Comments

44 Comments

  1. COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON ETHNICITY

    Alameda County has evolved demographically over the past 10 years. Nobody can deny this fact.
    Comparing AC to the rest of the United States, we are on the forefront of social change toward a post-racial meritocracy. What this means for Redistricting is letting go of the outdated assumption that people of similar ethnicity hold similar desires for public policies and services. For example, landlords of different ethnicities have more in common economically than do landlords and renters of the same ethnicity. It would send a very powerful message about who we have become to RETIRE ethnicity as a basis for drawing district lines. And, I believe Section 31 of the CA Constitution’s Declaration of Rights obliges ignoring ethnicity as a consideration.

    What would be more relevant considerations for Redistricting? Looking ahead to the 2020s, what will be the major public policy challenges facing AC residents: water infrastructure, wildfire prevention, housing costs and homelessness, educational quality, public safety and public health.

    I believe social mobility is a more productive paradigm to adopt than social justice. Why?
    There is too much negative thinking, clinging to past injustices, blaming, and exempting from responsibility in the social justice paradigm. In the social mobility mindset, it’s all about positive thinking, future design, actionables, and responsibility-taking. For example, to a social mobilist’s way of thinking, you focus on identifying small pockets of excellence in solving complex problems, then strive to spread the know-how. You chase success, not failure. You are skeptical of symbolic gestures, and gravitate toward serious reforms and innovations that might take time to bear fruit.

    Social mobility is best achieved through a hybrid model of government and private non-profit HumDevs each working at what it does best, and sidestepping its weaknesses. A better balancing of these two suggests that government play a role in improving the working environment for social entrepreneurs. What can ACgov do policy-wise to encourage more social entrepreneurs (who are the true experts in all the human development specialities)?

    One would be to do a survey of social entrepreneurs working in AC, to ask directly “What govt. policies could make your efforts more impactful?….more rewarding and less risky personally? What factors would encourage more well-educated activists to delve into creating HumDev service non-profits? As a 21st-century math education developer, I have some answers, but I’d rather have these be part of an organized survey rolling up the diverse panoply of other social entrepreneurs and their challenges.

    Public infrastructure (water, public safety, k-14 schools, fire prevention) are going to be playing a pivotal role in this decade. The challenge for Redistricting is how to best bring out leadership in the County in these areas. I see the mountain range separating the Tri-Valley from the East Bay as a natural boundary in the water infrastructure and fire prevention.

    In terms of public education and public safety, I believe the best goal for Redistricting is to join together an area struggling with crime and poor educational outcomes with one that is achieving excellence in these areas. The rationale is perhaps counterintuitive. The goal is to share leadership, excellence, and success across geography and demography. The goal is to (pardon my directness) isolate and weaken the ethnic-demogoguery that makes excuses for failure, and rather empower the post-racial positivists who are ready to move forward with enhancing social mobility within the framework of supportive, developmental meritocracy.

    For example, those who have taught in k12 know that the biggest difference is made by the individual teacher who pushes students to excellence and high expectations, while forming a supportive, trusting emotional bond. By comparison, top-down reform programs that dictate curriculum and/or teaching style to educators (often coming from academia) are comparatively ineffective. The Common Core Math effort did not improve outcomes, and the additional workload levied on math teachers by mandates was counter-productive.

    The County Office of Education can play a significant role by decentralizing control, and returning power and autonomy to the individual classroom teacher — to maintain order and discipline, set high expectations and reward student achievement.

    The COE needs to become entrepreneurial and counter-bureaucratic to play such a role, for example, by politely deflecting State CDE mandates such as the ill-conceived Ethnic Studies curriculum, and the lower-expectations-driven Math Framework (now put off until 2022). Ethnic Studies as a H.S. graduation requirement is a clear violation of Section 31 of the Declaration of Rights in the CA Constitution, which prohibits explicit voicing of ethnic preferences, such as forcing students to study only 4 of the 100s of ethnicities that make up AC and CA. If you digested the public comments responding to CA Ethnic Studies, you know what I’m talking about.

    I see geography was having less and less relevance to the leadership structure of the Board of Supervisors. I would actually support 3 at-large Supervisors, and 1 each from East Bay and Tri-Valley.

    But given that we are stuck with 5 geographic districts, I would do everything possible to maximize the probability of a Board of Supes where great ideas with track records of success go to be shared.

    The starting point is to turn away from ethnic stereotyping/group identity, and draw from our common humanity the best expectations and shared wisdoms. We’re moving in the right direction long-term as a County and State to prove that post-racial thinking is well established, and is producing unparalleled social mobility.

    Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions.

