
I am trying to say is that we don’t need to draw another
line. We want to leave it the way it is right now, as it
is. It’s good as it is right now.
I heard the previous guys that were here from the
lower East Side. I live in the lower East Side. That’s
District 1 and part of District 2 is the lower East Side.
There were some guys here before and they wanted to add
extra representation. I believe you guys should think
about it not to do it. Because the way it is right now is
okay. We don’t want an extra Councilman right now. We
already voted for (inaudible) Lopez whatever they are.
We don’t need no more. We don’t need no more state, we
want to keep right now the ones we have.
I just want to say the reason I got into this
thing to come speak here. I usually ignore you guys. I
got enough listen from you guys in the newspaper and
stuff like that. The reason I do it right not is because
my daughter eight years old. At least I try to be a
voice so we don’t have to live at that apartment for ten
years from now. I am sorry my questions are like
statements. I don’t know. As you can tell my primary
language is not English it’s Spanish.
Like I say District 1 is not in need of another
Assemblyman it’s in need of other things. Mostly our
schools. I don’t know what to you tell you because I am
speaking from my heart. I am not speaking from no
statement that I wrote a month ago. I am not coming here
to attack you guys because I believe that you guys are
doing a wonderful job. I believe that you guys are our
leaders and that you represent us and that you will do
the right thing. I am not here to attack nobody. I am not
here to fight for other things. The only thing that I
would like to say the last, think about it District 1 and
District 2. Because I am a republican. My wife is a
democrat. I think we got the best of both worlds. So I
just want to tell you guys God Bless you and before you
make any decision to think about it twice and you guys
could work together.
SENATOR SKELOS: You must have great dinner
conversations.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Don’t stop advocating for your
eight year old daughter too. She deserves a better
future.
MR. VARGAS: Just remember Public School P.S. 110
please. That’s where she goes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Good luck.
SENATOR SKELOS: Larry Sauer. Vikki Townsend. Kay
Roberts Dunham.
MS. DUNHAM: Good afternoon everyone. The task
force and both my co-chairs Executive Director and the
panel. Good afternoon everyone. I am Kay Roberts Dunham.
Having resided in the in the borough of Brooklyn for 48
years and I served on the Coney Island Hospital Coalition
against privatization of the public hospitals. Moving
around in the south. Briefly thank you to the Senate,
the 22nd Senatorial District, Senator Lachman. We did
work on the Daffodil project in the fall. I did deliver
the daffodils to Kingsborough College.
Moving along back up in Manhattan transportation
is an issue in Independence Plaza. At one of the hearings
it was brought to my attention that 310 Greenwich, 80
North Moore, 60 Harrison, and the other buildings in the
complex were separated. In Brooklyn that was brought to
my attention. I have a huge complaint with the seniors
getting transportation out of there. It’s been worse
since 9/11. It’s entrapment. They need to have their
legislators and their politicians in place so that one
politician won’t be doing one thing. The other politician
will be doing something else in the area. I am trying to
do something for them but I am residing in Brooklyn.
The concern when we were up in the Bronx
yesterday that the state prisoners may not be counted.
The ones in upstate. The ones in Long Island. They may
not be counted at their downstate address. I think we had
an explanation on that. Then it opened me up to thinking
that maybe the military, these are people that are away,
people that are in home care, people that are in
institutions. That their addresses may be out of the city
lines. We may be losing people in the census by them
being located in different parts of the state or being
overseas and not being counted. That was a concern after
we did the Bronx yesterday.
Hello to, greetings to the 26th Elizabeth Kruger,
27 Brooklyn and New York Marty Connor. Thank you for your
assistance when I visited you office. 28 New York and the
Bronx Olga Mendez. 29 Thomas Dwayne. 30 David Patterson.
31 Eric Schneiderman New York and the Bronx. Assemblyman
Gottfried. He has been very helpful to us on health
concerns and moving around on the Hudson River which is
one of my concerns. 65 Alexander Grannis. 66 Deborah
Glick. Scott Springer 67. Adam Clayton Powell 68. Edward
Sullivan 69. 70 Keith Right. Herman Farrell 71.
Adrianna I can’t pronounce her last name 72. John
(inaudible) Ravitz in 73. Jose probably Rivera 74.
Ruben Diaz in 75.
The proposed Senate and Assembly district limes
2002 is available to you in Suite 2100. You don’t need a
phone number today right now because it’s in 250 Broadway
which is where we are. I just wanted to again stress the
captions. It’s difficult to go through this book unless
you know some streets as to really where you are. If you
are in the New York County or Brooklyn or wherever. It’s
a very serious. The lines, you have to redo the lines.
It’s over. My time is over. I just want you to reexplain
those figures to the people. Maybe you did it earlier
today. But if you could just explain it to them I think I
can get through the first three lines myself. The census
count and then I get lost at the bottom.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Actually consider those as
two different pairs of numbers. The top one is the
comparison of the upstate 55 counties to the New York
City 5 counties. The lower pair is the comparison of the
New York City 5 counties to the Long Island 2 counties.
The colored numbers would be the proper Assembly
apportionment of seats. 65 to upstate. 63 to the city and
22 to Long Island.
MS. DUNHAM: The bottom figure is Long Island?
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Yes maam.
MS. DUNHAM: With the two counties –-
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: With the two counties.
MS. DUNHAM: And they have 22 seats?
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: They should have.
MS. DUNHAM: In the Assembly.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: This plan gives them only
21.
MS. DUNHAM: This is the Assembly?
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Yes maam.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Nancy Walby. Helen Matthews.
Ken Diamondstone.
MR. DIAMONDSTONE: Good afternoon. My name is Ken
Diamondstone. A resident of Brooklyn and the Chair of
the Brooklyn Solid Waste Advisory Board. Past candidate
for the city council and a long tem member of Brooklyn
Community Board Number 2.
I am here today speaking on behalf of a tiny
community situated along the Brooklyn waterfront and
slated to be removed through redistricting from its
neighbors and long time allies in the 52nd Assembly
District. I am referring to Vinegar Hill. The newest
smallest historic district in Brooklyn. With only about
200 or 300 residents. It’s a community that shares with
its neighbors very specific issues. Zoning, a proposed
waterfront park, abundance or narrow streets and
manufacturing buildings. Vinegar Hill shares a common
community board, a council member, a 197a plan, traffic
and transportation issues, and historically the state
Assembly district as its immediate neighbors to the
south. Namely DUMBO, Fulton Ferry Landing and Brooklyn
Heights. These neighborhoods are also known by the
acronym OBWA which refers to the Old Brooklyn Waterfront
Association because of their common issues.
Assemblywoman Milman has been an informed
gracious and effective advocate fro these combined
waterfront neighborhoods and is also working to address
several common concerns. Among them the Con Edison Hudson
Avenue Power Plant which is polluting these common
neighborhoods. The Brooklyn Navy Yard instead of Vinegar
Hill should be the logical boundary for the district. It
is the terminus to the north along the waterfront of
these small evolving residential in quays. It would be
great disservice to Vinegar Hill’s 300 residents to
cleave it from its natural neighbors and allies.
I urge that this small potentially vulnerable
tiny historic district remain in the 52nd Assembly
District rather than being transferred to the district
represented by Assemblymember Lentol whose fine work
dissented in Williamsburg and Green Point nearly a half a
mile away.
Thank you very much.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Thank you. Alan Flacks.
Congressman Meeks. Marc Landis.
MR. LANDIS: Good morning. Good afternoon at this
point. My name is Marc Landis. I am an elected Democratic
Party District Leader form the upper west side of
Manhattan. I am also a member of Community Board 7 which
encompasses the upper west side from West 59th Street to
West 110th Street. Although my statement today is in my
personal capacity. I am also a former chief of staff and
counsel to Senator Lachman from Brooklyn.
I am here today in opposition to the proposed
Senate redistricting that has been described. The
proposed redistricting is nothing more than a partisan
attempt by Senate Republicans to preserve majority party
status at the expense of unified Manhattan communities.
All of us do understand and appreciate that the
federal constitutional standard of one person one vote
and the goals and standards set forth in the Voting Acts
Act mean that legislative district lines will never
precisely coincide with community boundaries. Still
dividing the upper west side into three separate Senate
districts, each containing a substantial portion of the
upper west side reflects an effort to punish our
community for our progressive political views.
Apparently republicans have decided if they can’t
remove our capable and popular representatives from
office on the issues, they will try to sow confusion and
dissent by making it difficult for my neighbors and
friends to keep track block by block of the identities of
their state Senators.
