My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_0325_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_0325_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2011 10:20:05 AM
Creation date
10/7/2011 10:05:58 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
suburban and -exurban districts and two predominantly urban districts, in addition to the three <br /> rural districts. Of course, as with cities and rural areas, not all suburbs have interests in common <br /> with each other. This plan has nonetheless preserved suburban communities of interest where <br /> possible, including such areas as the south and western Hennepin County suburbs; Carver, Scott, <br /> and southern Dakota Counties; the Interstate 94 corridor to St. Cloud; and Anoka and northern <br /> Washington Counties. We adopt this plan because we conclude that it best reflects a balance <br /> between urban, suburban, and rural interests. <br /> Iv. <br /> Overall, this plan is balanced and fair and satisfies the criteria set forth in our order of <br /> October 29, 2001. It is among the lowest in number of split counties, minor civil divisions, and <br /> voting districts while achieving a zero population deviation. The districts are composed of <br /> convenient, contiguous territory, and are compact. The plan preserves many of the state's <br /> largest c xnmumties of interest, including Native American reservations, counties that have <br /> 3 Statistical computations of compactness are currently the most objective means of <br /> measuring the compactness of various districts. These measures have their limitations, however, <br /> because they tend to compare a district's shape to circles or squares even though Minnesota's <br /> contours often do not lend themselves to the creation of circular or square districts. Thus, a <br /> district following the state's borders will necessarily have lower compactness scores. The first <br /> congressional district in this plan, for example, fares the most poorly in the Roeck measure of <br /> compactness, but is a neat, rectangular district that follows the state's border, accommodates the <br /> Interstate 90 corridor, and encompasses whole counties except in the one instance it was <br /> necessary to add a small piece of another county to achieve the ideal population. The sixth <br /> congressional district is less rectangular, but recognizes the growth corridor between Hennepin <br /> County and St. Cloud along Interstate 94, and includes additional growth areas in Anoka and <br /> Washington Counties. While adding counties such as Isanti and Chisago' to the sixth district <br /> might have made it look more square, the `domino-like effect of altering one district would have <br /> resulted in removing Carver County, one of the counties in the original seven-county <br /> metropolitan area, from a metropolitan district and adding it to the seventh congressional district. <br /> This would have been a poor trade for additional statistical compactness points, given the <br /> suitability of placing Isanti and Chisago Counties with counties to their north. <br /> -t4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.