  2. Do not use the census information to decide the redistricting.

  3. Keep the districts as they are now.

  4. The county of Alameda should be grouped by population and location.

  5. Hello, County of Alameda, I like the way the district is set up and I would want to stick with how the way it is working right now, so I wouldn’t change anything.

  6. Financial status should not be used to categorize districts.

  7. Districts should not be divided by economical status and just purely by location.

  8. I think the districts are fine

    My community of interest is the community that wants to end the distribution of drugs to minors.

  9. I have seen that our county is divided by economic status and it shouldn’t be this way,

  10. My interest in my community is that I want it to be fair for all of the districts around me and I want there to not be any biased on how the districts are cut based on ethnicity or an ethnic goal.

  11. I think the districts are fine.
    My community of interest is the community that wants to stop gun violence and the distribution of drugs.

  12. Hello, my name is Allison Nguyen! Looking at the map I noticed that the way the district is divided is unfair. Its unfair that the group of people together is based on their economics status. I believe that the map needs to be changed.

  13. After looking at the district map of Alameda County I noticed they sectioned the districts depending on economic status of the area. I think that economic status shouldn’t be a factor while sectioning the districts.

  14. Hello,

    My name is Mai Dinh and I am from Oakland. I had noticed the county city map is unfair in the sense that district 5 had cut off some points from Oakland and went around it. I believe people should be fairly grouped together by their location.

  15. They should divide the lines by everyone’s income status. We should split it equally like this so that the higher paid people are in one district and the lower income people are in another.

  16. I belive what there are doing with the community is not right they are putting us into diffrent secsions and they are just putting the mexicans with the mexicans the african americans with the africans americans and they try to compare us with concord ca the crimes over there are calm unlike richmond recently found a dead body in ponit richmond he was missing for a couple of months they are sepreating the colors with colors . one other thing is on how much money you are making a year they devide you if you are making more than 50gs you will live in east richmond and if your family is making 30gs a year you will live in centcrel or north or south richmond .

  17. I think that the county should be redistricted based on population amount and no bias

  18. The County of Alameda’s congressional lines should be split by population and income.

  19. I think Oakland should not be split into 3 diffrent sections. I think it should be split depending on the population of the city and split the city evenly in half.

  20. They should consider location, specifically what streets they live on.

  21. Depending on demographics should be even out. No Bias voters or representatives.

  22. A district should have opposite demographics so they can have competition with each other.

  23. The County of Alameda should be divided into districts depending on population and their similarities in demographics, so that a majority can be established.

  24. I think the community should be split by population and opposing demographics.

  25. The districts should be made by having a balanced population and a balance of demographics, such as opposing political views, in order to make things fair and to get more people motivated to vote and participate.

  26. I believe the county should be split by population size.

  27. 1. I would like Alameda County to be divided by location and economic status.
    2. I think Oakland should be divided by even numbers.

  28. My community of Interest in the County Alameda should include location. 

  29. A community of interest that I have is that ethnicities should be divided into certain locations.

  30. My community of Interest in the County Alameda should include location. 

    In my community of interest of the City of Oakland, people that live in the same community should be grouped together.

  31. The County of Alameda should be grouped by location.

  32. My community of Interest in the County Alameda should include location. 

    In my community of interest of the City of Oakland, people that live in the same community should be grouped together.

  33. I believe we should add a community of interest that is a equal mix of different ethnicity that share the same democratic interest.

  34. My community of interest is a group of people that values equality and is given the same chance and I think the districts should be drawn by population.

  35. 1 I believe that the community in interest to the county of alameda be grouped by the location and placement in alameda country.

    2. I feel like we could use ethnicity and should be taken into acountabilaty because peidmont have a better eduacation then west oakland.

  36. A community of interest for the county of Alameda would be division of districts based on location and equally distancing them.

  37. In the County of Alameda, my community of interest would be equal division. Even number of people in each area/district.

  38. I believe that the community of interest to the County of Alameda should be grouped by the location and placement in Alameda County people with lower education and voting should regroup into people that have a higher rate of voting and education.

  39. 1. In the of County Alameda, people should be grouped up by a mixture of different economic status and population instead of ethnicity.

  40. I believe that a community of interest should be divided up into equal population and locations.

  41. My community of interest to the County of Alameda should be divided by location and even population split.

  42. 1. People should be grouped up by the number of population rather than by race, religious, ethnic, and economical groups.

  43. I believe a few community of interest’s that should be implemented into the City of Oakland is primarily location, racial groups, and religious belief groups.