As noted in this week’s West Side Spirit
editorial, Carving Up the West Side will leave countless
west siders wondering you the hell represents them in
Albany. I have attached a copy of the editorial to my
testimony for you.
While some of our districts overlap slightly most
upper west siders show common legislative and
governmental interests. We are primarily represented by
City Council member, two State Assembly members, one
community school district, one community board district
and two police precincts. Clearly this new round of
gerrymandering or perhaps bruno-mandering is payback to
State Senators Eric Schneiderman and David Patterson many
of their colleagues who believe that government should be
more open and accountable to the people.
The effort to redistrict the upper west side is
only one example of this behavior. Many other communities
have been similarly affected in northern Queens and
particulary in southern and central Brooklyn.
In the Frequently Asked Questions of your website
you ask Why is the process important to me and to my
community? You then answer your own question stating it
will determine how every citizen and community will be
represented at the state and federal levels of government
for the next ten years. It will also determine whether
New York’s diverse communities will have sufficient
political strength to elect candidates of their choice.
At a time when so many public policy decisions affect the
quality of our daily lives your right to fair and
effective representation is crucial.
We have the right to fair and effective
representation as you point out as individuals and as a
community. I respectfully request that you reconsider
your proposed Senate redistricting and reapportionment in
Manhattan to create new districts that allow the upper
west side to be represented again as one unified
community in Albany.
Thank you.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARMENT: Thank you. Questions?
Carmen Quinones. Roy Wasserman.
MR. WASSERMAN: Good morning. Good afternoon. I
am a volunteer board member and the Vice Chair of Common
Cause New York. As many of you know Common Cause has been
around 30 years. We have been a leading advocate for
democratic reforms to political processes. We are a non-
partisan organization fighting for reforms on issues like
those raised in the 200 Presidential election that are
critical to realizing the principles of one person one
vote.
We have been a leader at the federal end of the
New York State level on campaign finance issues,
legislative and executive branch ethics rules,
reapportionment, redistricting and other election related
laws like same day registration and motor voter laws. We
also have been consistent participants in civil and
voting rights coalitions and in attempting to energize
and mobilize all citizens to participate in our
democracy.
Before coming here I told my son I would be
testifying at a hearing. He is ten years old. His name
is Benjamin. He asked me what’s the hearing about? I
told him well son republicans draw lines for the state
Senate because they control the Senate and the democrats
draw lines for the Assembly because they control the
Assembly and each make sure that the respective parties
will continue to control their chambers. My son asked why
don’t they have someone independent do it. I said because
then the result would not be predictable and each party
would risk losing their power. My son said but in America
that doesn’t seem right. I said that’s why I am
testifying. By the way Ben thank you for helping me with
the opening to my testimony. Is it okay if I mention your
name would you mind? He beamed and said no I wouldn’t
mind. He said as long as you mention my name. I said
sure. He beamed.
What legacy do we want to leave him, leave our
children? We teach them that honesty and fairness and
integrity are part of our democracy but the message by
example that we send them in the redistricting area for
example is take advantage of your power, hold onto power
and disillusion voters and suppress voter turnout. As we
know as parents if we tell our children don’t smoke but
we smoke in front of them they’ll probably remember the
example and not what we tell them.
As you know only 30 approximately of the 212
districts in the legislature are competitive. That is
those with enrollments of each party that are within 10%
of each other. It comes out to only about 14% of those
districts. That’s under your proposed districts.
Currently it’s only about 29 of 212. These are based on
your own statistics as crunched by New York Public
Interest research Group and endorsed by my organization
Common Cause New York and by the legal Women Voters.
The other 86% of the Assembly in the Senate’s
district have unbalanced enrollment. So the results are
almost completely predictable. The party with the lower
enrollment stands little to no chance historically of
capturing a seat. The voters in the out party, in these
districts, traditionally feel disempowered. They lose
their sense of ethicacy. They stop voting. The imbalance
becomes accentuated and democracy suffers.
In essence what we have is an incumbency
protection act. As you know only 25 incumbents have lost
their seat in the last five general elections.
Our organization is well aware that many parts of
New York is virtually impossible to construct district
lines that are competitive. At least in terms of
competition between the two major parties. But even when
one analyzes these New York counties that have more
competitive voter enrollments, many of the state
legislative districts are still uncompetitive.
Furthermore, when we examined party enrollments
within those districts we found the current district
lines appear to cluster or slit up communities based on
party enrollments. There are alternatives. Some states
have non-partisan redistricting systems.
The state of Iowa for example does have a non-
partisan system of redistricting that could be followed
in New York. Civil service like technicians make the
first draft of the district lines. These staff are not
allowed to consider incumbents home addresses or to use
the party affiliation of voters in considering district
lines. The proposed lines are sent to state lawmakers for
approval or disapproval. The legislature is not permitted
to amend the proposal. The courts are empowered to step
in if there is no agreement.
Common Cause looks forward to working with you to
achieve this goal of a working democracy. I thank you
again for giving me this opportunity to testify.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: May I ask you a question?
MR. WASSERMAN: Sure.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I have heard for about the
last nine months now this number of non-competitive
districts. I wonder if you could tell us which ones they
are?
MR. WASSERMAN: I don’t have in front of me the
particular districts. I know that when NYPERG did this
study they based it on, I know the figures were supplied
by your task force.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I understand their
methodology. I may not agree with it. Bear in mind I am
in the minority party. I am the one you are supposedly
protecting here. I disagree with you contention and I am
just wondering ho much you have that you really know
about this.
MR. WASSERMAN: What I do know is they looked at
registered republicans and registered democrats in each
district. They have looked to see what the imbalance was.
They had ranges, 25 to 40,000. Less than 25,00. I think
they consider competitive races with the number of
enrollments from each party was within 10%.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Are there any competitive
seats in New York City?
MR. WASSERMAN: In New York City I think there may
be one or two. As I said in my testimony we recognize
that in some areas of the state it’s not going to be
possible.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: That’s out of 61 seats in
New York City there are only one or two. Is it your
contention that they can make more?
MR. WASSERMAN: They could make more in areas of
the state –-
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: No lets take it one step at
a time. Is it your contention that they can make more in
New York City?
MR. WASSERMAN: I don’t know the answer to that. I
don’t have those kinds of statistics in front of me.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Let me be generous and say
that you might be able to make five competitive given the
enrollment that’s in the city. That would leave 56 that
couldn’t even be included because of overwhelming
enrollment of the democratic party in this city.
MR. WASSERMAN: I seem to realize you can do the
same thing upstate the other way.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I am getting there. What I
am concerned about and I think it’s important enough to
take the time of my colleagues and the public for a
minute here. You repeatedly, your organization, the Legal
Women Voters and NYPERG repeatedly again and again and
again like a drum beat talks about 30 out of 212. But it
isn’t 212. Because of voter enrollment in the city of
New York you have to take out of 150 Assembly seats, you
have to take about 56 that couldn’t possible be
competitive because of enrollment.
Now you move out to Long Island. It’s virtually
impossible to make more than one seat or two seats
democratic in Suffolk County. It’s just the enrollment.
Yet most of those seats are competitive. Upstate Stuyben
County it’s impossible to make a competitive seat there.
It’s very difficult in the north country.
I wish that for the benefit of the public, for
the benefit of those if they listen to your
organization’s belief that this whole thing is a
conspiracy, you would eliminate the ones that can’t
possibly be competitive. Maybe you make your case that
there are only 30 out of 50 that are competitive. It’s
really disturbing to me that you make those contentions.
MR. WASSERMAN: If I could Assemblyman Ortloff I
can tell you that I believe it was last year but I don’t
have the exact date that the three organizations did
submit an analysis to the task force.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: They did.
MR. WASSERMAN: They broke it down. I know that
they gave examples for instance in Nassau County where
the races could be made more competitively. They talk
about how those districts are packed in how the
republicans are concentrated in packs and how democrats
split up. There are other areas of the state in their
analysis which points this out in some detail while
acknowledging their area of the state where admittedly it
can’t be done because enrollments are so imbalanced.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Let me ask you a question.
I’m sorry.
MR. WASSERMAN: I am just going to ask you if
members haven’t to take a close look at the analysis that
was done that was supplied to the task force.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I have taken a look at it I
was just wondering if you had.
MR. WASSERMAN: Yes I have.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: You mention the Iowa non-
partisan plan. Do you have any knowledge of the outcome
of that? Has the Iowa legislature, has Iowa ever adopted
a plan put forward by that non-partisan group?
MR. WASSERMAN: My understanding is that they have
done so. It has been going on for a number of years. Not
just the most recent cycle.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: To your knowledge how many
times has the legislature in Iowa failed to adopt the
plan presented by the non-partisan group?
