Objection to Proposed House Distrs. 194 & 200
Dear Commissioners, I write, as a 30-year resident of Mt. Airy, to object to the LRC's proposed map for the 194th and 200th House Districts. I see no good reason for the decision to unite Chestnut Hill/Mt. Airy with Roxborough/Manayunk in the proposed 194th. It certainly can't be justified as an effort to reduce partisan gerrymandering when voter registration in both neighborhoods is already overwhelmingly Democratic. Nor does it appear that the current 200th violates any of the four factors (i.e., compactness/contiguity/split minimization/population equality) constitutionally required of a House District. Indeed, the current 200th appears to be a model of compactness and contiguity. One also has to question why it was deemed appropriate to flip the demographics so that African-Americans, who were the majority in the current 200th, should now assume minority status in the proposed 194th. Such a move completely ignores Mt. Airy's long and celebrated history as a community dedicated to racial integration and equal opportunity for all. To be clear, I have nothing against Roxborough/Manayunk. They are fine neighborhoods in their own right. My wife and I occasionally dine there and a friend and I often jog on the canal trail. But we are essentially tourists who spend a very limited amount of time there. For me the issue comes down to the idea of keeping communities of interest together. A "community of interest" has been defined as "... a neighborhood, community, or group of people who have common policy concerns and would benefit from being maintained in a single district. Another way of understanding a community of interest is that it is simply a way for a community to tell its own story about what neighbors share in common, and what makes it unique when compared to surrounding communities. They are defined by the local community members." The definition fits Chestnut Hill/Mt. Airy to a tee. We in Mt. Airy East & West and Chestnut Hill are a unique community of interest. People travel regularly from one neighborhood to another for work, medical care, shopping and pleasure. We share very active civic associations (EMAN, WMAN & CHCA) that cooperate with one another. We have a couple of local newspapers, the Chestnut Hill Local chief among them, that cover events in our neighborhoods. What happens in one neighborhood is clearly of interest to, and very often has an impact on the other. The question is whether any of that can be said of Roxborough/Manayunk. It would be a stretch to say that Chestnut Hill/Mt. Airy and Roxborough/Manayunk form a community of interest. What happens on the other side of the Wissahickon is of no greater concern to me and my Mt. Airy neighbors than what happens in any other Philadelphia neighborhood. While Roxborough/Manayunk's issues and concerns may be similar to ours in kind (think traffic, development, crime, etc.), they don't share the same precise origins or produce the same local consequences. The Wissahickon Valley has ensured that we live completely separate existences. The LRC's proposed map for the 194th and 200th Districts does a disservice to both Chestnut Hill/Mt. Airy and Roxborough/Manayunk. These very distinct communities deserve to have a state representative who will serve their specific needs and interests. I urge the LRC to preserve the 200th District as it is currently drawn. Sincerely, Charles McNabb