By Emily Randall
Northeast News
Oct. 13, 2010

By an 11-2 vote Thursday, the City Council approved new council district boundaries, which maintain a significant African-American voting block but carve up Northeast and further divide the Hispanic community.

John Sharp, of the 6th District, and Russ Johnson, of the 2nd, voted against the new boundaries. The new scenario, which takes effect next week, shifts most of the districts northward in an attempt to balance the six districts’ populations.

The Historic Northeast neighborhoods, which were formerly represented by the 1st District north of Independence Avenue and the 3rd District south of the avenue, will have more complicated boundaries and the addition of the 4th District in some parts.

The 3rd District’s north boundary extends into all of Pendleton Heights on the west end of Northeast, as well as north to Smart Avenue between Indiana and Monroe streets, then two blocks north to Anderson Avenue between Monroe and Brighton.

North of this boundary in much of Scarritt Renaissance neighborhood and some of Indian Mound neighborhood, the 4th District reaches around into Northeast. The 4th District, which formerly ended south of the Westside and the downtown loop, now extends into the Westside, downtown, River Market, Columbus Park and the East Bottoms to Chouteau Trafficway.

The 1st District keeps the rest of the East Bottoms and extends into Indian Mound to Lawn Avenue north of St. John Avenue and to North Brighton between St. John and Independence avenues.

Many representatives of the Hispanic community spoke up at Thursday’s last public hearing on the redistricting issue in support of the alternate map — called map 17 — that the Redistricting Advisory Committee offered.

Map 17 would have split up Northeast to a lesser degree and kept more Latinos together by extending more of the 4th District into Northeast and the Westside.

“Why must we struggle at voting time?” said Alice Gomez, a Westside resident. “Please allow us to be included with Northeast and the Westside. Years ago we were joined — we had a nice place for us to be together and campaign. …We want that back.”

Several Northeast leaders spoke in favor of map 17, as well, including Indian Mound Neighborhood President Scott Wagner, Hispanic Chamber President Carlos Gomez, Mattie Rhodes Executive Director John Fierro (who also read a statement by Northeast Chamber President Bobbie Baker Hughes) and Scarritt Renaissance Vice President Will Royster. All pleaded with the council to keep Northeast together.

“You want to be able to have a voice,” Wagner said. “It is very hard for an individual neighborhood that is split into three districts to have a voice of any significance.”

However, others argued that the most important issue at hand in this redistricting process was ensuring the percentage of black people in the 3rd and 5th Districts did not move backward by dipping below 60 percent.

“Neighborhoods and geography do not trump African-American voting rights,” said Clinton Adams Jr., of the 3rd

District. “The fact that the Indian Mound Neighborhood is split three ways is no reason to pick that map over Map 13-revised. You cannot dilute black voting rights. That’s the law of the land.”

Councilman Sharp lamented there wasn’t more community consensus around the map adopted by the council. He noted the Latino and black communities usually work well together.

“It’s very unfortunate that one group is going to feel that they’ve suffered a great defeat today, while the other group may feel they’ve won the battle,” Sharp said.

He instead asked the council to delay action, pleading for more consideration of blending the two maps to create a scenario that would be closer to perfect.

“A lot of people want to wash their hands of it, be done and move on to the next battle,” Sharp said.

The new City Council will take up redistricting once again in 2011 after the 2010 Census data become available. This November, Kansas City voters will have the chance to approve a measure that would ensure in the future, a situation like this wouldn’t occur again, as redistricting would always be based on new Census information.