MR. WASSERMAN: I don’t know the answer to that.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: You might be interested to
know that they never have. That the legislature has the
final vote as you described and that each and every time
the non-partisan group has put forward a plan, it has
failed to win a majority of the votes and thus it could
kick back.
MR. WASSERMAN: What was the result after it was
kicked back?
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: They did it again and it was
kicked back again. The result, the end result is that
the so called shining example of non-partisan bodies
drawing legislative plans has utterly failed. Because it
has found evidently that you can’t draw districts without
taking into account politics. And that non-partisan line
draws in the opinion of many lack the knowledge or the
approach. I wonder if you would also –-
MR. WASSERMAN: Let me just ask you a question
because I don’t know. I am asking you. Since the rule is
that it can’t be amended, eventually through this process
of being kicked back and forth I assume the districts
were approved. So they were approved with a consultation
of an independent body. Which I think most citizens would
think is a fair and more transparent system than the one
currently you are engaged in.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I guess I would comment on
our system. This is just my opinion. What you have here
is a body of six members of this task force. We have been
in consultation with literally dozens, hundreds of people
who have appeared to us personally and by written
testimony and have helped amend our plan.
Finally I would just ask you to consider this.
The Senate Chairman of this task force Senator Skelos was
originally elected in this seat that was non-competitive
for the other party. It was said that he couldn’t win.
He did. The other chairman Mr. Parment is repeatedly
elected, he is a democrat, in the seat that is
overwhelming republican. Until this year now I believe
your group classified his new district as competitive but
it has not been. My district is not one of your
competitive districts. It’s a democratic district.
Examples, there are so many examples that
actually defy you basic assumption which apparently is
nobody can get elected unless they are in the favored
party. You are looking at three people, if Bill were
here, when Bill returns, you are looking at three people.
75% of the elected members on this task force are
examples that people can get elected on the strength of
their own abilities rather than on –-
MR. WASSERMAN: Our position is that these
exceptions prove the rule. Because if you look at the
macro picture of how few incumbents have lost in the last
few decades and you look at how long each party has
controlled the respective chamber, I don’t know that your
particular examples is in the end make difference to the
point that we are trying to make.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I won’t belabor the point
any longer. But I think I would just ask you all in
Common Cause and Legal Women Voters to think about the
affect that your claims also may have on disillusioning
voters. Because you’re exaggerating a problem and that in
itself I think disillusions a lot of people.
MR. WASSERMAN: Thank you for giving me this
opportunity.
SENATOR SKELOS: Elsa Figueroa-Apps A-P-PS. Mario
Johnson. Jonathan Jacobson. Joyce Hackett. Vitaly
Sherman. John Quinn. Savona Bailey-McClain. Juda Eisner.
Marion Clever. Sean Sweeney. Welcome.
MR. SWEENEY: Welcome Senator and members of the
Assembly. Thanks for having me here today. My name is
Sean Sweeney. I am the President of the Downtown
Independent Democrat. Since the early 60’s we have
helped pioneer the lower Manhattan. Our district
represents SoHo, NoHo, Tribeca, Battery Park City, parts
of the lower east side and Greenwich Village, Ground
Zero. We are very upset when we saw the redistricting
lines. I am also an Executive member of Community Board
2. I am the chair of the Landmarks Committee in the law
redistricting as landmarked. I am also Director of the
SoHo alliance.
We were very upset when we saw the lines drawn. I
am not going to crunch numbers with anyone because that
is not my expertise. I do know the neighborhoods though.
I do know a little bit on Manhattan politicians. I think
there was something going on in the upper west side and I
agree with Mr. Landis who testified about two people ago
on the egregious division up there on vengeance. I won’t
belabor his points. But it is very obvious and it’s left
everyone in this town which we thought we were, so
everything pretty shocked at the divisions along the
lines on the upper west side.
There is also some talk on the Hispanic and black
district up in the northern Bronx and lower Westchester
but that’s not my neighborhood. I do know that redistrict
on the lower east side has one senator representing who
is know very well Marty Connor and Tom Dwayne is
representative on the west side. And in respected
neighborhoods. This new line because of probably what
you have done on the upper west side divides
neighborhoods in half. Divides Ground Zero in half.
Ground Zero has been represented by two senators.
Independence Plaza the large residential complex,
3,500 people live there will be represented by two
senators. They are through Mitchel Lama changes now and
they need the help. To give the community groups more
work when they have already been through a lot is not
right. It divides SoHo a landmark district with a unique
zoning district, the only district like it in New York
City. The arch is $10 billion industry in the city and
we cannot have two senators representing us. There are a
lot of business there and not a lot of residents that
affect our development that is going on there.
We strongly urge you to keep the lines downtown
the way they had been. Let us go on and let us try to
recover and give us enough time to take care of things
instead of having to do extra legislative work.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Marion Clever. Malin F-A-L-U.
That’s number 51. Edward Garcia number 52. Peter Lau 53.
Steve Strauss. Welcome.
MR. STRAUSS: Good afternoon members of the
redistricting committee. My name is Steve Strauss. I just
wanted to make a couple of comments about some of the
lines on the upper west side of Manhattan. I am an active
member of the Three Parks Democratic Club and have been
active for about 20 years in that community.
First I would like to say that in general I think
everyone is very happy with the lines proposed for the
69th Assembly District. In 1992 the redistricting
commission as you can see from this map took 7 E.D.’s off
of the west side and placed them in the 68th Assembly
District. This year 2000 through the efforts of many in
the Assembly we have gene able to get those E.D.’s back
where they belong on the west side with the rest of their
community. We are happy that that has happened.
I would like to ask that the committee take one
look at one actually, one E.D. that it slipped into the
67th from the 69th. That would be between Broadway, not
Broadway, Riverside Drive and West End Avenue from 96th
Street to 97th Street. In terms of sort of smoothing and
contiguous lines it would be nice to keep that boundary
on 96th Street.
Which leads into another general comment that it
would be great and this year’s redistricting seems to do
that more than ten years ago. To keep major avenues and
streets as boundaries. If you are active in the political
process and I am sure this includes all of you and
everywhere around the stare. If you could make a line, go
down a logical boundary whatever street that might be or
whatever or a river or something. It just makes it easier
for those in the political process to explain to people
what districts they are in.
To some extent it’s even possible to have co-
terminality. In the pre-1992 lines our congressional
district and our state Senate districts both shared
Broadway frequently in the west 90’s and west 100’s as
the boundaries.
I would urge that to the extent that you are
legally allowed to smooth lines out that you consider
that. It makes it a lot easier in terms of educating
people and letting them know where they stand.
In fact I would point out that the lines between
the 30th and the 31st Senate District through the west
90’s and the west 100’s again use a more rational line of
moving up Broadway and then I think West End Avenue as
opposed to the pre-2002 or the existing lines pop back
and forth E.D. by E.D. up Broadway in a very confusing
manner. It really when you are out on the street talking
to people and explaining it to them you really can’t.
It’s like the computer did it. To the extent that you are
allowed within the deviations to smooth lines I think
makes it better for everybody.
I would like to make then just two general
comments. One just to back up the change in the, of
moving the 7 E.D.’s back in the 68th I would also point
out was endorsed or at least not objected to by residents
of Eat Harlem Common Ground who were testifying about an
hour ago on the 68th Assembly District as well.
I would like to say in general it certainly
appears from what we are reading in the press that the
population growth in the state over the last ten years
has been downstate and I think that that certainly
justifies the shift in Assembly Districts and Senate
Districts to a more downstate orientation. It seems hard
for anyone to be able to get around that. Now whether New
York City ends up with four additional Assembly Districts
or three additional Assembly Districts nevertheless the
population growth in the state has been primarily
downstate and upstate has lost population. It seems to me
constitutionally we are required to reflect that.
I would also along those same lines I would
oppose the increase in State Senate seats. I think that’s
the (inaudible) for which minority voting (inaudible).
Thank you very much.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: May I just point out that
upstate has not lost population.
MR. STRAUSS: Well relatively speaking. In terms
of the total population shifts at least what has been
reported in the New York Times is that –-
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: You believe that?
MR. STRAUSS: It’s all the news that’s fit to
print right? I mean we have data from the U.S. census
bureau. I can either believed or not believed. But maybe
upstate hasn’t lost population but it hasn’t grown any
and the downstate areas have grown. So the districts
have to reflect that under the constitution.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Any nobody disagrees with
that. Yet upstate still has 206,000 more people than the
city. And should have two more Assembly seats than the
city. Not one fewer as in the plan proposed.
