Comments

138 Comments

  1. Hello,
    Please keep Pleasanton in the Tri-Valley! It is silly not to have us in with people and places we are involved with on a daily basis!
    Sincerely,
    Joan Tenbrink

  2. The latest map (A3) cuts the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore community into two separate sections, which directly splits up our community of interest. This is through the middle of Pleasanton which does not match the boundaries of our COI covering Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore.

  3. The latest version of map with Pleasanton cut out of the rest of the Tri-Valley looks suspiciously like gerrrymandering.

  4. Looking at the redistricting map, 4-A3 is big geographically, but looks to have the smallest population of the 5 county districts. As a resident of Castro Valley, I would prefer to see Castro Valley, Pleasanton (both part of 4-A3) be joined with Dublin, Livermore and Sunol to create a more concentrated grouping of like East Bay communities that Alameda County can represent as one. I suggest that is what comprise of 4-A1 would be Castro Valley, Dublin, Pleasanton, Sunol and Livermore. And then 4-A2 would be Newark, Union City and Fremont (South Alameda County). 4-A3 would be Hayward, San Lorenzo, San Leandro (Central Alameda County). 4-A4 would then be comprised all of Oakland, Emeryville and Alameda (West Alameda County). 4-A5 would remain as is with all the cities currently assigned (North Alameda County). Each District would have significant populations to each have adequate representation.

  5. The Tri-Valley, i.e. Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin must be kept together. People, businesses, schools, police, fire fighters, churches, organizations, etc., all go back and forth among these three cities. We are all closely connected. We are like a family. Do NOT divide us up.

  6. I believe the Tri-Valley should remain together. We share many of the same services and interests. Minimally, Please DO NOT split the City of Pleasanton. Our city should be able to stand together. I do not want to be in a different district from friends in the same city with the same interests.
    Thank you.

  7. While certainly exacerbated and highlighted by COVID, the poverty and “inequity of services” in Alameda County is not something new. In calling himself the voice for the “underprivileged” and “underrepresented”, Supervisor Valle said he was speaking for all of those who couldn’t call in or speak up in this process due to their circumstances. He wanted to ensure that the “…areas of the county that have been historically, again historically, disadvantaged in poverty, where there are concentrations of poverty, they deserve their, an [sic] equitable representation.”

    Supervisor Miley said that while not perfect, this map will “recognize the COIs and balancing the interest of all the portions of the County in terms of the COIs we’ve heard from, but also keeping in mind in trying to ensure the representation of the Board of Supervisors is in a manner that is conducive to public interest.” Supervisor Haubert agreed, saying this map was good progress being in line with Supervisor Valle’s comments, and “for the first time ever” it “recognize[s] the need to pay special attention to those who otherwise can’t dial in and participate, who otherwise aren’t able to speak up for themselves.”

    Although parts of the Oakland Black Cultural Zone and the overlapping Oakland Unity Council COIs were moved between Districts 3 and 4, the final map, designed and approved by the Board on the 2nd, did not significantly impact the heavily poverty-stricken areas in Districts 2 and 5.

    District boundaries aside, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors has always had the wherewithal to work together on issues affecting more than one district. So exactly how will the changes made during 2021 redistricting suddenly empower the Supervisors to move forward and address the poverty in Alameda County? What tools do they now have that they didn’t have prior to this redistricting? How does this new map expand the services those living in poverty may need? Where is there now equitable representation for all the disenfranchised where there wasn’t before?

  8. Good meeting tonight with pertinent discussion. One item not mentioned – exposure to grass fires. We live at the south end of Alameda County, just east of Mission Peak. The fire in 2020 came to the border of our ranch. We watched as the fire went across Calaveras Road and roared south of us. A fire truck spent the night in front of our home for 2 nights. We feel that Sunol, Pleasanton and Dublin areas share the exposure to grass fires that the rest of the county does not.
    Please try to keep this area whole.

