This is the City Talk column by Bill Dawers, a longtime contributor to the Savannah Morning News.
The center of gravity of the City of Savannah’s population is shifting westward, which will have profound impacts on policies and politics in the coming decades.
City officials will soon approve new aldermanic district lines based on the 2020 U.S. Census, which showed a 37.3% increase in population in District 1 on the westside. That growth far outpaced increases in District 5 (9.9%), District 3 (7.5%), District 6 (4.9%) and District 4 (.5%).
District 2, which includes several historic neighborhoods, lost 2.5% of its population from 2010 to 2020.
More City Talk:Chatham Area Transit’s shuttle expansion raises questions about equity
The boundaries of the proposed new districts seem reasonable, but the ongoing population loss in the core of the city raises questions about policies regarding density, residential development and short-term vacation rentals.
Several new apartment buildings were constructed in District 2 in the years before the 2020 Census, but those new buildings could not offset the proliferation of short-term vacation rentals. STVRs have led not only to population loss in the Landmark Historic District, but they have also driven up property values, making it harder for middle-class residents to find housing in the downtown area.
The population loss was abetted by various public policy decisions that fueled gentrification, most obviously the city’s demolition of two blocks of historic Meldrim Row to make room for the new police precinct building on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
The westward shift is leading to major changes in representation for specific neighborhoods. Yamacraw Village, for example, will move from District 1 to District 2. Baldwin Park will join District 4.
The immediate political impacts of the new boundaries might be limited, but what happens a decade from now after another decade of westward expansion?
The city’s population in West Chatham seems certain to increase through both development and annexation, so District 1 will continue to be pulled further west, which could eventually result in aldermanic district lines slicing through the neighborhoods of greater west Savannah. The Canal District and adjacent areas could end up in District 1.
More City Talk:How will Savannah fare in the next recession? A look at the numbers
As a smaller and smaller percentage of city residents resides in historic neighborhoods in the coming decades, preservationists will find themselves with less political clout, and public policy might increasingly fuel sprawl.
Savannah city officials have obvious opportunities, which have been discussed often in this newspaper, to increase the population of older neighborhoods close to the core of the city, including through commonsense redevelopment of the fairgrounds, the Civic Center site and the Canal District. City officials will also be critical partners in the Housing Authority of Savannah’s proposed remaking of Yamacraw.
Despite recent controversies, the fairgrounds will presumably see significant residential development, but Savannah leaders seem prepared to forego the opportunities at the Civic Center site, and the jury is out on the development of the Canal District and Yamacraw.
City leaders need to commit themselves to following the recommendations of their own housing task force and to increasing density in the core of the city.
Compared to residents of outlying areas, downtown area residents are less dependent on cars and put less strain on the roadways. Denser neighborhoods are more efficient in terms of infrastructure spending and delivery of city services. The region will also be more resilient in a major hurricane if a higher percentage of the population lives on the highest ground.
Some Savannahians won’t be aware of the new district boundaries until they cast ballots next fall, and many residents won’t be directly affected at all.
But dramatic changes are coming. Savannah voters should be asking hard questions right now.