Full Text
Survey123 Online Feedback Where do you reside? District 3 – 37.65% District 4 – 30.59% District 2 – 21.18% District 1 – 10.59% ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposal 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposal 2 Proposal 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposal 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposal 1 Comments: • Most like current boundaries. • Red and blue districts are too fragmented. • I think this is the most equitable currently. It keeps the same districts just expands or contracts each established area. The other proposals swap 1 and 2. This means the representation of the elected officials for each area is swapped. So officials presently elected in district 1 become the elected officials for district 2 and visa versa Not what the people voted for. Proposal 1 keeps the map closely to what it is now. and the elected officials for that area remain the same. • This is the best proposal as it doesn't slice off a piece of district 2 in an awkward way. • As a resident of Canyon Rim, I'd prefer proposal 1 to keep our rim community together and intact. There is some logic to include come of the commercial areas with Olympus Hills commercial area, but, while reachable by bicycle, Olympus Hills is not easily walkable from Canyon Rim. • As a new resident, I just don't feel that I have the knowledge or insight to make this decision, but I'm glad that you are giving the residents a chance to vote. • I prefer this map the most mainly since this is the only map that keeps me with my current council member, Silvia Catten. It would be nice if this map could be tweaked to even out the population in each district. • Because one of the goals of redistricting is to "Preserve cores of the prior districts", I believe that Proposal 1 most closely meets that goal. I would choose Proposal 1. • I favor this because it more closely aligns with the current districts. • Proposal 1 seems to result in the smallest change. Switching the representative for west Millcreek seems to suggest that any familiarity the west-siders have with their current representative doesn't matter. • I think the largest deficiency in this plan is that it leaves District 1, where the most past growth has been seen, the largest district, such that it is likely that future growth will effectively devalue the interests of people in that district moving forward. I think if any imbalance is to exist in the map, it would be better to favor over-representing in District 1 for now, expecting that past trends in growth are likely to balance representation in the future. Instead, this map leaves District 1 as already the largest, starting off with a potential imbalance right off. This map is closest to the past map, so I understand it, but I think it leaves the largest potential for future imbalance before future redistricting. • District 2 is to split. I think Millcreek Districts should be better connected. • Boundary between District 1 and 2 is kind of funky. Breaks up natural neighborhood boundaries. • This most closely represents each section of Millcreek individually as each district will have different needs based on traffic patterns and surrounding infrastructure. District 2's population will grow over the coming years with planned improvement to the area. • Has the greatest population disparity between the districts. • I appreciate that this keeps the most continuity with the current map, but it does seem to fail some logical tests for being maximally geographically contiguous. ---PAGE BREAK--- • Proposal one makes the most sense because it creates the least impact on the current boundary lines. I voted for Thom and would like to have him continue to represent me. Proposal one is the only opportunity for that to continue. • Choppy doesn’t seem to follow major roads. • This appears to be the most geographically cohesive of the proposals. It also seems to have the closest numerical balance of population among the 4 districts. • More condensed and Millcreek is in the area. • Living east of 700 East, this proposal puts me with my shopping, my medical and most other services I use in the same council district 2. • We just voted in Thom, and I would like to see what he is going to do for our district. • One of my biggest concerns is to dilute the significant money that exists on the east side making it more difficult for them to dominate politics in the city. This plan does a decent job of that. • I don’t like this one because district 2 doesn’t look contiguous. There’s a little section on the bottom that looks like there’s some funny business going on. • I live in district 4 and like not subtracting any of our district. It seems to be the only proposal that keeps districts 1 and 2 somewhat the same. • The population is not split as evenly, and district 3 is an awkward swath. • I want to keep Thom as my council person. • I feel this is the best map as it is very similar to the current boundaries and appropriately adjusts for the population shifts. • It looks like it is the closest to the previous boundaries. • Not as bad as proposal 2 but does fragment neighborhoods identity more than 