    Thank you

    Alexandra Starr

  9. Hello,

    Please choose Map 2 for Alameda County‘s Supervisor districts. Please do not separate the Tri-Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin and Sunol again. We are as similar as possible and depend on each other for fire departments, newspapers, transportation, schools, healthcare, social and mental health services. We share the same needs which have more chance of being met if we are a strong force together than if we are separated and joined with much more urban, diverse areas, whose needs are very different than ours.

    Thank you, Helen Machuga

  10. Tri-Valley should be kept together as a community of interest. TV is the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin & Sunol. My COI is reflected by map A2. Tri-Valley is surrounded by coastal range and geographically separated from other communities.
    TV is suburban and agriculture, where tech industry and residential area coexist
. We share a Fire department. Currently transportation that serves the TV consists of Wheels (public transportation), BART, ACE and Valley-Link to the central valley.
    I encourage that the plan, Map A2 be adopted.

  11. I support Community Map 4 because it corrects the egregious separation of Pleasanton from east county and the equally bad inclusion of Fremont in east county. Map 4 is better at respecting the unincorporated areas and the geography of the county.

  12. I do not think the current district divisions for the Fairview Area, which is part of unincorporated or Alameda County, is getting proper representation. We are experiencing severe problems with both police/the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. The level of RACISM and violence in our area is only increasing; rather than calling the Sheriff’s Office to account, we are currently allowing outrageous shootings and murders of citizens, particularly of people of color and members of the LGBTQ community.

    The day wonderful Supervisor Wilma Chan died, we were arguing about allowing the Sheriff’s Department to work with ICE/Homeland Security. ICE/Homeland Security is performing CRIMINAL acts which would constitute war crimes if anyone was actually paying attention.

    We need representation, and that includes ALL of us, no exceptions. We need help with our immigrant communities; we are a nation of immigrants and California in particular was once a part of Mexico. They are NOT criminals; our local “law enforcement” are the criminals. Is no one upset by the pictures of Haitians being flogged by Border Patrol agents? Where are our hearts, Alameda County?

    Enough is enough!

  13. Hello,

    I’m commenting on the maps drawn to represent Supervisor’s districts in Alameda County. As I understand it, our submitted COI’s should have high consideration value in choosing a map. From the maps shown, A1 and A3 differ little as far as ignoring my submitted COI, They both dilute the influence of the Tri-Valley/Tri-Cities by combining them with larger, more urban and diverse areas with which they share little. Map A2 however keeps Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, and Sunol together, allowing these cities with very similar populations, similar economic,social, and transportation interests, sharing social, health, fire, mental health response teams and the same transportation avenues, bus, BART, 580, etc. To get to many of the doctors and hospitals my family uses, to get to Bart, to shop at our local Asian grocery, we either have to go to Pleasanton or drive through Pleasanton to get to Dublin. It’s much faster for us to drive to Pleasanton than to use 580. If we return home on 580 during the day, we almost always exit in Pleasanton to get to our area of Livermore; it’s shorter and faster. It doesn’t make sense that the closest town to us,with which we share fire departments, water zones, fire risk, transportation systems, newspapers, theaters, is not in the same district as we are. We are in a Valley, surrounded by hills, apart from our closest neighbors. Our needs and wishes should be combined as one district, not diluted by separating us into two districts, joining larger, more diverse and urban areas.

  14. I support Map A1, it is the most culturally competent because it integrates the changes from the Black Cultural Zone and Unity Council COI’s into the new map. Moreover, Map A2 is the least culturally competent as it creates two districts that are over 50% white.

    A2 also separates an ESTABLISHED COI by moving unincorporated Cherryland out of District 4 into a District with Hayward. Cherryland and Hayward have had issues over annexation and putting them in the same district would lead to more problems. It makes sense to keep Hayward as a single COI since they are a city with its’ own council. Also, the Board of Supervisors should stick to the original MAP A as much as possible and make only small changes. Please support any other map than A2.

