Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 18, 2013
New redistricting map as deadline looms
by Brandon Darnell, published on August 8, 2011 at 6:46 PM
Storyline: Local Government
Loading images
Tuesday night could be the last chance for the public to give input on the city’s redistricting maps, even though another map was added to the mix on Friday.
The newest map is a merging of the two maps brought to the table July 26 by Councilmembers Sandy Sheedy and Steve Cohn.
Cohn said he and Sheedy decided to merge their maps, since they were so similar.
Redistricting will likely be the biggest topic of discussion at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, which will be held at 6 p.m. at 915 I St.
“This is the best opportunity for people to provide public testimony,” said Scot Mende, the city’s new growth and infill manager.
Currently, the council is looking at the four maps submitted by the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redistricting, the merged map from Cohn and Sheedy (pictured above) and the maps submitted individually by Cohn and Sheedy. The latter two maps likely won’t get much consideration, if any, in light of the new one.
“The council could, in essence, say, ‘This is the map we want. Staff, please prepare the ordinance and bring it back for adoption in two weeks,’ ” Mende said Monday.
Cohn said that is what he wants to see from the meeting.
“My goal would be to narrow it down to one map,” he said. “That would still give us time to make refinements and tweak it.”
The deadline to redraw the districts is Sept. 27.
At the contentious July 26 City Council meeting, Cohn said he introduced his map because he didn’t want to break up the neighborhoods, which he said was a problem with the four maps submitted by the advisory committee.
“I would say all four maps have problems, frankly, but the one that seemed to have the most support on the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redistricting was Map D,” Cohn said Monday.
He added that he used Map D as a starting point for his map and then altered it to bring some neighborhoods in North Sacramento and Del Paso Heights back together.
“It still keeps all of downtown and Midtown together (in District 4), but the River District and the railyards go in District 3,” he said. “That has the advantage that whoever is the council member in District 3, which is me at the moment, will have more time and will be able to focus on railyards more. The council member representing downtown and Midtown will have their hands full.”
Cohn said he and Sheedy worked together to come to the current merged version of their two maps.
Sheedy did not return phone calls Monday.
The new map came as a surprise to Nick Avdis, a neighborhood leader who lives in Valley View Acres, which is currently in District 1, but which under the new map would be put in District 2.
“I would say it’s a little bit of a concern that something arose like this sort of at the last minute before the hearing,” he said.
He added that the approximately 450 residents in the neighborhood identify more with Natomas in District 1 than neighborhoods in District 2, and issues such as levees and the possibility of nearby land annexation – both in District 1 – impact them.
“We feel our interests are better-aligned with District 1,” said Avdis, who partook in the redistricting meetings the city has held over the past five months and even submitted a map himself.
He speculated that the reason his neighborhood was put into District 2 in the new map is because Cohn and Sheedy were trying to lessen population deviation between districts.
Cohn acknowledged that the new map he and Sheedy put together isn’t perfect, adding that it’s not possible to make one that will satisfy everyone.
Currently, the merged map has a population deviation of 11.9 percent between districts. Original guidelines for the citizen-submitted maps called for deviations of 10 percent or less, but Mende said that’s not a law, and if there are reasons for the deviation that are justified, it can still be used.
The law requires that districts be evenly split by population, but it does allow for some variation. Mende added that a 10 percent deviation is a rule of thumb used as a guideline.
“I’m fairly confident that any of those seven maps would pass legal muster,” he said. “There is no perfect solution.”
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Further, Land Park residents often supported and attended Midtown residents meetings on issues with shared borders such as the Broadway Corridor. I'lll drop it at that because I don't want to give examples that open old wounds.
As to others seeking commonality to be the primary focus, homogeneity only exists in the suburbs beyond the first suburbs that border the Central City. Any slice of the central city including RR yards is different that its bordering neighbors but lack of population does not enable the Central City to have "its own" district.
Regardless of whether we live in Midtown, Downtown, Southside, Alkali Flats or even the older inner suburbs, most of us who live in the old neighborhoods because we ‘would not want to live anywhere else in Sacramento'. And many of us have given up things to live here. That is what binds us and sets us apart from the rest of the city. We want to restore the historic city and strengthen our community by bringing the core neighborhoods together politically. And that is exactly what some people in this town do not want us to do because by keeping us divided they can maintain their power and control, such as it is. Everyone needs to understand that a better urban core would be good for all Sacramentians regardless of where they live.
As citizen residents we have the right to shape the future course of our community. It's not up to bunch of self-serving politicians and self-proclaimed business and civic leaders anymore.
Perhaps Councilmembers Cohn and Sheedy could let the public know which special interests drew their map that has emerged from the dark of night.
It's outrageous that these councilmembers think that these are "their" districts to draw as they want. They are OUR districts. The belong to us, the voters.
Time for Sheedy/Panell/McCarty/Fong to go this year and Cohn the next time. This should be the start of a groundswell of community support to unseat this ship of fools.
We keep hearing about the gay community and the Latino community underrepresentation and their want of a larger voice in our city governance. These groups are claimingly well organized, hopefully they will up your candidates and get them out there.
A living breathing candidate that can make sense about 50% of the time will stand up very well against the Bickersons (ie the Sheedy/Panell/McCarty/R.Fong quadrumvirate).
"For the U.S. congress, strive for strict population equality; no difference is too small if it could have
reasonably been avoided. For local and legislative cases: Total deviation below 10% may not constitute prima facie equal protection violation; above 10% needs strong affirmative defense. However, in Larios v. Cox (2004) the court concluded that even +5% is not a safe harbor. (For example +1% and -9% still totals 10%, but one district was more than 5% over/under). The more deviation, the more potential lawsuit challenge."
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/redistricting/documents/RedistrictingPrimer1-Criteria.pdf
If the Council goes forward with this plan, they should expect a court challenge.
Frankly, if higher deviation was necessary to maintain neighborhood integrity, then so be it. "One person, one vote" was a Warren Court contrivance, and violates Federalism. The republic was and should be again a compromise between representation by population and representation by territory (states, and yes, counties within states).
That said, this map certainly does *not* maintain neighborhood integrity. Look at those two ridiculous southern districts, as well as carving up the grid. The American River is a natural district boundary and should be respected as such.
Sensible Districts, working outside in:
1. North Natomas
2. South Natomas / Northgate
3. Del Paso Heights / Haggin Oaks / Robla / West Arden
4. East Fruitridge / Howe / Power Inn (and Fabulous 30s-40s-50s?)
5. Meadowview/ South Sacramento / Valley Hi
6. "Pocket" / Greenhaven / Freeport Area
7. Land Park (and Oak Park?)
8. The "Old City" Grid (and Oak Park?) (or and Fabulous 30s-40s-50s?)
There, that wasn't so hard, now was it?
That said, this map certainly does *not* maintain neighborhood integrity. Look at those two ridiculous southern districts, as well as carving up the grid. The American River is a natural district boundary and should be respected as such.
Sensible Districts, working outside in:
1. North Natomas
2. South Natomas / Northgate
3. Del Paso Heights / Haggin Oaks / Robla / West Arden
4. East Fruitridge / Howe / Power Inn (and Fabulous 30s-40s-50s?)
5. Meadowview/ South Sacramento / Valley Hi
6. "Pocket" / Greenhaven / Freeport Area
7. Land Park (and Oak Park?)
8. The "Old City" Grid (and Oak Park?) (or and Fabulous 30s-40s-50s?)
There, that wasn't so hard, now was it?