3. • Seems closest to status quo. • This proposal maintains the current districting for the most part, allows the parley’s trail corridor to be represented by the same district and representative. This proposal also does not swap district 1 and 2 which would require a large % of Millcreek residents to change their representative. • I like that district 2 doesn’t swap areas with district 1 for the most part. This option seems the least disruptive to our current district boundaries. I voted for our current district rep and want it to stay the same. I know nothing about the other district reps and am not sure they would do the same as what our district rep will do. • Least impact for most residents. • This appears to be the proposal with least amount of change from current map. • While this map keeps parleys creek & canyon together, it separates out the Olympus cove area. • It seems to portion the amounts more evenly. • It divides the N Olympus neighborhood (north of Millcreek canyon). The neighborhood is shares more together than it does with Olympus cove and Canyon Rim each. • Of the 3 options this looks most like a gerrymandered map. • I would like to retain the council member I voted for. Which is only an option in proposal 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- • Proposal #1 is the least disruptive of the proposals in that the proposed boundaries most closely resemble the current boundaries. Proposal #1 appears to reflect the mandated guidelines most accurately from the UIRC. • Seems like it would be the least disruptive option based on what appears to be a minimal amount of boundary changes. • Too imbalanced in districts. • I like this option. It keeps the boundaries as close to the current as possible. • In closely reviewing each proposed map, I believe Proposal 1 will have the least impact on our current council boundaries while still meeting the requirements under the new census requirements. • It seems like the cove should all be one district. • Proposal #1 meets all the criteria outlined by the (UIRC) and is most consistent with current Millcreek City 4 District boundaries. • Simplicity is important in encouraging and increasing civic involvement, and these boundaries aren't as simple as the other options. • I live in District 2 and want Thom DeSirant as my council member. • This aligns boundaries most closely with currently elected officials. Proposal 2 Comments: • Red and blue districts are too fragmented. • I don't like how this one cuts my neighborhood and elementary school boundary in half! • Proposal 2 keeps my Canyon Rim community intact and allows Rim commercial also incorporates more of the business areas that are walkable connected to our community. • This doesn't make sense to have the little connection with the two big sections of District 4. This is like the Brickyard area belonging to Salt Lake City. The analogy probably doesn't apply here, but it looks like a gerrymandered map. • I am vehemently opposed to this map. It puts my home into a council district with people that are not in a community of interest and that I have nothing in common with. That means I will NOT have a voice compared to most of the other people in the district. And the person I just voted for will not be my council member. • This map does achieve a better balance of having the area where the most past recent growth occurred be the new smallest-population district, which I favor for reasons stated in my other answers. I also like that it favors making the area of least growth (District 3) begin with the largest population. I still struggle somewhat with splitting the Olympus Cove area (the area East of I-215) in two, but perhaps that is the best that can be achieved taking into consideration all the guidance of the UIRC. • I think District 4 should be more connected. • Districts 1 and 2 look much better in this proposal. Districts 3 and 4 are both stretched out too much from east to west. ---PAGE BREAK--- • Very similar to proposal 1. This closely represents each section of Millcreek individually as each district will have different needs based on traffic patterns and surrounding infrastructure. • Provides for the greatest east west socioeconomic mixing. • This keeps East Mill Creek about the same as it is now and continues to give Canyon Rim some of the Olympus Hills area residents. • A compromise option between 1 and 3, but without any real of its own. • Numbers appear fairly equitable, physical area appears simplified although I don't understand why ALL these suggested maps cut the neighborhood around brickyard plaza. I would be dividing south border pf district 1 along Highland Dr. Otherwise, this proposal gets my vote, UNLESS you would just leave it as is! What appears to have changed west of Highland are more apartments, an everchanging demographic. • This proposal also retains the fidelity of Districts 3 and 4. • District 3 seems to divide into 3 areas. • The geographical divisions seem less coherent than in Proposal 1. • I do not understand why the designations for districts 1 and 2 have been reversed. Please explain. • One of my biggest concerns is to dilute the significant money that exists