  15. A vote for Map A2 will help to keep the Tri-Valley community intact and provide greater representation. Besides being a natural geographic area, the Tri-Valley cities share an economic/social/infrastructure commonality. Map A2 would provide the greatest fairness in representation.
    Thank you.

    George & Susan Reid
    Pleasanton

  16. I recommend Community Map Submission 4 and Map A2, with an adjustment to the boundaries between Districts 2 & 4 as follows. This map currently divides the Jackson Triangle and the federally recognized Hayward Promise neighborhoods. It also divides the downtown business district. I would recommend moving the District 2 line east to follow Mission Blvd from the Hayward/Union City border, north to the Jackson/Foothill/D intersection. The line should then move further west to Second street, following Second to Grove way. The line dividing D3 from 2/4 that follows the Hayward city limit should be maintained. I think this map also incorporates more of the online and verbal COI than the unaltered Draft Map A does.

  17. Dear Supervisors – I believe, whatever map you drive towards and if there is a change to the Districts, that San Leandro stay unified under one district (as map 4 splits the City, where map 2 keeps it together). Thank you for your time.

  18. To: Board of Supervisors
    From: Alameda Coalition for Fair Redistricting

    It has been our hope through this redistricting process that all opinions are heard with respect, even though they may differ from those of the Board of Supervisors and from each other. As you head into your final general redistricting session, we respectfully request that you build on the progress made on November 23rd so that both the letter and the spirit of the new redistricting laws will be applied and complied with throughout this process.

    The stated values of Alameda County include:

    “Integrity, honesty and respect fostering mutual trust”

    “Transparency and accountability achieved through open communications and involvement of diverse community voices”

    “Diversity recognizing the unique qualities of every individual and his or her perspective”

    Until November 23rd, there was minimal discussion of submitted COI input. We appreciate that there was progress in this area during that meeting with respect to the most recently submitted COI, whereas in earlier meetings Alameda County residents with different opinions felt undervalued and their community of interest (COI) maps ignored. We hope that Thursday’s meeting will facilitate understanding and reconcile the various legislations and opinions presented in the meetings. For example, there has been little discussion regarding single versus multiple representatives for specific regions within the County, or how to best provide the ability to elect a representative from one’s community of interest. In addition, the Board did not discuss community-submitted district maps during any meeting thus far. Nevertheless, we look forward to these discussions during the December 2nd hearing. Through live mapping in the meeting, the Consultant, the County employees, and the Board can build consensus. We also implore that submitted written testimony receive equal weight to live testimony because not everyone can participate in the meetings.

    This letter is not a referendum on your performance as incumbents nor a commentary on your dedicated service to the people of Alameda County. We sincerely appreciate your service.

    We are pleased to see that there are variations of Draft Map A on your agenda and look forward to robust discussion and due consideration of them. Well over 100 people identified COI throughout the County. As we have noted earlier, the unadjusted Map A incorporates the fewest number of these recommendations. In this way, it disenfranchises communities, reducing their voice. While some divisions are inevitable, please comply with the ranked priority of minimizing division in your consideration of the new maps.

    Although there have been tweaks from the current map to create Draft Map A, it does not reflect Elections Code nor County Charter. For example, per Elections Code Section 21500, “A community of interest is a contiguous population that shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.”

    The County Charter notes, “the Board shall,…change the boundaries of the supervisorial districts of the county … giving consideration to the following factors: (a) population, (b) topography, (c) geography, (d) cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory, and (e) community of interests of the districts.

    We ask you to continue to look beyond the status quo outlined in Draft Map A and facilitate open communications and maps that reflect far more of the community’s input.

  19. I prefer A3

    I still have concerns with all the maps but having a hard time whether I prefer A3 or A2. I like in A3 that Fairview appears to be in with Hayward which is necessary. But I feel like I dislike that Pleasanton is removed from the tri-valley. I also am happy to see a bit larger POC CVAP represented in my own area (District 2) in A3.