MR. STRAUSS: I think that clearly goes to the
issue of how much you deviate by seats. That’s something
that you folks will battle out in your discussions.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I would just point out that
your concern about smoothing lines is really about
politics at the grass roots where people live and where
you organize. The problem that we face is that the
constitution since 1894 has required through the block on
border rule that all the districts be exactly equal
within a city.
I would suggest that starting with you club and
your neighborhood you start organizing an effort to repel
the block on border rule. I think it would frankly do a
great deal of good to bring communities together and make
effective representation if some small amount of
deviation were allowed. Unfortunately we don’t have the
power to do that unless you help us change the
constitution.
MR. STRAUSS: I think within those limits there is
some ability to smooth lines. It may not be as smooth as
we would like because of that. Bit still if you look at
the lines between Senator Patterson and Senator
Schneiderman’s district, current districts along Broadway
and the West 90’s and West 100’s you will see that they
flip back and forth and the population differences
between those E.D.’s are quite minor. I think that’s just
the case of a computer drawing a line that could probably
be hand adjusted with not much deviation in the district.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Have you tried it? You ought
to try it sometime. When you do it by hand you have to
do that too.
MR. STRAUSS: Okay.
SENATOR SKELOS: What is Senator Patterson’s
proposed district number?
MR. STRAUSS: I believe it’s 30.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. Michelle Scott.
Welcome.
MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon. My name is Michelle
Scott. I am representing Lloyd Williams who is the
President and CEO of the Greater Harlem Chamber of
Commerce who speaks for its board of directors and
members. I brought his testimony.
Harlem is without question one of the best known
and highly recognized communities in the world. Amongst
other things Harlem is a formal and informal network of
cultural, educational and religious institutions, fortune
500 companies, small businesses and housing developments,
parks and recreational facilities which create physical
markers that define its historic place in New York and
the nation and beyond. A review of the sites many of them
with official and historical landmark designation offers
the best argument that Harlem definitely requires a
singular voice in New York State Senate.
Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine,
Riverside Church, St. Martin’s Episcopal Church, St.
Phillips’ Church, Abyssinian Baptist Church, Convent
Avenue Baptist Church, Malcolm Shabazz Masjid,
Metropolitan A.M.E., Canaan Baptist Church, the Church of
the Intercession, and the Church of Resurrection are just
a few of the hundreds of religious institutions that add
to the character and stability of Harlem. These
institutions not only meet the spiritual needs of the
community but form important partnerships in the
development of Harlem.
Sylvia’s, Copeland’s Londel’s, Emily’s, The Flash
Inn, Showman’s Café, Jimmy’s Uptown, Terrace Restaurant,
Lenox Lounge and 22 West, and of course, the world renown
Appollo Theatre and just some of the restaurants, night
clubs and theaters that have not only prospered in Harlem
but serve to shape the culturally identity of the
community. The worldwide renowned of some of these
enterprises has made Harlem a tourist destination for
visitors to New York from around the world.
Lenox Terrace Apartment Complex, The Riverton,
Riverbend, Lincoln, Harlem River, St. Nicholas and Grant
Houses, Delano Village and Esplanade Gardens are but a
few of the housing developments that have sheltered and
nurtured generations of Harlemites. These developments
are the bedrock of Harlem’s housing stock and require the
undivided attention of a Senator to represent their
interests particularly as Harlem undergoes unprecedented
new development.
The Studio Museum in Harlem, the Appollo Theatre
and the Cotton Club on West 125th Street, the Schomberg
Center for Research in Black Culture on West 135th Street
and Malcolm X Boulevard, Aaron Davis Hall, the Dance
Theatre of Harlem and National Black Theatre all fall in
the lines of the proposed New York State Senate District
30. A consortium of arts organizations representing some
of these groups now lobbies together with one voice.
It’s clear to our Chamber of Commerce now celebrating its
106th year of continued service to three upper Manhattan
area that one Senator can better and more effectively
serve a culturally coalition of this kind as a majority
of the members are within a single Senate district.
Situated among the aforementioned institutions
that create the uniquely African American character of
Harlem respected educational institutions like City
College of New York, Barnard College, Bank Street
College, Columbia University and Union Theological
Seminary and important health care facilities including
Harlem Hospital, Women’s Hospital and St.
Luke’s/Roosevelt serve our community. With both education
and health care being issues of critical concern to many
of Harlem’s residents a singular voice in the Senate from
Harlem will best serve to preserve and expand these
services.
The current State Senate District 29 serves
communities beyond the boundaries of Harlem such as the
upper west side to the south, Washington Heights to the
north and East Harlem. The needs and unique character of
these communities receives the equal attention of the
current State Senator. Yet within the current and
proposed district lines the entire breadth and width of
Harlem remains intact. The approximate boundaries of
Harlem proper would be Broadway to Lexington Avenue and
110th Street to 155th Street. This is the area that must
be preserved in a single State Senate District.
The Adam Clayton Power, Jr. State Office Building
located at the corner of 125th Street and Adam Clayton
Powell Boulevard sits at the center of the Harlem
landscape. The continuity and cohesion of the
institutions that surround this landmark have made Harlem
the epicenter of some of the most significant cultural
and civil rights movements in the history of our nation.
Harlem has always had a State Senate District
drawn to include these institutions. What is so clearly a
distinct cultural and geographical entity should not be
politically subdivided. It is also true that other
communities have every right to share for themselves,
what generations of Harlemites of every race, religion
and color have crafted.
Other neighborhoods in New York City particularly
Washington Heights have also steadily evolved into
distinct communities and equally deserve the
representation of their own State Senator. The desire
for and design of such a district should not, however,
result in the loss of a Harlem district. The current
lines drafted by the legislature maintain a unified
Harlem district. Any future modifications of these lines
should value this concept as well.
I thank you for your time.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. Any questions?
Margaret Hughes.
MS. HUGHES: Good afternoon. My name is Margaret
Hughes. I am the Executive Director at the Good Old Lower
East Side. GOLES or Good Old Lower East Side is a
neighborhood housing and community based organization
serving the lower side. Our mission for more than 25
years is to provide housing, advocacy, homelessness
prevention and community revitalization through community
organizing.
In a recent New York Times article, yes we do
often believe what it says in the New York Times, the
article titled Redistricting Add a Seat, Gain an Edge by
Richard Perez-Pena dated January 27, 2002 states that
Senate subplots include a border tussle between two
republican senators who want the same parts of
Westchester County in their districts. Hopes of creating
a district based in Bay Ridge Brooklyn that a republican
might carry and thoughts of carving up the upper east
side district that was represented by Senator Roy M.
Goodman, a Manhattan republican who resigned this month
to take a job.
It seems to me that the New York Times is clearly
pointing out that this is a partisan process. A process
that at this time doesn’t seem appropriate for New York
City. We wouldn’t expect that the state which we’ve
learned from would do this to us. When we’ve learned how
important we are to each other after the tragedy of
September 11th. New York City is an important and
essential part of New York State. I think that that needs
to be attributed and accounted for. Its diverse and
growing population, yes New York City’s population has
grown by 9.4% and probably more since many of the people
who are undocumented or otherwise living in New York City
may not have been counted in the census, deserve a
proportionate representation in the New York State
Senate.
There are 20 overpopulated districts which
contain 77% of the black voting age population in New
York State. 82% of Latino voters, and 81% of the Asian
voters. The proposal then thus dilutes the voting power
of four fits of the minority group voters of New York
State.
The fact that the proposal would change the size
of the Senate from 61 to 62 districts means that then
minority voters are being but out. They are going to have
less influence as other people have stated in what
happens in New York City and in New York State.
Increasing of he Senate would then dilute their political
influence.
To remedy this we believe the legislature should
create Senate districts that treat all regions of the
state fairly. I think having the same number of people in
each district would make sense.
Reflect shifts in population between the 1990 and
2000 census. That’s what reapportionment is about. It’s
not a bout a partisan process as I understand it.
Offset the differential undercount of minority
groups instead of magnifying its effect.
That we keep compact, communities with kindred
interests together. This is important in terms of the
Voting Rights Act and help citizens to work together and
to work with their Senators in pursuit of their common
interests.
Include an additional compact Hispanic or Latino
majority district in northern Manhattan and the Bronx.
If this cannot be done by the legislature we hope
that Governor Pataki will exercise his leadership by
vetoing this process and creating a real democratic
(inaudible) process of making this happen.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Mr. Chairman may I ask a
question?
