Redistricting Walton County

To add to the equation for boundaries will be the creation of a new voting precinct at Sandestin. The SOE shared that with me today. Long rumored but now to be a reality. Miramar beach has grown to large.

So Miramar has the largest growth and the longest drive to meet with their Commissioner, makes sense to me! It may even be quicker to take the Mid-Bay bridge through Okaloosa County.

I still don't understand why the Districts were split up the way they were instead of staying with D-5 in all of South Walton beginning at the Okaloosa line and D-1 with the remaining portions of South Walton and up to Hwy 20 since there are still less than 22k people. Maybe I am missing something. How does the D-4 Commissioner feel about the proposed changes?

So Miramar has the largest growth and the longest drive to meet with their Commissioner, makes sense to me! It may even be quicker to take the Mid-Bay bridge through Okaloosa County.

I still don't understand why the Districts were split up the way they were instead of staying with D-5 in all of South Walton beginning at the Okaloosa line and D-1 with the remaining portions of South Walton and up to Hwy 20 since there are still less than 22k people. Maybe I am missing something. How does the D-4 Commissioner feel about the proposed changes?

I agree. Walton County can easily be thought of as four areas-The beach, Defuniak Springs, Freeport and 'rural everything else'. I would propose a square district to encompass the two towns, a south of the bay swath to comprise the beach district and two big north of the bay swaths to compose 'everything else rural east' and 'everything else rural west'. The map should look like the bottom of a Tetris board, not a cat's litter box scratchings.

The Rees plan actually dilutes the representation in District 5

District 5
South of Intracoastal - 4882
North of Intracoastal - 6083

District 5 is currently 100% South of the intercoastal.

This plan also displaces two sitting commissioner's from their current districts. Whats the chance that they would vote for that ????

The Rees plan actually dilutes the representation in District 5

District 5
South of Intracoastal - 4882
North of Intracoastal - 6083

District 5 is currently 100% South of the intercoastal.

This plan also displaces two sitting commissioner's from their current districts. Whats the chance that they would vote for that ????

Any idea on why we can't just adjust D-5 and D-1 to account for the new people and keep everyone in their District?

That was presented in map3. It was eventually replaced by map 3D when people wanted three commissioner's with some part of south of the intercoastal waterway as an area they represented. Map 4 is the Rees map I suppose.

What was the outcome of the meeting today? Couldn't attend at the last minute.

Yes, I'd like to know, too. I had a doctor's appointment.

That was presented in map3. It was eventually replaced by map 3D when people wanted three commissioner's with some part of south of the intercoastal waterway as an area they represented. Map 4 is the Rees map I suppose.

The committee voted to remove maps 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4A from consideration, leaving just the 3D map and the to be tweaked Rees map in consideration. The committee had created a few maps that were far superior to the 3D map.

I was surprised that Cecelia Jones' representative to the committee was aggressively against the 3A map and Mrs. Rees' maps. All of the people who showed up (it was a full house) were from South Walton and felt that the beach was best served by two core districts in South Walton, rather than just one core district encompassing the two distinct South Walton communities and the entire beach.

The outcome of the meeting was that they narrowed down the field to the two maps -- the one the committee had been prepared to vote to recommend (3D) and the community based map preferred by the citizens. The next meeting is scheduled for June 29, time and place to be determined.

I would encourage everyone to write to the BCC http://www.co.walton.fl.us/index.aspx?nid=112and School Board http://www.walton.k12.fl.us/board/members. Also, it may be worthwhile to contact Ken Little (litken@co.walton.fl.us and ask that he let the committee know you'd like the opportunity to provide input to the committee and ask that the next meeting be held in the evening.

Jim Rester, the committee chair, deserves a great deal of praise for keeping the meeting civil and allowing input from the floor (many of the committee members seemed quite hostile toward the crowd and repeatedly reminded us that they answered to the commissioners, not the people).

I just found out that the next meeting will be at 2 p.m. on June 29 at the Ag Center building in Paxton, which is on U.S. 331 next to the ball fields and City Hall.

I just found out that the next meeting will be at 2 p.m. on June 29 at the Ag Center building in Paxton, which is on U.S. 331 next to the ball fields and City Hall.

No accident to move this meeting as far north as possible I suppose.

Don't kill the messenger, but I would point out that the committee has held meetings in DFS, Santa Rosa Beach, and Freeport up to now.

Don't kill the messenger, but I would point out that the committee has held meetings in DFS, Santa Rosa Beach, and Freeport up to now.

Bonnie asked me to post this.

There are rumors flying around, untrue, about county redistricting. I am one of two South Walton representatives on the ten-member redistricting committee.

We have had four meetings, all publicized according to public notice requirements. We have studied Census numbers and multiple maps to attain the equality in population per district required by Federal law for county districts. The 2010 Census reflects 55,000 population in Walton County. In 2000, this was around 40,000. In 2000, to have equal districts required approximately 8,000 population per district.

That was the first time in county history that south of the Bay got a piece of a second district. Before 2000, there was one district south of the Bay. As a result of redistricting with a piece of District 1 coming south of the Bay, we got two county commissioners from South Walton. Lane Rees and Tim Pauls.