  44. A community of interest should be grouped by the location and amount of people in those areas.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

44 Comments

  1. COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON ETHNICITY

    Alameda County has evolved demographically over the past 10 years. Nobody can deny this fact.
    Comparing AC to the rest of the United States, we are on the forefront of social change toward a post-racial meritocracy. What this means for Redistricting is letting go of the outdated assumption that people of similar ethnicity hold similar desires for public policies and services. For example, landlords of different ethnicities have more in common economically than do landlords and renters of the same ethnicity. It would send a very powerful message about who we have become to RETIRE ethnicity as a basis for drawing district lines. And, I believe Section 31 of the CA Constitution’s Declaration of Rights obliges ignoring ethnicity as a consideration.

    What would be more relevant considerations for Redistricting? Looking ahead to the 2020s, what will be the major public policy challenges facing AC residents: water infrastructure, wildfire prevention, housing costs and homelessness, educational quality, public safety and public health.

    I believe social mobility is a more productive paradigm to adopt than social justice. Why?
    There is too much negative thinking, clinging to past injustices, blaming, and exempting from responsibility in the social justice paradigm. In the social mobility mindset, it’s all about positive thinking, future design, actionables, and responsibility-taking. For example, to a social mobilist’s way of thinking, you focus on identifying small pockets of excellence in solving complex problems, then strive to spread the know-how. You chase success, not failure. You are skeptical of symbolic gestures, and gravitate toward serious reforms and innovations that might take time to bear fruit.

    Social mobility is best achieved through a hybrid model of government and private non-profit HumDevs each working at what it does best, and sidestepping its weaknesses. A better balancing of these two suggests that government play a role in improving the working environment for social entrepreneurs. What can ACgov do policy-wise to encourage more social entrepreneurs (who are the true experts in all the human development specialities)?

    One would be to do a survey of social entrepreneurs working in AC, to ask directly “What govt. policies could make your efforts more impactful?….more rewarding and less risky personally? What factors would encourage more well-educated activists to delve into creating HumDev service non-profits? As a 21st-century math education developer, I have some answers, but I’d rather have these be part of an organized survey rolling up the diverse panoply of other social entrepreneurs and their challenges.

    Public infrastructure (water, public safety, k-14 schools, fire prevention) are going to be playing a pivotal role in this decade. The challenge for Redistricting is how to best bring out leadership in the County in these areas. I see the mountain range separating the Tri-Valley from the East Bay as a natural boundary in the water infrastructure and fire prevention.

    In terms of public education and public safety, I believe the best goal for Redistricting is to join together an area struggling with crime and poor educational outcomes with one that is achieving excellence in these areas. The rationale is perhaps counterintuitive. The goal is to share leadership, excellence, and success across geography and demography. The goal is to (pardon my directness) isolate and weaken the ethnic-demogoguery that makes excuses for failure, and rather empower the post-racial positivists who are ready to move forward with enhancing social mobility within the framework of supportive, developmental meritocracy.

    For example, those who have taught in k12 know that the biggest difference is made by the individual teacher who pushes students to excellence and high expectations, while forming a supportive, trusting emotional bond. By comparison, top-down reform programs that dictate curriculum and/or teaching style to educators (often coming from academia) are comparatively ineffective. The Common Core Math effort did not improve outcomes, and the additional workload levied on math teachers by mandates was counter-productive.

    The County Office of Education can play a significant role by decentralizing control, and returning power and autonomy to the individual classroom teacher — to maintain order and discipline, set high expectations and reward student achievement.

    The COE needs to become entrepreneurial and counter-bureaucratic to play such a role, for example, by politely deflecting State CDE mandates such as the ill-conceived Ethnic Studies curriculum, and the lower-expectations-driven Math Framework (now put off until 2022). Ethnic Studies as a H.S. graduation requirement is a clear violation of Section 31 of the Declaration of Rights in the CA Constitution, which prohibits explicit voicing of ethnic preferences, such as forcing students to study only 4 of the 100s of ethnicities that make up AC and CA. If you digested the public comments responding to CA Ethnic Studies, you know what I’m talking about.

    I see geography was having less and less relevance to the leadership structure of the Board of Supervisors. I would actually support 3 at-large Supervisors, and 1 each from East Bay and Tri-Valley.

    But given that we are stuck with 5 geographic districts, I would do everything possible to maximize the probability of a Board of Supes where great ideas with track records of success go to be shared.

    The starting point is to turn away from ethnic stereotyping/group identity, and draw from our common humanity the best expectations and shared wisdoms. We’re moving in the right direction long-term as a County and State to prove that post-racial thinking is well established, and is producing unparalleled social mobility.

    Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions.

