COI Clusters for Michigan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COI Clusters for Michigan MGGG Redistricting Lab and OPEN-Maps Coalition Contents 1 COI clusters 1 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps ............................ 1 1.2 Supporting data ....................................... 22 Contributors Sta and students of the MGGG Redistricting Lab who made direct contributions to this project include Jamie Atlas, Luis Delgadillo, Jack Deschler, Moon Duchin, Max Fan, Cyrus Kirby, Eliza- beth Kopecky, JN Matthews, Lucy Millman, Chanel Richardson, Vievie Romanelli, Parker Rule, Robbie Veglahn, Valeria Velasquez, and Zach Wallace-Wright. We also thank the other mem- bers of the Lab. Active members of the OPEN-Maps faculty working group include Erin Chambers (St. Louis University), Ranthony Edmonds (the Ohio State University), Parker Edwards (University of Notre Dame), Vladimir Kogan (the Ohio State University), and Ari Stern (Washington University). Version 1.0 | August 26, 2021 1. COI clusters 1 COI clusters This is an initial round of COI clusters, or "emergent COIs," extracted from public commentary from March through July. We will produce a second and nal round incorporating August submissions as well, to be delivered on September 1. We chose a data resolution that produced 36 clusters, which are numbered A1–A36. This choice can be varied, but it’s important to consider usability by the commission, balanced with ensuring sucient richness of the supporting data. We begin with summary descriptions of the COI clusters around the state, followed by heatmaps, followed by the raw testimony that supported each cluster. 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A1. (7 submissions) Core Upper Peninsula. Submissions emphasized a strong Upper Peninsula regional identity. This region also identied three main zones: communities bordering Lake Superior, communities bordering Lake Michigan, and those that border the Wisconsin border. Main concerns in this area were about environmental threats and the prosperity of tribal commu- nities. Regional economies depend on Marquette County and many public services are available closer to Marquette City. 1 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A2. (30 submissions) "Upper Mitten" East. This area is united by a seasonal, tourism- based economy and agriculture. There are a lot of outdoor, recreational opportunities. Residents regularly travel to nearby counties for goods, services and hospitals. Concerns include a lack of nearby essential services and keeping the coastline and watersheds clean. Cluster A3. (5 submissions) Rural Northeast. This region saw many submissions talking about the local universities, particularly Central Michigan University, and the recreation and transporta- tion services and infrastructure available in the area. 2 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A4. (18 submissions) Mackinaw. This cluster is made up of small towns and rural com- munities. Tourism is primary, agriculture is secondary. Broadband access is an issue and access to hospitals is a big concern. Residents must travel to nearby counties for health care. Cluster A5. (29 submissions) Grosse Pointe / East Detroit / Five Points. This area was heavily con- cerned with unemployment issues; employment here is dependent on the auto industry/Chrysler Plant. The area is characterized by middle- and working class families who want to see more in- vestment in recreation, arts, and youth. 3 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A6. (14 submissions) Hamtramck and waterfront communities. This is a multi-ethnic and multinational region. Environmental concerns regarding industrial waste and pollution. Res- idents report high cost of living, gentrication. Shared traditions, festivals, and centers. Cluster A7. (23 submissions). Oakland County East. Royal Oak/Ferndale are middle class to wealthy suburbs. Shared recreation activities, strong local economy and commerce. Cluster also includes Detroit north suburbs with resource needs. Multi-ethnic and multi-religious diversity. Concerns with cost of living, lack of resources. 4 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A8. (13 submissions) Macomb County West. White working class, LGBT. Immigrants, Asian businesses. Cluster A9. (18 submissions) St. Clair Shores. Dependence on the infrastructure, economy, recre- ation and lifestyle surrounding Lake St. Clair. Environmental conservation of the lake. Lakeshore communities including Grosse Pointe. Cluster A10. (1 submission) Eliminated. (One submission, merged into Cluster A8.) 5 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A11. (10 submissions) Lower Thumb. This area is made up of small towns and farming communities. There is an shared local economy and rural lifestyle. Heavily shaped by shared school districts. Cluster A12. (9 submissions) Pontiac Area. This area shares businesses, community spaces and services. Some argue for keeping Pontiac and the Greater Rochester Area together. 