on the east side making it more difficult for them to dominate politics in the city. This plan does the best job of that. • Looks like D2 & D3 are the same on this proposal as proposal 3. But proposal 3 has a more equitable distribution of population. • I like this change to my district 4 the best. But I dislike the total disruption to districts 1 and 2. • This one is okay, but district 3 is still awkward and districts 1 & 2 have changed places. • This would fragment most neighborhoods compared to proposal 3. • I am not a fan of district 1 & 2 being switched in this proposal. I think that puts a large % of Millcreek residents in a tough spot as it would mean changing representatives. • Not quite as compact as option 3. • Nowhere in the published information is there an explanation for the change of district numbers for Districts #1 and There is no conspicuous reason for this change. It would be very disruptive for the affected residents, not to mention the issues for the incumbent representatives. • Completely flip-flops elected officials. Seems we are trying to fit boundaries to where council members reside. Not a good long-term approach. • I like the balance between districts 3 and 4 from east to west (vs proposal • District two looks more balanced and equal to the other districts in this one. • Proposal #2 is a close runner-up to the criteria outlined by (UIRC) Proposal 3 Comments: • Puts everyone east of I-215 in the same district. ---PAGE BREAK--- • While proposal 3 is the 'best option out of all3 3, I still don't think it's ideal. Why not adjust districts 3 and 4 more like 1 and 2 - so they are more aligned with a North/South border? I feel this would allow for the best representation of the districts. • This seems to combine communities that have the most in common. Not sure why the flip flop of District numbers, however. The yellow should be District 1 and the green should be District 2 in the proposed 3 map. • This is my preferred map. It keeps more neighborhoods together and has more common-sense boundaries. • Neighborhood interests are similar within each district. • Proposal 3 removes some of our Canyon Rim neighborhoods. While continuous on the map, the reality of streets & freeways creates a separation of the northeast rim from Olympus Hills. Rim communities have different issues than the hills of Olympus. • This District 2 is not cohesive. I feel my issues and concerns in this District 2 would not have a voice and would have little in common with the southern part of the district. My area is cut off from the areas in Millcreek in which I interact. • This proposal appears to match the demographics of each area most closely, as well as get the districts closer in representation values in my opinion. • This is the only proposal that allows property owners along I-80 and I-215, Olympus Hills and Canyon Rim, equal representation. • This seems closest to the best, but I can't help but wonder why districts 3 and 4 are not divided based on a north-south basis rather than east-west. Using this option 3 as a starting point, why not add to district 4 the portion of district 3 which is east of 2700 East and north of 3300 South, and then remove from district 4 that portion below 2700 East and south of 3300 South and put it with district 3? This way the boundary between districts 3 and 4 would be 2700 East which is basically a straight shot between the two districts. District 3 would be west of 2700 East and District 4 would be east of 2700 East. If the numbers in the new districts aren't close enough, there are other north-south streets in these areas (eg. 2900 East, 2300 East, 2000 East) which could be used for boundaries. • This isolates the narrow strip between 700 E and 900 E north of 3900 S. • Proposal 1 seems to result in the smallest change. Switching the representative for west Millcreek seems to suggest that any familiarity the west-siders have with their current representative doesn't matter. • Keeps my neighbors together. • This seems like the clear choice - I really like that district 4 isn’t convoluted anymore, and 1-3 retain their straightforward shape. • My husband and I strongly support this proposal. As we have lived in Millcreek as a city, we have come to realize how much people feel an affinity for their own community council districts, which they associate with home. This map most closely aligns with those districts. And it places Mt. Olympus once again in one — not two — community council districts. It also seems to keep East Millcreek intact, and Canyon Rim, with the two western districts being Millcreek Community Councils. So, this is the choice we strongly support. ---PAGE BREAK--- • Better supports current city districts and strengthens Olympus Cove area. • I like that Proposal 3 keeps the entire area East of I-215 together, as I feel that that area's interests are likely to be similar/more unified. Given the largest percentage of growth in the city over the past ten years has occurred in District 1, it makes sense to me to, if anything, err on the side of including a smaller geographic area in (proposed) District 2 and a larger geographic area in the other districts (knowing that no