MS. HUGHES: I feared that you would ask a
question.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I am really grieved and I
mean that sincerely. You express a concern for fairness
and yet you direct all of your comments at only the
Senate. It’s as though and I’ll speak frankly, it’s as
though you have a blindspot to unfairness in every area.
Why do you believe that City of New York ought to have
more Assembly seats than upstate when upstate has 206,000
more people?
MS. HUGHES: As a born and breed New Yorker that’s
a really easy question to answer. Because we are sort of
the world. Maybe we’re very egotistical and self
centered here but we do believe that we do represent the
world. And as such we probably bring more power and money
and more influence to New York State than the whole
economy of upper New York does. That’s not because we
don’t love Albany, we don’t love Rochester, we don’t love
Buffalo, we don’t love Niagara Falls but New York City is
the world. Sorry.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: That’s your answer to why
you believe that you should have more seats than you are
entitled to by one man one vote?
MS. HUGHES: Well one person one vote I think is
an important concept and I agree with that
wholeheartedly. I think that therefore if the Senate and
the Assembly divide the districts into equal proportion
numbers I think we will still have more seats in the
Assembly than upstate would. Or at least we would have
equal numbers. If you are talking about 22 seats for
Long Island which has 2.7 million people it seems that, I
will just kind of look at the math, I can’t figure it out
but it doesn’t seem like the numbers add up there either.
I am not clear about those numbers either to be honest
with you.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: The numbers add up. If you
take the total population of the state and you take the
population of each of those three regions and you divide
it and then you multiply it by 150 it comes out almost
exactly 65 seats for upstate. I mean look at it which one
of those I the larger number? 8,200,000 or 8,008,000?
MS. HUGHES: I think you have a good diagram
there. I hope that that isn’t the only diagram that we
will have shown here today.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I would point out that the
most egregious unfairness in New York State in terms of
one person, one vote existed for decades before 1964.
The Senate for all time virtually has been a population
based house. Prior to 1964 when the Supreme Court had to
rule the New York State Assembly was governed by
upstaters.
In 1960 election New York City should have had
about five or six more seats. Yet they had far fewer.
Until the Supreme Court acted. I am not sure about the
whole rest of the country but I know about New York.
It’s hard for me to imagine in more egregious reason why
the Supreme Court had to rule than the New York State
Assembly prior to that date. It was patently unfair and
the City of New York is living today with the vestiges of
that historic unfairness. No question about it.
Now since that date the Assembly has been
apportioned by republicans and by democrats. In every
single case the number of seats that they apportioned was
right by the math. Until this year.
MS. HUGHES: Can I ask a question? Is it possible
that if perhaps we agree to this proposal that you’ve
made that New York City will then get the education
dollars that it’s entitled to by the percentage? That
would be wonderful. Once we get our dollars that we are
entitled to by the percentages that you are putting down
we might be happy to talk about these kinds of things.
But New York City is discriminated against by the State
of New York in lots of different ways. Unfortunately you
are really well educated on this stuff and I have to say
that I am not. That I would love to have a conversation
with you when I have the opportunity to have as much
information as you do.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I hope so. Mr. Chairman I
tried to get some fairness for the Assembly.
SENATOR SKELOS: Maria Siarra. Is Maria here? Y-D-
A-N-I-S Rodriguez. Victor B-E-R-N-A-C-E. Miguel
Palacios. Radames Rivera. Roman Garcia. Marisol
Alcanttara.
MS. ALCANTARA: Good afternoon. MY name is
Marisol Alcantara. I am a resident of Washington Heights.
Before I beginning my testimony I would just like to give
everyone a suggestion that maybe we should have these
hearings in the afternoon or in the later part of the day
so members of the community like it’s required they can
have a voice on this and they don’t have to do what I did
which is take off a day from work and school just to be
here. 10:00 is not an appropriate time for members of
the communities to come here and voice their opinion on
something that is very important.
My second point is that I am totally disagreeing
and dissatisfied with the proposed Senate districts in
upper Manhattan specifically Washington Heights. I don’t
understand who in their right mind would divide a
community that shares religious, they attend the same
religious institutions, the same committee based
organizations, the same schools into three separate
districts. 28 Olga Mendez, 31 Eric and 30 David
Patterson. I just dilutes the voting power of the Latino
community in Washington Heights but specifically of the
Dominican community.
What we have right now is that the proposed
district would give each of these senators a little piece
of Washington Heights. For example the chunk of Olga
Mendez’s district would be in East Harlem. That means it
would translate into exactly what she is doing now which
is not paying any attention to the residents of
Washington Heights. In David Patterson the chunk of
His district is concentrated in Central Harlem. Once
again he ignores Washington Heights. The same thing with
Eric. I don’t understand why would you want to divide a
community that shares interests. It’s not in terms of an
ethnic group but a community. We attend the same
churches, parks and everything just because you want to
satisfy the needs of the incumbents.
In regards to the Senate district you have done
the opposite of what you did with the Senate. You
concentrated 84% of the Latino vote in one district, 72
Assemblyman (inaudible). I know that members of my
community and of the Latino Voting Rights Committee have
spoke with Mr. Dennis Ferro, clearly I don’t know how to
pronounce his name because he never comes to our
community. So please understand that. We have spoken to
Mr. Ferro and he does not want any lines to be drawn in
his district. I must agree with members of the democratic
party in the Bronx when they say he’s the worst thing
that could happen to the democratic party. Please put
that on record.
Putting 84% of the Latino vote in one district it
dilutes the voting power of the Latino community. It’s
unfair. It does not give us the opportunity to elect
someone to office who would look out for our own
interest. I think all of us should remember that we are
here to meet the needs and interests of the communities
not of the incumbents. We are not here to do favors. We
are here to meet the needs of the community. The last
time I checked the incumbents are not the only residents
of these communities.
Thank you very much.
SENATOR SKELOS: Any questions? Manuel Mendez.
Raquel Batista. Welcome.
MS. BATISTA: Good afternoon. My name is Raquel
Batista. I am a student CUNY School of Law. I reside at
651 West 190th Street in the Assembly District 72 and in
the Senate District I am not too sure what the number is.
It is either 20, 30 or 31. I am in favor of a plan which
changes the geographic makeup of the current ADA and
Senate District which increases the number of Latinos in
our neighborhood districts.
Today was the first time I actually saw what the
proposed Senate and Assembly Districts are. I seriously
question why the communities being divided in a way that
both dilutes and packs the Dominican vote. It does not
serve the interest of Washington Heights and Inwood. Nor
of the neighboring Senate and Assembly District seats. It
is obvious that these lines were not drawn with the
community in mind but rather with existing political
interests.
The essence of redistricting and voting rights in
general is to give the respective communities an
effective and strong tool to be politically involved.
This involvement ranges from campaigning voting to simply
understanding the politics of one’s neighborhood, city,
state and nation. Every ten years we get the opportunity
to reinvigorate the political climate of our
neighborhoods and changing the district lines will do
just that. This reinvigoration was evident with the city
council and the required term limits. Last summer
Washington Heights felt that change and fervor when eight
candidates ran for one post.
In this same spirit changes to the Senate and
Assembly District and the neighboring districts 71, 70,
28, 30 and 31 will increase the political fervor. These
seats are not lifetime posts or monarchy’s with right to
heirs. I was born and raised in Washington Heights and
Inwood. I am what they call a second generation
Dominican. I have witnessed that as the Dominican
community in New York City grows so does it’s political
involvement in local politics. Dominicans are here to
stay. To retain the current AD and Senate Districts as
they are or the proposed districts will only hinder the
Dominican community growth. Maintaining the status quo
will not allow for effective political involvement.
The current and proposed Assembly Districts and
Senate Districts seem to favor large institutions and not
the people living in Washington Heights and in Inwood. It
is also the past districts are outdated districts that
fit the needs of the population as it looked ten to
twenty years ago. Areas east of St. Nicholas and west of
Broadway and no longer what they used to be. The
Dominican and the Jewish population do work together and
live together.
The current Assembly Districts create confusion
and so does the proposed Senate Districts amongst the
residents of Washington Heights. Many believe that they
automatically all live in the same district. And also
especially since the political leaders of other A.D.’s
and Senate Districts do not make their presence known
among the everyday inhabitants of Washington Heights and
Inwood. Creating the 72nd Assembly District to extend to
the east and west side will dissipate such confusion and
also for the Senate District.
The odd shapes that are currently proposed also
call into question if it really fits the standard of
geographic compactness and continuity. As the law and
decision makers show us time and time again standard
application can always be played with.
The 72nd A.D. in particular up to now has
fulfilled its objectives in giving Dominicans a political
voice. However keeping it as such will only silence it
not strengthen it.
