What's Wrong With Troost

I didn't expect to write a post about redistricting until some time next year. Through a legal quirk I don't understand, new Kansas City district boundaries must be redrawn before next year's municipal elections even though official census figures won't be released until late next spring. One of the problems, I gather, is the Census Bureau's finding last year that Kansas City has gained more than 40,000 new residents since 2000. Here's the breakdown by current district:

• District 1: Up 21,758 
• District 2: Up 16,055 
• District 3: Down 2,496 

• District 4: Up 2,234 
• District 5: Up 1,885 
• District 6: Up 1,317

Why the council has to redistrict is not what I want to talk about. Look closely at the pictures in this post. They're both sidewalk landscaping boxes. What you wouldn't guess from the photos is that they're directly across from each other on the same street, Troost, in fact. Why, then, do they have different designs?

Is it because they're in different council districts, that their designs were ordered by different paperwork processes? Did the individuals who made the design drawings know there was someone else making drawings for the opposite side of the street?

Maybe this has a completely innocuous explanation. After I noticed this, I started thinking about what it takes to do anything on Troost. I noticed years ago that district boundaries from State Senate all the way down to school board tend to follow Troost. What that means politically is that anyone who wants to do anything for Troost has to deal with twice as many policy makers as they would a half block to either side.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not attributing everything that's wrong with Troost to the imaginary lines down the middle of the street. I'm saying that the extra burden is a hurdle that Troost doesn't need. There may even be cases where these lines were the straw that broke the camel's back.