CSAN has divided College Station into five areas for the purpose of building shared affinity within those areas. Many cities, like Bryan, have single member districts with Council members elected from within districts. While that may not be a necessary or even good approach for College Station, our City Council needs better connection to the community and especially to the neighborhoods.
After the last rewrite of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the city staff worked with citizens to create neighborhood plans. These were well guided efforts that brought focus into distinct areas and allowed a high level of citizen input. Unfortunately, City Councils have ignored these plans and citizens have felt hoodwinked.
While single member districts may not be a good approach for College Station, a modified version might work well. We might consider assigning a Council liaison to each of the five areas and one to the business community. This would allow for a Council with a higher level of connection to the community without reducing the pool of possible candidates for each seat by forcing the election out of a restricted area. While each Council member’s mandate would remain community wide, they would have increased connection and focus in a particular area.
While a Council member would not have to be elected out of the district that they represent, they would be encouraged to meet with residence in that area and be accessible to them. If an area did not feel well represented by their liaison, they would support another candidate in the next election. The fate of that seat would not be determined only by the voters from that area but they would probably hold a higher level of influence.
We have a long history of neighborhoods going it alone at City Hall as they face an often hostile and disinterested Council whose strongest alliance is to their largest campaign donors. Area representation would help build better connection to the community. Is this is something that we should we should push for as we look to the upcoming rewrite of the UDO?
While all Council members should care about College Station as a whole, it would be good to have someone interface with each Council member on a regular basis. I get the feeling that most don't see neighborhoods or even citizens as important based on words and actions at City Council Meetings. Maybe if they had a relationship with an area, they would feel differently. I do like the idea and think it could give neighborhoods some benefits in the long run.
Hugh, I like this idea. An added benefit will be council members becoming more familiar with neighborhoods outside of the one in which they live. Perhaps members changing neighborhoods annually would encourage a better view of the entire community.
It is certainly an interesting idea and would be worth trying.
Blanche, I suspect that if we had district liaisons who did not listen to the people in the district that they were assigned to that they would not endure well. I also think that it would give citizens a higher level of buyin if they had a sense that there was one person on council assigned to their concerns. It would add a level of accountability sorely missing. It is easier for disenginuous council people to hid there intentions in an amorphous gverning body.
I have a problem with these people who hold public offices. As the article states they are more apt to deal with their biggest campaign donors, which really bothers me. I feel if we don't have people actually on their boards, or what ever they call it, helping make the decisions we don't stand a chance. But in the end I do think this might be a pretty good way to at least get us an in. I agree with the last line of the article 100 % though.
I do believe that whatever is the case for one neighborhood should be exactly the same for every neighborhood, street, back alley, etc., etc., within the city limits.
This is an interesting idea. I would certainly support it over having council members elected from single member districts in a city the size of College Station. Of course, the overall welfare of the community should be the interest of all council members and electing citizens to serve on the City Council who indicate they have such a concern is what we all want.
Limiting places on the Council to single member districts tends to restrict who can run for Council unless you live in a much larger city. As far as assigning members to a specific geographical area, it might be a good way of connecting with more citizens and could be worth trying. I still believe that the most important thing is to elect citizens who are willing to listen to all citizens regardless of where they live in the city and to find better ways of helping citizens participate in the discussions of major interest in their neighborhoods and in the larger community.