future predictions can be perfect), and this map achieves that. To the same end, since District 3 experienced the least growth over the last ten years, I would think a best proposal might look to favor leaving District 3 larger than other districts (maybe taking a little more from District 4 vs. the current proposal? • I would really like to have my district the same as my community council. This map is the only one that unites the Mt. Olympus Community in the same district. • I like that each District should not be “gerrymandered” this map does that best. • This is the best of the three proposals IMHO. Most compact districts that align with natural neighborhoods. • It seems Proposal 3 does the best job recreating contiguous districts that have common concerns. • I think this plan best merges neighborhoods that may have the best common interests and needs. • Having grown up here since childhood and still living in this neighborhood, this map makes the most sense. District 4, should be represented by all the homes above Wasatch Blvd. Those homes owners have similar interests based on the geography alone. • Promotes east west socioeconomic separation. • This map makes most sense to be because you keep neighborhoods together where issues and concerns are likely to be similar. • This looks like the least complex division without the odd wrap around and for district 3. It also simplifies the shape of district 2. • My preferred map, these boundaries appear reasonable and keep similar types of households the eastern edge along the canyon) together. Looks good! • This proposal appears to break up some neighborhoods in an unusual way for Districts 3 and 4, and it is not clear why or in what way it would be preferable or affect the population balance as compared to Options 1 and 2. • Districts are more contiguous and appear to be more evenly divided. It does move us from district 1 to district 2. • This proposal appears to entail substantial shifting of residents among districts (although I could be misreading the map and numbers). • One of my biggest concerns is to dilute the significant money that exists on the east side making it more difficult for them to dominate politics in the city. This plan does nothing to address that. • This is my first choice. It has the most equitable distribution of population, and the borders seem more “natural”. • People east of Highland drive in district 4 should stay in district 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- • This map has the best distribution of population with the most reasonable boundaries however, I don't like that district 1 and 2 have changed places. You should switch the numbers back but keep these boundaries. • Love this one! We are in district 3 and love the remapping of our area better. • This is the best proposal as it keeps the most like geographic areas together, where the representation matches the areas the best. • I believe this map represents all districts better by income. • I like keeping the area east of 215 in one district. • The neighborhoods next the foothills have important common issues: fire protection, wildlife, access to hiking & biking trails, other recreation like paragliding & zip line set up from hilltops. Proposal 3 also keeps Skyline high, & the 2 feeder junior highs together. Proposal 3 keeps the mill creek neighbors together for input of the future I- 215 exit. For these common major issues, proposal 3 makes the most sense. • Of the three options this looks most compact and least like a ‘gerrymandered’ map. • Mostly population balanced. • I like expanding district 3 east of where I live. • Proposal 3, while like proposal 2, seems to have more clearcut boundaries. • I support map What I like about this choice is that there are clear dividing lines between the 4 districts. No confusing boundaries. I especially support District 4 acquiring the residents living east of I-215. It makes more sense than the current district division between 3 and 4. • I think you did a good job with all the maps I guess this one would be my choice so the cove could all be together. Being up on the foothills may have different issues. The other areas all seem to have natural geographic lines. Thanks for your work. • Proportionally equal districts, current elected officials represent majority of the population. • I choose number three because it's the only one that doesn't have people in the high- income area east of 215 in the same district as people in the high-density area near the city center. The needs of these two groups are completely different and they shouldn't be grouped together. Also, I live in a high-density area near the city center but I'm in a different district than the city center. I'm grouped in with single family residential and I don't especially think that's right either. I think all the apartment complexes around the brickyard shopping center should be in the same district as all the new developments in the city center. • I prefer to not change the map and leave as it is. Strongly disagree with this map. • I like the balance between districts 3 and 4 from east to west in proposal 3. • This one seems the most equal of them all.