As you consider why to change Assembly District
and the Senate redistrict consider the second generation
Dominicans whose families have worked so hard to obtain a
better life socially, economically and politically.
Think of the enormous rate that Dominicans have become
citizens and are politically involved both here in the
United States and in the Dominican Republic.
Also think of those who have fought for democracy
that includes all of its citizens in effective political
dialogue and decision making.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much. You must be
doing very well at law school.
MS. BATISTA: Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS: Any questions? Donnys Sanchez.
Francisco Chapman. Bentzion Akselrod. Edward M-A. It
looks like Te R-E-V-E-S-Z I think. Councilman Rodriguex,
Angel Rodriguez. Raysa Castillo. Maam I believe when you
singed in there were a number of women that signed in if
you want to bring them all up absolutely. I believe you
represent the Dominican Women’s Caucus.
MS. FRIAS: Eduvigis Frias. (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: I am here to ask for the creation of
a Senate District of Manhattan in the areas of the Bronx
where out people live.
MS. FRIAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: In Marble Hill in Highbridge.
MS. FRIAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: We are a community and such we wish
for a representative in the Senate.
MS. FRIAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: As a community we don’t have any
power because we don’t have common representative.
MS. FRIAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: We are a Dominican community and we
are here to ask you to help us be more united than we are
at the moment.
MS. FRIAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: We need a Senator to help us unite
us in the upper Manhattan and in the Bronx.
MS. FRIAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: We as a Dominican community we are
growing in the upper Manhattan and the Bronx and we need
someone to unite us in everything we have in common.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: My name is Gnecia Rivas.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: I live at 607 West 190th Street in
Washington Heights.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: I am here to ask for the creation of
a Senate District in upper Manhattan in the Bronx.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: My family and friends we are all
united in Manhattan and in the Bronx.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: My sons work in the Bronx and they
live in upper Manhattan.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: My son who is a merchant has a
business in upper Manhattan and also in the Bronx.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: My daughters who have studied in
upper Manhattan work in the Bronx.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: We are a united family in upper
Manhattan. In the Bronx I have family in the Bronx.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: I also have family in Manhattan and
so as such we are a united community.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: We need a Senator who can represent
us.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: So that when we have any problems we
have someone that we can relate to.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: Our community, our family in
Manhattan, the upper Manhattan and the Bronx we are a
united family.
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: I belong to –-
MS. RIVAS: (Inaudible).
MS. CEPIN: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: My name is Altagracia Cepin and I
live at 509 170th Street in upper Manhattan.
MS. CEPIN: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: I have come over here to with Raysa
Castillo.
MS. CEPIN: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: Again she is over here asking for a
Senate seat because they all need it.
MS. CEPIN: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: She also belongs to the Women’s
Dominican Caucus.
MS. CEPIN: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: She also belongs to an incorporated
group which tends to have the same views as her.
MS. CEPIN: (Inaudible).
INTERPRETOR: We are here in Manhattan and mostly
the Bronx.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Can I ask who is the present
Senator that represents you?
MS. CASTILLO: I will address that if I may. My
name is Raysa Castillo. I used to live in Washington
Heights. I currently live in the Bronx.
One of the problems and I believe it has already
been stated but I will restate it. Is that the northern
Manhattan community one community has three Senators.
Eric Schneiderman was my representative when I lived in
Washington heights. My mother who lived a few blocks away
had David Patterson. My uncle who was five block away
from us had Olga Mendez.
There lies the main problem that the community is
facing. We feel that we are not represented in one voice.
We are speaking in one voice. We are organizing as a
community. By the community as it has been previously
stated we mean northern Manhattan, Washington Heights,
Inwood, Marble Hill and Highbridge. Our community has
grown to such a degree that many of our relatives and
friends have moved from Washington Heights to the
northwest areas of the Bronx.
What we are asking and we believe honestly that
this is very possible you could have created a Senatorial
District that would make this community whole. That would
ensure that this community would have representation in
the Senate. It is possible I understand the argument
about most of the growth being concentrated in upstate
New York. You could create this Senatorial District that
we ask you to create in light of the protection that
minorities deserve under the law. It would not
discriminate against other groups. It would ensure that a
community that is behaving as one community in fact has
one representative that could address their needs.
I think it’s already in evidence that the
community is behaving both commercially, culturally. They
have the language in common. They have relatives that
live on both sides of the river. I think there is enough
evidence to show there is one community. Now it’s up to
you and I believe that you can create, you can correct
the error of not having created the Senatorial District
in upper Manhattan and in the Bronx.
Just as a point of reference to illustrate my
familiarity with the area that I am talking about. I am
an attorney and I have practiced law, landlord tenant law
representing residential and commercial tenants. Mostly
from Washington Heights and from the Bronx. I have also
worked in many campaigns. I was in charge of getting out
the Latino vote for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and later
worked in the Berman campaign. I have also worked in many
races in the Bronx.
I am familiar with the area. I am familiar not
just as a Dominican American but I am familiar because I
have worked in both areas and I am telling you that the
community is active. The community wants to be involved
politically. The community is ready. The community now
needs your assistance in creating the Senatorial
District. You have support both in numbers, in the
reality of the community and in the law to do that. I
urge you to do so.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. Questions?
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: May I ask you a question
please?
MS. CEPIN: Sure.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: With respect to the Assembly
Districts. As I look at the map of northern Manhattan and
I am only familiar with the area because I drive up
Broadway to go home from like here. I can see some of
what I see with my eyes but mostly what I see on the map
is that the western part is primarily Hispanic and the
eastern part is primarily African American. Does that
suggest that the Assembly Districts could be divided say
along that boundary as well and unite communities that
are behaving as communities?
MS. CEPIN: I think it more than suggests that.
Although I am here to specifically address the Senatorial
District yes. I mean you can draw your own conclusions
but it’s so obvious that you would notice it just driving
on Broadway.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: I guess what I am saying is
I wouldn’t want to drawn an assumption based on looking
as it were from the moon because you really do need to
get close to it. But what I see from afar does reflect
the reality on the ground?
MS. CEPIN: Yes.
ASSEMBLYMAN ORTLOFF: Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Javier Zavala.
MR. ZAVALA: Good afternoon. I am here to talk
about the State Senate, to push for a state Senatorial
seat for upper Manhattan and Highbridge because the
community in which is Washington Heights, Inwood and
Highbridge have become so united with ethnicity, the
growth there, language and economy. They both, people
from Manhattan commute to Highbridge for employment. You
can see that by if you just stand on 181st Street where
the bridge unites both areas. You can tell from like
8:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night you can see
people transporting each other, MTA I’m sorry. I didn’t
have a lot of time to prepare because my colleague was
not here at the present moment. It would unite a Hispanic
community all together because that’s what it needs.
Right now it is divided by two Senators. I think
it’s Assemblyman Schneiderman and State Senator I don’t
know his name at the present moment. If we have at least
one State Senator, a Hispanic State Senator he could see
the problems. He can vision the problems that a Hispanic
community would have and probably correct it at the
present moment.
That’s about it. Thanks for your time.
SENATOR SKELOS: That completes our list. Does any
body else wish. We’ll do it by hands. I saw yours
first. Sir your second. Your third and your fourth.
MR. BERNACE: Hello. My name is Victor Bernace.
I heard my name was called before. I handed in the ten
pages for the record. I am not sure if you have that. I
apologize for being late. My name is Victor Almando
Bernace. I reside at 100 Cooper Street in Inwood. I have
lived in the community for the last 30 years. I grew up
in upper Manhattan. I lived in different parts. I have
lived on the west part Riverside Drive. I lived on
Sherman Avenue the northern tip. I was educated in local
schools.
I am an attorney. I represent local residents.
Solo practitioner. I also work in eduation. I was a
teacher in the area. I have educated over 3,000 to 4,000
students in the six, seven eight years I worked as
teacher. I am the President of an educational service.
Last year I ran for city council so I had the support of
over 3,000 community residents who signed my ballot. I
was endorsed by the Village Voice and so on.
For my comments here today I want to give to the
task force what I consider a funny story. I always tell
my friends. It might not seem related to the districting
column but it is in my opinion.
The story relates to when I was going to high
school growing up in the neighborhood. I was really
happy to be included in an honors program at my high
school. It was called Law Honors Program. You have good
grades, good test scores they would put you in a program.
We took law classes. I became a lawyer as you see. I took
constitution classes, criminal classes. The funny part of
the story comes as I ended up taking very strange
classes. Classes in law related English, law related art.