Now we must put 11,000 population in each district. We do not have enough population south of the Bay to reach 22,000.

There is so much more to redistricting that I would like the opportunity to speak to any group in South Walton, bring maps and numbers, to explain what an advantage it is to get a piece of a third district south of the Bay.

I am sorry to hear so many people buying into the ridiculous banter about gerrymandering by the north. To the contrary, North Walton should be opposing this vehemently. Having one complete district and two other districts coming into the south end of the county gives the opportunity to field three county commissioner candidates and three school board candidates.

South Walton has talked about lack of representation in government for the nineteen years I have lived here. This gives us more chances at representation than ever in our history.

Is there any group that would like me to present to them and get their ideas? Please send this to your entire email list and if anyone is on SoWal, which I am not, please post this.


Thanks,
Bonnie McQuiston

I found this on Facebook. Excellent analysis of the meeting.

Has all of the maps in the article.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56391383/Recap-of-Redistricting-Committee-Meeting-052511#source:facebook

Seeing how these districts must last for at least 10 years, we are one of the fastest growing counties in Florida, and the vast majority of the growth is occurring south of the bay, doesn't it make sense to plan for that?

I know that the districts must be generally evenly divided, but IMO a map that currently has 11,100 in a district in the north and 10,900 in a district in the south would not be the worst scenario ever given current trends.

Here is a link to the latest maps.

http://www.co.walton.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=815&ART=2254&ADMIN=1

Things do not really have to last for ten years any longer. They are doing some additional surveying that is suppose to go down to the census block level which should make it possible to make future changes prior to the census, just has to be done in odd years.

Crap like this is why I am not at all concerned about Mr. Rees running again.

Brenda loves maps and wants the new districts to be geographically logical, not gerrymandered nonsense.

I do not know Mrs. Rees personally and she may indeed love maps. Her involvement may be just her trying to create a better way of dividing the county into districts but anytime someone that has political ties begins by sending a letter to the editor before presenting their proposal it makes me suspicious. Of course I am jaded and may be completely wrong. I guess that when we get to see her proposal we can all make our own decision based on how she drew the boundaries.

After looking over all of the maps including the one submitted by Mrs. Rees I cannot see how her map would directly help her or her husband. I must say my initial contempt at this was proven wrong. I appologize for doubting her.

As to the proposals themselves I think the real question is do you want three commissioners or two in south Walton. I currently like proposals with two districts because it puts two commissioners who must either wholy or mostly deal with the south instead of three commissioners with two that have little steak in the south, but that is just me. Who knows maybe someone will find a better way of dividing the county.

The theory that the south end could have 3 commissioners is crap and I'd love to hear Ms. McQuiston sell that north of the bay. The fact is that we don't have a commissioner now that represents the south. MS. Jones proved that when she submitted expense forms showing a 30 mile drive to and from work.

The interesting part of the meeting was when citizens showed disapproval of map 3D and requested it be removed. The committee without thought denied the request.

The Rees plan actually dilutes the representation in District 5

District 5
South of Intracoastal - 4882
North of Intracoastal - 6083

District 5 is currently 100% South of the intercoastal.

This plan also displaces two sitting commissioner's from their current districts. Whats the chance that they would vote for that ????

Bob,

You are either mistaken or lieing. Ms. Rees's map does not dilute district 5, in fact it keeps in in the compact zone it is supposed to be. Map 3D, however, does dilute district 5. Also, you can contact the GIS department and verify that her map does not displace any commissioner.

You and Ms. McQuiston seem to be on a mission of misinformation and it makes me wonder why you are both pushing for a map that is a clear violation of state law? Anyone can read the statutes and pretty quickly realize that map 3D would result in a loosing lawsuit for the taxpayers of this county. I wonder how much they'll settle for this time?

At this time, the population breakdown/allowed variances do not allow for 2 districts completely south of the bay. We're about 4K short.

(Thanks to litken for emailing me all the math breakdowns and explanations).

Pretty strong assertions there SWGB.

My interest in this process came to an end when the math did not work to establish two distinctly south of the bay districts.

I have no reason to provide inaccurate information or lie. It appears that the map posted here by someone else and purported to be Brenda's map was not in fact her map.

Haven't attended a single meeting and have no plans to attend in the future, particularly if held in Paxton.

I am sure that it will all work out in the future with all of the interest at this time.

The math doesn't work for 2 COMPLETELY south of the bay, but it's pretty close - and getting closer every day.

Does anyone else think that maybe the next meeting should be held in south Walton or at least south of I-10 since that is the locale where the most concerned taxpayers reside? I looked at the printed agenda from the last meeting and it does not look like any place or time for the next meeting was set in stone. I'm guessing the Paxtonians will not worry too much about the change in venue.

Does anyone else think that maybe the next meeting should be held in south Walton or at least south of I-10 since that is the locale where the most concerned taxpayers reside? I looked at the printed agenda from the last meeting and it does not look like any place or time for the next meeting was set in stone. I'm guessing the Paxtonians will not worry too much about the change in venue.

So they should not get a turn? Don't you owe me a hot dog?

The math doesn't work for 2 COMPLETELY south of the bay, but it's pretty close - and getting closer every day.

Especially if we assume no one is moving in north of the bay.