Town Square

Committee recommends splitting Menlo Park in county redistricting move

Original post made on Sep 25, 2013

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.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 11:42 AM


Like this comment
Posted by Christopher L. Bowman
a resident of another community
on Sep 25, 2013 at 2:23 pm

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.


Christopher L. Bowman

Like this comment
Posted by Jess Hansen
a resident of another community
on Sep 25, 2013 at 3:11 pm

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?

Like this comment
Posted by Renee Batti
associate editor of The Almanac
on Sep 25, 2013 at 4:29 pm

Renee Batti is a registered user.

Christopher Bowman is correct in pointing out that Proposition B didn't win narrowly, but by a large margin. The story has been corrected.

Like this comment
Posted by Susan Smith
a resident of Woodside School
on Sep 25, 2013 at 7:57 pm

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....