Keep Upper Chichester Township in the 160th
Hello, I am a resident of Upper Chichester Township, part of the current 160th state house district, and I am opposed to the current proposal of removing Upper Chichester from this district. As a resident of Upper Chichester for the past 31 years, I oppose this version of the redistricting map for several reasons. 1.) The lines drawn in the new version do not fairly represent the make up of our community. The new boundaries put the citizens of Upper Chichester in a drastically different demographical area than our current district, one that is not very similar to our small town. Upper Chichester may look close geographically to the 159th district, however if you did more research you would see that both economically and statistically the make up of our town is quite different from the others. For many years now we have been in the 160th with communities that we share commonality with. We cross into these towns for retail shopping, we share church congregations, we share major roads linking us together. We have similar middle class roots. Changing our district or adding us into the 159th lumps our township with towns many of our citizens never travel, shop, or visit (for reasons listed below). 2.) For decades now the RT 322 widening project has been in the works. This Penn DOT project was championed for years by State Representative Steven Barrar, the former rep of the 160th. After years of talks, it is happening. The beginning phases of the plan have already been finished in parts of the current 160th. The next year or two the project will be coming directly through Upper Chichester Township. This is not the time to remove us from the 160th, where this project originated. We need the confidence and assurance that if any problems are to arise during this next phase coming through our towns, that the leaders in Harrisburg will be able to address them. I believe it is important to see this project to completion in our current district, to prevent unnecessary confusions or delays. 3.) The reality is that Upper Chichester has unique problems that are more similar to those towns in our current district, not the 159th. We are a township made of up small towns, we are not a "city" as Chester is classified. We have commissioners that govern part time, not a mayor or full time town council. We have vastly different budgets, we have vastly different schools, and we have vastly different crime. We have a low crime rate in our town, much lower than these towns in the 159th that we are being drawn in with. As I mentioned above, for this reason many of our residents have never been to parts of the 159th, let alone travel, shop, or spend time there. I ask that you reconsider the current proposed map, please keep Upper Chichester Township in the 160th state house district. I believe that it is important to be fairly represented, placing our town in the 159th would result in unfair representation and under serve our community. -Justin D. Zebley Upper Chichester Township