|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Barbara Wood
Menlo Park would be split into two San Mateo County supervisorial districts under all three possible redistricting maps an advisory committee has forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to make a decision on district boundaries on Oct. 8.
All the plans given the nod at the Tuesday, Sept. 24, meeting of the county’s District Lines Advisory Committee split Menlo Park into two districts. With slight variations in boundaries, they put the western part of Menlo Park into District 3, which also includes Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton and the coastside; while leaving the eastern part of Menlo Park in its current district, District 4, which also includes East Palo Alto and Redwood City.
Several Menlo Park City Council members have said they oppose dividing the city into two supervisorial districts.
Currently District 3 is represented by Don Horsley and District 4 is represented by Warren Slocum.
In November San Mateo County voters approved a measure changing the way county supervisors are elected. Previously, the supervisors representing each district were chosen county-wide. Now only the voters in each district can vote for their own supervisor.
As part of the settlement of a 2011 lawsuit by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights demanding an end to county-wide elections, the supervisors agreed to also consider changing current district boundaries.
The nine-member District Lines Advisory Committee, made up of supervisors Adrienne Tissier and Warren Slocum, plus council members from Daly City and East Palo Alto and a resident from each current district, has held 10 meetings, taking public comment and studying district boundaries. William Nack of Menlo Park represents District 4.
The Board of Supervisors can choose to leave the district boundaries as they are, but the advisory committee is not recommending a plan that does so.
Mr. Nack said he would be happy with any of the three plans the committee agreed to recommend to the Board of Supervisors. “I feel like any one of these three would work for me,” he said. “We’re down to three out of, how many did we start with, 20?”
Atherton resident Greg Conlon also told the advisory committee that he supports a plan that changes the current boundaries to include Menlo Park and Atherton in the same supervisorial district, because they share school districts and commercial services.
“I think the temptation is going to be very great for you to leave things the way they are,” he said. Doing so, he said, might lead to trouble. “I think there is a risk of being challenged,” he said.
Redistricting plans could be submitted by anyone, with the three that were ultimately recommended coming from the Community Unity Group, the Republican Party Central Committee of San Mateo County and former San Mateo County resident James Nakamura, each having been modified by the submitters several times.
The advisory committee, with the supervisors and Mr. Nack abstaining, also prioritized the redistricting proposals they have recommended. Their unanimous top choice was the Community Unity 4 plan, which was submitted by a group attempting to give more representation to minority groups in the county.
Second priority went to the Republican AA plan, which at the request of South San Francisco Mayor Pro-tem Karyl Matsumoto, a Democrat, will be renamed the Equity plan. Third priority was given to the Nakamura 1G plan.
The committee members, chosen by the Board of Supervisors, includes in addition to the supervisors and Mr.Nack: Gonzalo “Sal” Torres, a Daly City council member; Laura Martinez, an East Palo Alto council member; Hayden Lee of Millbrae; Raymond Lee of San Mateo; Barbara Arietta of Pacifica; and Rebecca Ayson of Daly City.
Maps of recommended plans
Community Unity Plan – (submitted by the Community Unity Group): Google map and
Republican (now called the Equity plan) – (submitted by the Republican Party Central Committee of San Mateo County)
and
Nakamura map (submitted by a citizen)
and PDF
The current district map
and
Barbara: As the line-drawer for the “Equity” plan, I want to thank you for a generally thorough and objective account of last night’s hearing. One correction though. Prop B didn’t win narrowly but by a greater than 58% to 42% vote. In Presidential elections, that margin would be called a substantial win or even a land-slide.
While looking at the three plans that were recommended by the advisory committee for consideration by the Board, from a county-wide standpoint, you are correct that there are only slight variations between the plans, but they do differ as to where Menlo Park is split. The Community Unity Plan 4c draws the line at El Camino, with 41% of Menlo Park in District 3 and 59% in District 4. Nakamura’s Plan 1G draws the line at Middlefield Road, with 56% of Menlo Park in District 3 and 44% retained in District 4. The Equity map draws the line at the East Palo Alto city limits between the county line and Willow Road, with nearly 75% of Menlo Park in District 3 and 25% kept in District 4. The neighborhoods of the Flood Tract and Belle Haven (East Menlo Park) would remain in their current district, along with East Palo Alto, North Fair Oaks, and all of Redwood City, and San Carlos and Belmont east of the Caltrain tracks to balance for population.
The plans also vary on how South San Francisco, which is severely divided currently between Districts 1 and 5, with only 52% of the City in District 1 thus having a smaller number of residents in that district than those of San Bruno is divided. The Nakamura plan reduces South San Francisco’s percentage in District 1 to 48%, while the Community Unity plan increases it to 58%, and the Equity plan increases it to 78%.
The Community Unity and and Nakamura plans don’t split as many cities as the Equity plan does, but the Equity plan reduces the impact of such splits by ensuring that no more than 24% of any city ends up in another district than where the majority of the city residents are assigned. By so doing, their electoral influence is not significantly diluted as South San Francisco’s is under the current plan.
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Bowman
Wow! Pretty ridiculous for Bill Nack of the Building Trades Council to have a seat on this advisory board at all when he fought tooth and nail against by-district elections. Now apparently we’re supposed to have confidence that despite fighting against it he’s going to give the process the care and attention it deserves?
Christopher Bowman is correct in pointing out that Proposition B didn’t win narrowly, but by a large margin. The story has been corrected.
West Menlo’s Dream come true: to be part of Woodside, Portola Valley and Atherton and less close to Fair Oaks….what a load….all the $$$$$$ and power in one district…cheers to the committee….