    I prefer A2 , as a tri-Valley resident at least we have parts of Pleasanton as part of the district 1.

    L. Shay Roberson Pronouns: (SHAY) OR (They/Them/Theirs)

  20. Map -A3 provides my community of interest, Castro Valley, racial and economic diversity, thus providing an effective and fair way to address social and economic interests included within a supervisorial district. According to the FAIR MAPs Act, communities of interest are highly ranked and needs to be respected.

    Redistricting has the potential of opening doors to manipulation. I hope this process minimizes opportunities for abuse and promotes a process benefiting all and ends up in a more representative democracy.

    Thank you for listening to my voice.

  21. Pleasanton is a small community as a part of Tri Valley and as a resident we like to keep the same format by having one supervisor.

    Please respect our wishes and keep “A2”

    Best Regards
    Fred and Gina Carter

  22. Community Map Submission 4 is a very balanced approach, reflective of past and more recent community input from throughout the County. Please move this map forward as a final map.

    As for the new variation maps, I would also recommend Map A2, with an adjustment to the boundaries between Districts 2 & 4 as follows. This map currently divides the Jackson Triangle and the federally recognized Hayward Promise neighborhoods. It also divides the downtown business district. As such, I would recommend moving the District 2 line east to follow Mission Blvd from the Hayward/Union City border, north to the Jackson/Foothill/D intersection. The line should then move further west to Second street, following Second to Grove way. The line dividing D3 from 2/4 that follows the Hayward city limit should be maintained. I think this map also incorporates more of the online and verbal COI than the unaltered Map A does. As such, I support moving this map forward as a second final map.

  23. First of all, my thanks to Supervisor Miley for pushing to get Draft Map A2 approved in order to move Pleasanton into District 1 with our Tri-Valley community of interest, i.e. Dublin, Livermore and Sunol. I’m not going to address the other changes on Draft Map A2 that split the unincorporated areas of Ashland, Cherryland and San Lorenzo between districts, nor the Oakland split, as public comment on those areas seems to change. Those who live there will, I’m sure, continue to make their voices heard on what they want.

    However, as a Pleasanton resident, I remain very interested in how the Tri-Valley is configured. Draft Map A2 would be my preference, just for the fact that Pleasanton as a whole entity, incorporated and unincorporated, is included in District 1. I notice on the PDF of that map that District 1 is 2.11% from ideal and District 2 is .13%. Is there some reason a portion of Fremont remains in District 1? Would moving that portion of Fremont from District 1 to District 2 bring those numbers more in alignment? Or skew them beyond the 5% deviation? Does splitting Fremont meet some other criteria?

    Draft Map A3 is the result of a suggestion from Supervisor Brown during the meeting on the 16th, that Pleasanton would be better *split* between Districts 1 and 4, moves the southeast portion of Pleasanton (some incorporated, mostly unincorporated) into District 1. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the unincorporated agriculture and open space being included in Pleasanton’s planning. According to “Pleasanton’s General Plan 2005 – 2025” that area is covered. From what I’ve read and heard from the public commenters who live in the Tri-Valley, no one thinks that splitting a small portion of Pleasanton off from District 4 and moving it to District 1 is the answer to honoring Pleasanton’s Tri-Valley community of interest. As Supervisor Miley noted, we didn’t like it in 2011 when Supervisor Haggerty wanted to do it, and I don’t think we’ve changed our minds.

    There remains a resistance on the Board to moving away from the current District configuration. Some of it seems to be because the Supervisors see value in having at least two representatives for larger population areas, giving those areas two (or more) votes on board issues. Of course, that assumes both/all supervisors agree on a every issue, and that splitting a community of interest up, like the Tri-Valley, doesn’t dilute the problem. But you know what they say about assuming.