Eventually they put me in a class law related gym. Just
imagine right now I am playing basketball, throwing hoops
and talking constitutional issues, making plea bargains
and racing on the track. I was put in this ridiculous
class.
It wasn’t until a few years later when I was in
college and I started thinking about it that I cam to the
realization why that happened. It was a situation where
they had contorted, it was just a contortion of the
reality that existed in the district. The school had a
neighborhood that was mostly white. Most of the residents
avoided the school. Mostly a minority school 80%, 90%
Latino Hispanic. Most parents got their kids to go to
Bronx Science Stuyvesant or a private school. But a few
trickled into the school. Parents in my opinion they
were afraid. They didn’t want the students and school
integrating. So they developed a law program. All the
white kids went into law program, a vast majority. It
was a way of preventing integration even in the state
required courses, in gym, art, other subjects like that.
It’s just a separation of the students. You have the
white kids all on the eighth floor. And everybody lese
on the other floors of the school taking classes. Even
for gym there was a separation.
To this day I always think about that. I was
lucky. They accepted me. I think I was just a token
Latino that was put in the program to avoid
recriminations against the school and the administrators.
I think this has followed me all my life. When I was
running for city council, I lost. But when I was running
for city council I had a similarly contorted district.
It was council District 7. You have another one 10. I
remember walking the streets and constituents didn’t know
who represented them. I had somebody who was running in
a different district getting signatures in my district.
Telling people not to sign for me. It was just confusion.
Fro my comments to the task force that is what I
am here to ask. I ask as somebody from the neighborhood.
I consider myself a resident of the entire neighborhood.
I grew up poor on welfare, Latino. I became a
professional. I am an attorney. I am successful now. I
am on two sides of the track. I am not here to represent
the white community or the Dominican community. I am not
here saying oh create a Dominican district or something
like that. I am not here for that.
I believe there should be a compact district. It
shouldn’t be running all over in a horse shoe shape like
the district I was trying to represent was a horseshoe
shape lie a fat horseshoe, overweight horseshoe. That a
district should be simple. It should be guided by natural
boundaries. The east and west side of the East River of
the Hudson River and just a simple horizontal line. Where
you get to the requisite population. That would be my
opinion. I would just ask the task force to please don’t
put me in another law related gym Senatorial District.
SENATOR SKELOS: That gentleman is next.
MR. FLACKS: Mr. Chairman. I am number 23 on the
list. My name is Alan A-L-A-N Flacks F as in Frank L-A-C-
K-S. I reside at 313 West 100th Street, Manhattan, New
York City the 69th State Assembly District. I really
don’t have much to add at least along the lines of the
previous speakers. I just have a few extemporaneous
remarks. I am very pleased to see so many still here
unlike the MTA Board that disappears and returns at the
adjournment four hours later.
I testified before you last May. I am also
selfish and I am interested in only the State Assembly
Districts and State Senate Districts in New York City. I
see that they basically have been kept the same. They are
generally okay. Except the Senate Districts seem to be
more gerrymandered but certainly not like this example of
the 34th State Senate District which really is at
(inaudible) gerrymandered.
I am happy to see that New York City has been
basically left alone. That other areas that were impacted
by population shifts such as Buffalo and Rochester were
dealt with accordingly. However, I am afraid to say that
if you left things alone you still have what I feel are
egregious ethnic gerrymanders.
While you have heard pleas from people that I
want a Jewish district. I want a Dominican district. I
want a Chinese district. I want a pedophile district. I
want a district that all State Senators live in. I want
this district. I want an ebony district. I want a
Rosewood district. I want an Oak district. I want a
Maple district. I want an Elm district. I don’t want
that. I want a district that has a community boundary. I
like districts with community boundaries where all sorts
of people feel at home such as Manhattan’s upper west
side.
So you still have some erratic ethnic
gerrymanders and State Senate Districts. What I am rally
looking forward to seeing what you do with the
congressional districts. That is really what is of
interest because if you recall the testimony people were
talking about these ethnic congressional districts where
in Manhattan we have the Jewish district with
gerrymandering, the 85% white district for blonde blue
eyes Carolyn Maloney and the black district with Charlie
Rangall. A prior speaker talked about well someone who
lives across the street is in the Senate district and
that district over there and so forth. We still have
that. When I say that things are pretty much okay you
really left this ethnic gerrymandering alone and didn’t
really care about neighborhoods where people of all sorts
live and get along.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very much.
MR. LAU: Hi my name is Peter Lau L-A-U. I also
signed up earlier and am sorry for coming in late. Fifty
something 53. Again my name is Peter Lau. I reside at 39
Essex Street in lower Manhattan. Previously in 1996 I
intervened on behalf of defense in the Diaz versus Silver
case to keep the Chinatown’s in Sunset Park and Manhattan
together.
Today I do want to testify also to keep the
Chinese community in lower Manhattan within the same
Senatorial Assembly District. We all know that since the
1980’s, 1990’s there has been a great increase in Chinese
immigrants coming to New York City. Many of them would
have settled in Manhattan Chinatown because of the
language barrier, job opportunity. Because of a lack of
housing in the Chinatown area many have settled in other
boroughs, Brooklyn, Queens. But also many have moved
north of Houston Street, East of Allen, First Avenue and
north of East Houston up to 14th Street. I would expect
that this chain would continue within the next ten years
that the population in that area would continue to
increase.
While the Chinese Americans, the immigrants that
are living in that area are not isolated from Chinatown
and they are very strongly linked to Chinatown first
because of the close proximity but also many of them do
work in Chinatown. They do to Chinatown to shop, grocery
stores. Many come to Chinatown for medical services and
other social services. They come to visit friends,
relatives in Chinatown. They have strong links to family
associations which are located in Chinatown. Many come to
Chinatown daily to buy the local Chinese newspapers, to
rent videotapes. The interests of Chinatown are strongly
linked to the Chinese Americans who are living in that
area.
I do strongly urge that the task force the
legislative task force keep that area be part of the
Chinatown. I have seen the proposed Senatorial District.
It (inaudible). To the Assembly district I would suggest
that you extend the area east of Allen Street up to 14th
Street north of East Houston and up to Avenue B be part
of Assembly District 64. That is my suggestion.
SENATOR SKELOS: Does anybody else wish to be
heard?
MR. WOTTEN: Good afternoon. Actually we were
number 25 on the list. My name is Paul Wotten. I am an
attorney. I will be delivering the testimony for
Congressman Gregory Meeks who is the Chairman of the New
York State Council Black Elected Democrats. Just for
historical prospective the COBED was founded in 1966 by a
group of socially conscious assertive and influential
African American elected officials. The organization was
conceived to articulate and defend the interests of the
New York State’s African American communities and
federal, state and local government.
Presently we have expanded to a statewide
organization of more that 225 members of state, federal
and local office holders. As a matter of fact we are
very sensitive to the fact that four of our members are
from the United States Congress, 23 members from the New
York State Assembly and 8 members from the New York State
Senate whose districts you will be redistricting in the
next couple of months.
In addition to that our members also include 2
New York City County leaders, the chair of the New York
State Democratic Committee, the Mayors of Rochester, Mt.
Vernon and numerous City Council and County Legislators.
We are well aware of the ongoing civil rights
struggle and the many sacrifices made throughout history
to secure our right to vote. We are dedicated to the
protection, preservation in defense of those rights which
our people so dearly fought and paid for. Therefore we
intend to do everything in our power to ensure that the
New York State redistricting plans are constitutionally
fair and we ask for your gracious tolerance for his
input.
Accordingly we have established a working group
to monitor the task force procedures and the current
plans as they are elected. I am about to suggest some
changes that would be a reflection of our preliminary
analysis.
First of all we believe that the Senate plan
increasing a number of districts has a discriminatory
effect on African American voters and violates Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act. As you know African Americans
living in the counties of New York, Kings and Bronx are
considered a protective class pursuant to Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act.
Therefore any change in any voting practice or
procedure must be declared by the United States Attorney
General as not having a discriminatory effect prior to
its implementation. You would see that under 42 U.S.C.
1973 c.
We assert that the increase in the number of
Senate Districts from 61 to 62 discriminates against
African American voters because it creates a
disproportionate number of African American majority
population districts to the number of Senate Districts.
Thus instead of the present 8 Senate Districts
out of 61 the proposed plan has created 8 Senate
Districts out of 62. The proposed plan by creating a less
proportion of majority districts would have a
discriminatory effect and we believe under the Bher v.
United States Retrogression Analysis would be
discriminatory.
The proposed change is even more retrogressive
when you take into account the acknowledgement under the
census undercount and the fact that there has been an
increase in the African American population from the 1992
census in New York State at a faster rate than other
populations.
