PO Council Gives Public a Second Crack at Voting Ordinance
Do you think it would be a good idea for Port Orchard City Council seats to be assigned to geographical districts?
The city council held a public hearing on the subject this evening, and those who testified - all two of them - said the timing for such an ordinance is all wrong.
McCormick Woods residents are more than half-way on their way to approving an annexation into the city, but if the ordinance had been passed tonight, the newly annexed area would have simply become part of the South District, with two seats open in 2009. Whereas four council seats will be up for reelection next fall.
This is just one of the implications of the proposed ordinance that will get further discussion, as the council, in response to public comment, agreed to postpone action on the proposal until its first meeting in January (Jan. 13).
I pledge to give you a better heads up than I did for tonight’s meeting. For your second crack at commenting on this major revision of the way Port Orchard elects its city officials, you may thank residents Gerry Harmon and Gil Michael (also on the city’s planning commission).
November 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
As someone who lived in the city for 35 years and now lives in McCormick Woods, I can understand the logic of the council wanting to set up districts.
There are only slightly less people The Woods who actually voted in the last election than in the rest of the city, and only slightly more registered voters here than in the rest of Port Orchard. It would be relatively easy to take control of the entire council should they put their mind to it, and run a slate of candidates. However, what’s best for McCormick might not be what’s best for the rest of the city, and I’m not sure the folks here wouldn’t vote in their own best interest.
But I do believe waiting until the annexation here is complete - as well as all the other proposed annexations (Sedgwick, Bethel and more?) are complete to draw the boundries makes the most sense. I don’t see the need for an election about this, but don’t see the need to rush into it, only to have to change the districts shortly thereafter, either.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Ooops - There are only slightly more registered voters in the rest of the city than in McCormick. Sorry about that…
November 13th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I haven’t looked at the voting records for the last (presidential) election but in the previous election for Mayor and City Council the numbers looked something like this:
Registered voters in Port Orchard - about 3500
Registered voters who actually voted - about 1700
Registered voters in the proposed annexation area - about 1400
Registered voters who actually voted - 0
McWoods residents could not vote in city elections.
At the end of the day The Woods 1400 registered pales in comparison to the number of city registered voters.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Dick,
You’re playing a game of semantics here - kind of like Gregoire and our non-deficit. Obviously, no one from here voted in the last city election. However, if my memory serves me correctly, according to the auditor’s ofice, at the time of the 2007 election, there were approximately 3300 registered voters inside the city limits, of which a little more than 1500 voted.
In McCormick, there were a little over 2000 registered voters, and about 1080 voted. The numbers - and the possible impact McWoods residents could have on the city’s election process - speak for themselves.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I don’t live within the “Woods” or the city, so pardon me for butting in. I’ve wondered since years ago when the county charter was proposed whether it is better to have all the council members (or in that case long ago, the county commissioners) care about winning my vote or only one of them give a darn. If you split into districts in the city, would that merely affect the primary election or the general election? That county charter proposal would have affected both. Any thoughts about the possibility that a voter’s influence would be diminished by districts?
November 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
In attempting to be as accurate as possible I’ve gone back to review some statistics from 2007.
Precinct 281, McCormick Woods, showed 1581 registered voters with 1061 votes cast. Precinct 281 is not exclusively The Woods. It includes such streets as Berry Lake Road, Chawla Ct, Glenwood Rd, Lake Flora Rd, and 11 others that are not part of The Woods or the proposed annexation area. These statistics are from the County website and from the “walking list” that most candidates use for door belling and other uses. There are nowhere near 2000 registered voters in McCormick Woods and I doubt there are over that number of residents, period.
In 2007 the registered voters in the City of Port Orchard was, I think, 3363 and 1641 voted in the mayor’s race. Five city council seats were up for election and the votes for each seat ran from a low of 1258 to a high of 1576.
I have lived in The Woods for a little over 10 years and I have seen a number of issues that energized our community. The conclusion one can draw is that there never has been one of those that generated unanimous backing one way or the other and I doubt there will ever be a circumstance where anything near unanimity is achieved. The 2007 school bond campaign drew about 65% “yes” votes in The Woods and the very contentious NASCAR issue had its supporters and detractors as well.
This idea that The Woods is some kind of monolith is a work of fiction and is a little insulting. We are no more monolithic that the residents of downtown Port Orchard and to think we are interested in annexation just to shove ourselves down the throat of the City misses the mark by a wide margin.
By the way Gumshoe, do you have a name? I would welcome the opportunity to share a cup of coffee with you and discuss the idea of annexation. If you have read any of the 29 Newsletters published by the annexation committee you can find out how to reach me.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Dick,
I apologize to you and the other readers here. I called the Auditor’s office for figures, and got the ones I posted earlier. However, either I miscommunicated exactly what it was I wanted, or the person on the other end misunderstood. Either way, an honest mistake. Your numbers are correct, mine aren’t.
As far as coffee, we should do that - again sometime
I’ll be in touch.
JW