  2. Do not use the census information to decide the redistricting.

  3. Keep the districts as they are now.

  4. The county of Alameda should be grouped by population and location.

  5. Hello, County of Alameda, I like the way the district is set up and I would want to stick with how the way it is working right now, so I wouldn’t change anything.

  6. Financial status should not be used to categorize districts.

  7. Districts should not be divided by economical status and just purely by location.

  8. I think the districts are fine

    My community of interest is the community that wants to end the distribution of drugs to minors.

  9. I have seen that our county is divided by economic status and it shouldn’t be this way,

  10. My interest in my community is that I want it to be fair for all of the districts around me and I want there to not be any biased on how the districts are cut based on ethnicity or an ethnic goal.

  11. I think the districts are fine.
    My community of interest is the community that wants to stop gun violence and the distribution of drugs.

  12. Hello, my name is Allison Nguyen! Looking at the map I noticed that the way the district is divided is unfair. Its unfair that the group of people together is based on their economics status. I believe that the map needs to be changed.

  13. After looking at the district map of Alameda County I noticed they sectioned the districts depending on economic status of the area. I think that economic status shouldn’t be a factor while sectioning the districts.

  14. Hello,

    My name is Mai Dinh and I am from Oakland. I had noticed the county city map is unfair in the sense that district 5 had cut off some points from Oakland and went around it. I believe people should be fairly grouped together by their location.

  15. They should divide the lines by everyone’s income status. We should split it equally like this so that the higher paid people are in one district and the lower income people are in another.

  16. I belive what there are doing with the community is not right they are putting us into diffrent secsions and they are just putting the mexicans with the mexicans the african americans with the africans americans and they try to compare us with concord ca the crimes over there are calm unlike richmond recently found a dead body in ponit richmond he was missing for a couple of months they are sepreating the colors with colors . one other thing is on how much money you are making a year they devide you if you are making more than 50gs you will live in east richmond and if your family is making 30gs a year you will live in centcrel or north or south richmond .

  17. I think that the county should be redistricted based on population amount and no bias

  18. The County of Alameda’s congressional lines should be split by population and income.

  19. I think Oakland should not be split into 3 diffrent sections. I think it should be split depending on the population of the city and split the city evenly in half.

  20. They should consider location, specifically what streets they live on.

  21. Depending on demographics should be even out. No Bias voters or representatives.

  22. A district should have opposite demographics so they can have competition with each other.

  23. The County of Alameda should be divided into districts depending on population and their similarities in demographics, so that a majority can be established.

  24. I think the community should be split by population and opposing demographics.

  25. The districts should be made by having a balanced population and a balance of demographics, such as opposing political views, in order to make things fair and to get more people motivated to vote and participate.

  26. I believe the county should be split by population size.

  27. 1. I would like Alameda County to be divided by location and economic status.
    2. I think Oakland should be divided by even numbers.

  28. My community of Interest in the County Alameda should include location. 

  29. A community of interest that I have is that ethnicities should be divided into certain locations.

  30. My community of Interest in the County Alameda should include location. 

    In my community of interest of the City of Oakland, people that live in the same community should be grouped together.

  31. The County of Alameda should be grouped by location.

  32. My community of Interest in the County Alameda should include location. 

    In my community of interest of the City of Oakland, people that live in the same community should be grouped together.

  33. I believe we should add a community of interest that is a equal mix of different ethnicity that share the same democratic interest.

  34. My community of interest is a group of people that values equality and is given the same chance and I think the districts should be drawn by population.

  35. 1 I believe that the community in interest to the county of alameda be grouped by the location and placement in alameda country.

    2. I feel like we could use ethnicity and should be taken into acountabilaty because peidmont have a better eduacation then west oakland.

  36. A community of interest for the county of Alameda would be division of districts based on location and equally distancing them.

  37. In the County of Alameda, my community of interest would be equal division. Even number of people in each area/district.

  38. I believe that the community of interest to the County of Alameda should be grouped by the location and placement in Alameda County people with lower education and voting should regroup into people that have a higher rate of voting and education.

  39. 1. In the of County Alameda, people should be grouped up by a mixture of different economic status and population instead of ethnicity.

  40. I believe that a community of interest should be divided up into equal population and locations.

  41. My community of interest to the County of Alameda should be divided by location and even population split.

  42. 1. People should be grouped up by the number of population rather than by race, religious, ethnic, and economical groups.

  43. I believe a few community of interest’s that should be implemented into the City of Oakland is primarily location, racial groups, and religious belief groups.

  44. A community of interest should be grouped by the location and amount of people in those areas.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Comments

Below are comments that have been compiled from other channels, i.e., email or telephone. Documents are in PDF.

Stay Connected

Sign-up to get email updates.