6 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A13. (15 submissions) Central Oakland. Submissions emphasized the mix of residential and commercial areas, along with the presence of a diverse immigrant Asian community. A13 may be mergeable with A7/A8. Cluster A14. (12 submissions) Farmington Area. This area shares community services, centers, libraries, school systems and resources. 7 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A15. (6 submissions) Huron River Valley. Watershed conservation and shared amenities and resources were cited by some submitters. Cluster A16. (22 submissions) Greater Ann Arbor Area. This area is a mix of urban areas, suburbs, and small farming communities. Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan serve as a locus for employment, education, health care and recreation. 8 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A17. (9 submissions) Western Wayne. Commenters cite a clear distinction between rural areas and university areas. This cluster could be merged with A16. Cluster A18. (10 submissions) Southwest Detroit/Dearborn. Several submitters urge commission to keep Dearborn and Dearborn Heights together as one community. 9 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A19. (21 submissions) Downriver Area. This is a diverse community with a large Arab population. Residents mention pollution concerns. Cluster A20. (7 submissions) Erie Shores/Monroe Area. This area is described as a "bedroom community" and some commenters mention environmental concerns. Residents are concerned with infrastructure maintenance. 10 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A21. (44 submissions) Greater Lansing Area. Residents are concerned with keeping the Lansing area whole. Some commenters emphasize ties to the Lansing metro from suburban areas and rural farming communities. Cluster A22. (50 submissions) Hillsdale Area. Rural and agricultural economy where counties are interdependent. Public services were cited, for instance VITA (volunteer income tax assistance program). School districts are important. Some submitters make use of resources in Ann Arbor, but consider the community to be distinct. 11 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A23. (12 submissions) Southern Border Counties. Distinct rural identity. Submitters cite interstate commerce and economy across the Ohio border. Agricultural industries, shared health care services and recreation opportunities. Cluster A24. Cluster A24 is a single disconnected submission and is suppressed from the visual- ization. Cluster A25. (26 submissions) Livingston Area. Recreational activities on Dunham Lake. Wildlife and conservation. Family-oriented communities. 12 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A26. (12 submissions) Flint/I-75 Corridor. Concerns over ooding and infrastructure needs. The Tri-cities (Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland) and Flint are mentioned as key urban ar- eas. Historically associated with auto industry. Regional colleges are mentioned. Cluster A27. Suppressed from visualization—two submissions both cover nearly the whole state. Cluster A28. (14 submissions) Central/Mt. Prospect area. Combination of rural, small towns, and medium-sized cities. They share resources with the Grand Traverse Bay Area, and report several farming communities. 13 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A29. (18 submissions) Tri-Cities. Regional economy mixing urban, suburban and rural areas in the Tri-cities of Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland. Residents have pollution concerns, par- ticularly in the Tittabawasee and Saginaw Rivers. Several submitters cite Delta College and SVSU as regionally important. Cluster A30. (16 submissions) Central/Rural college zone. This cluster centered around environ- mental concerns, especially those aecting river conservation. Submissions were made up of small towns and rural communities. These communities have a shared local economy and are united by their colleges and universities, including Central Michigan University, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, Mid-Michigan Community College, and Alma College. 14 1.1 Summary descriptions and heatmaps Cluster A31. (26 submissions) Shiawassee Area. Rural farming community with several sub- missions drawing distinctions from the values of nearby Lansing. Shared traditions and festivals. School districts share resources. Cluster A32. (58 submissions) Grand Rapids area. Within the greater Grand Rapids area, special importance was placed on school districts, shared public services, and infrastructure needs. We suggest splitting this in two parts: a subcluster with K-12 and suburban themes and another with aord- ability/urban themes and higher