Moreover, we believe that the legislative task
force decision to change proposed Senate plan from
District 61 to 62 without sufficient prior discussion and
publication also would violate Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. According to Section 5 the legislative task
force must take into account the African American or
protected population in making a change according to the
rules and according the CFR. You must have an opportunity
to participate in a decision to make the change. In the
testimony we have enumerated what those sections are.
At this point here is no indication in any public
record that the task force considered the effect on
African Americans or consulted with or gave access to any
responsible African American political, education or
(inaudible) group before making a change. We would
welcome an opportunity to discuss that with the
appropriate group. We believe on the contrary that the
facts show that the district change and the methodology
for the change in the plan was not publicized until the
plan was released. We think it’s a small wonder that all
the proposed districting plans submitted to the task
force was 61 District plans.
Secondly we also think the legislative task force
plan, proposed Senate plan increasing the number of
Senate Districts violates the State Constitution. As we
enumerated in our testimony and I will summarize. We
believe that the decision in Schneider versus Rockefeller
in 1972 which the Court of Appeals find both the
methodology and the number of districts to be
constitutional established that the state constitutions
methodology established in 1894 was indeed
constitutional. In the 1970, 1980 and 1990 Decennial
Census we use the number 61. According to the plan that
has been proposed we have not been able to determine the
methodology in which the redistricting task force has
decided to change that number to 62. Consequently we
have no choice but to conclude that it’s an
unconstitutional expansion and we believe would violate
the State Constitution.
Thirdly, we believe that the proposed Senate plan
discriminates against African American and Hispanic and
Asian communities in how dilutes voting strengths in
areas in New York City, southern Westchester, Rockland
and Senate Districts. I am sure you have heard this
before but under the analysis there seem s to be an
overpopulation of the districts in lower Westchester and
Rockland County. I believe the districts 10 through 38.
Our analysis shows that there is a medium
population of approximately 318 people. The proposed
upstate Senate districts except district 62 reflects a
medium of approximately 302,000. We note that the
district 62 is a district that is 93.5% voting age
population and is located in central Brooklyn and would
be an open district.
While we understand that the districts are within
a deviation of 5%, deviation which is acceptable under
the Supreme Court analysis we believe that the
overpacking of those districts in downstate dilutes
African American voting strength in two areas.
First of all that 77% of the African American
voting age population in the state resides in the
downstate overpopulated districts. We believe that’s a
dilution.
Secondly it has an effect of dilution on the
strength of African American voters by reducing the
strength of the legislators who are elected in those
districts within the Senate chamber. The State Senate
like all legislators work through compromise and
consensus. The legislator elective from the African
American districts being usually from the minority party
have traditionally aligned with the downstate or New York
City delegation. The proposed Senate Districts plan by
overpopulation actually reduces the number of districts
from New York City and therefore would undercut or dilute
the number of African American communities that are
legislators within that caucus. The result we believe is
a dilution under the Voting Rights Act under Section 5.
According to the census from 2002 and 1992, and I
am going fast because I am paraphrasing. The New York
State population grew from 5.5% and the New York City’s
population grew to 9.4%, the upstate population grew by
1.2%. We believe the results should be an increase in the
number of downstate Senate Districts not a decrease. By
overpopulating all the downstate districts and creating a
new District 62 in Brooklyn the task force not only
denies the New York City delegation the proportion and
increase and representation but further dilutes the
affect of those Senators elected from African American
voting rights districts.
Finally, we believe the proposed Senate plan
discriminates against the African American community in
its statewide analysis. According to the 2000 Decennial
Census there is a significant population increase in the
African American population in Nassau and Suffolk
counties. However, the proposed Senate plan dilutes the
African American population voting strength in both of
those counties by splitting the communities between two
or more Senate Districts. On the Assembly side between
two or more Assembly Districts in Suffolk County.
SENATOR SKELOS: Questions? I believe you wanted
to testify.
MS. McCLAIN: Good afternoon. My name is Savona
Bailey McClain. I am the Director of the West Harlem Art
Fund. We are a community based not for profit cultural
arts and preservation organization.
As a native New Yorker and an advocate for the
arts. I am asking that you preserve State Senatorial
District 29 as an intact unit.
While the city is determining how we can best
rebuild lower Manhattan after September 11th we cannot
ignore at the same time other vital centers that make up
this great metropolis. Nor should these same centers like
Harlem receive less than adequate representation on our
State Senate. Harlem is a community that is known
throughout the world. It’s history extends over 400
years. It was a home for many Indian tribal groups, a
Dutch colonial village and a battleground during the
American Revolution.
Harlem is also home to many prestigious cultural
and educational centers such as City College, Aaron Davis
Hall, Columbia University, Studio Museum, Shomberg
Center, Barnard and Union Theological Seminary.
With support form our State elected officials
local community residents were able to preserve the
area’s architectural character through numerous landmark
designations. Mt. Morris, St. Nicholas, Autobon
Terrace, Hamilton Heights and the new Sugarhill Historic
District.
Other stabilizing housing developments like
Lennox Terrace, Riverbend, Espinar Gardens and public
housing complexes like Lincoln, Manhattan Vil and Grant
have sheltered an nurtured generations of Harlemites.
Quality of life issues like education and health
care are of major concern to northern Manhattan
residents. A singular voice in the Senate from Harlem
will best protect and expand these services. Because
State Senate District 29 serve communities beyond the
boundaries of greater Harlem the needs of the upper west
side to the south and Washington Heights to the north
also must not be ignored.
For instance according to the latest census the
documented population of residents in Washington Heights
have grown approximately 15.3% over the last 20 years.
Now it exceeds over 200,000 people. That is phenomenal
growth. Additional representation is desperately needed
for that community so as not to shortchange both
communities from state funds or constituency services.
Community groups are actively working in
partnership with our elected officials to ascertain
implementable strategies for facilitating waterfront
development, streetscape enhancement and other improved
infrastructure. Consistent leadership is needed. If we
are to build on the legacies on such important
institutions as our churches, Abyssinia, convent, Church
of the Intercession and Metropolitan AME Church and
develop Harlem as a true international destination then
we need and must have an intact district.
I must say also as a community person who is
trying to establish a state designated heritage area how
very frustrating it can be at times to try to work with
the state.
This is the first time I have ever been to
hearing. I am a little nervous. I can tell you that I
work almost 24 hours a day. Not only just working a
regular 9 to 5 but pulling off a not for profit
organization with little money and little help. We have
done a lot of things that much larger organizations with
bigger staff and budgets have been able to do. We are
trying to do the good thing and we try to preserve our
neighborhood so people do not have to fear that they are
going to be pushed out.
Right now rents are going up in our neighborhoods
to up to $2,000 a month. Before people complained because
an apartment you may have 3, 4, 5 6 persons in apartment
just sharing to pay for that rent. Most of those people
were immigrants. Now were are having people coming from
downtown who are not immigrants moving uptown. They are
still sharing 3, 4, 5 and 6 persons in an apartment to
pay for rent. This is ridiculous. It’s getting to the
point that people are so fearful that they don’t know
where they are going to go. We do need representation
that will fight for us.
Right now we are trying to do streetscape
enhancements. Trying to look at waterfront development.
We are getting a lot of problems from our city and state
officials. We’re bringing planners. We’re bringing
architects. We’re bringing thoughtful designs, plans.
We’re studying zoning. We’re studying so many different
elements, architectural zoning.
Yet at the same time we are getting grief because
we are in a neighborhood of color. I guess I am
considered middle class because I have a college
education and I come from a good family. You have people
who are just like myself who are saying well what happens
when you do the right thing and you go to school and you
work very hard. How come you can’t stay in your
neighborhood and get the same services as other
neighborhoods.
That’s not in my script but I just needed to say
that. Because I really do feel passionate about this and
I hope you can understand form a lay persons perspective
that this is really important. I cannot tell you other
statistics but this is just how I feel and I hope you
take it into consideration.
SENATOR SKELOS: Does anybody else wish to
testify? Seeing no hands I make a motion to adjourn.
A VOICE: Second.
SENATOR SKELOS: The meeting is adjourned.
(Whereupon at 2:33 P.M. the New York State
Assembly Hearing on Reapportionment was adjourned.)
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, FRANK GRAY, a Notary Public in and for the
State of New York, do hereby state:
THAT I attended at the time and place above-
mentioned and took stenographic record of the proceedings
in the above-mentioned matter;
THAT the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of the same and the whole thereof, according
to the best of my ability and belief.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this day of April, 2002.
_______________________
FRANK GRAY
|
|
Back |