    Supervisor Valle seems to have a different view. In both meetings, he brought up what he’s calling a “poverty COI” (i.e. community of interest), and the inequity of services within Alameda County depending on where one lives. Using COVID vaccinations as an example, Supervisor Valle spoke on the 16th about how “we were all struggling to get people vaccinated at the Coliseum” and “the East county was sort of to themselves” while the crowds were “huge” at the Coliseum. He further stated, it “almost appeared that the Tri-Valley was separate” and he doesn’t want to “send the message that there is exclusivity just because of where you live in Alameda County, we’re all part of the same family.” He did not acknowledge there are not only geographical boundaries (eg. mountain ridges) that separate the Tri-Valley, there are also commute hurdles and population density. It’s not easy to get from the northern part of Alameda County to the southern end. According to the population numbers in your data, the population of the Tri-Valley cities, including Sunol, is 240,684 (I used 900 for Sunol.) The population of just Oakland is 441,891. Perhaps, instead of talking about “exclusivity” and hinting at Tri-Valley entitlement, there should have been more than two large vaccination areas to serve the county, and/or transportation provided between locations. If “we’re all part of the same family”, “balkanizing” [a term used in the meetings] the rest of the county against the Tri-Valley does no one any good.

    I was interested to hear County Counsel explain that there is no “poverty COI.” As Draft Map A1 shows, most of the higher poverty levels are currently spread across Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 with some in District 1. They are not all contained within a geographically contiguous area. Of course it’s not easy, nor unfortunately quick, but I’d like to think that with all five Districts impacted, and all the Supervisors involved, as they should have been for the last *10 years*, they could manage to address at least some of the issues.

  24. The tri valley (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin) should be within the same region. The area shares a valley, a Bart stop, and generally speaking, a regional culture.

  25. Hi, as a resident of rural Alameda County (Livermore), I believe the map would be better suited for the city of Pleasanton to be included in the 1A district, and Fremont to be included in the 2A district.

    Pleasanton shares many of the values and resources with the cities of Dublin and Livermore. These cities depend greatly on each other and have very little in common with the city of Fremont.

    By including Fremont, I feel that the agricultural towns of Livermore, Sunol and Dublin would be drowned out. Fremont would not have these towns best interests in mind, and would not know how their decisions and ideas would affect the towns of Livermore, Sunol, and Dublin.

    Thank you.

  26. Fremont and Dublin don’t belong in the same district. Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore do belong in the same district.

  27. What the “Troll Caucus” is doing is DESPICABLE. I believe the laws regarding gerrymandering need to be revised.

  28. No. Way

  29. The Tri-Valley region should be kept together, these regions share a common sense of community, speed of life and relationship to the bustle of the Bay, which is over the hills. The natural community barrier is found in the north-south Berkeley hills, as this represents a significant barrier to climate, to commute and to urbanization. The proposed realignment to connect part of the Tri-Valley to part of the East Bay does little justice to either group as they have significantly different needs due to different climate, commute, population density and community traditions.

  30. Pleasanton should be with the rest of the Tri-Valley cities. Splitting it up smacks of gerrymandering.

  31. Hayward, Union City, Newark and Fremont should be added in the OaklandAmori draft of the Bay Area Congress Map and
    Sd80Corr and Edentech should be one district only on the Bay Area Senate Draft Map!

  32. We believe it’s crucial to keep the following neighborhoods together because they share many of the same characteristics, challenges and opportunities: Chinatown, San Antonio, Fruitvale, East Oakland, Deep East Oakland. Key facts about these neighborhoods along International Avenue Corridor:

    Adults with no Diploma: Fruitvale 29.7% | International Corridor: 25.8%

    Adults with High School Diploma/GED: Fruitvale 21.8% | International Corridor: 21.2%

    2021 Child Population: Fruitvale 16,218 | International Corridor: 53,248

    2021 Median Age: Fruitvale 33.4 | International Corridor: 34.5

    Median Household Income: Fruitvale $52,368| International Corridor: $56,289

    Race

    Fruitvale: 43% Hispanic, 13% Black, 32.8% Asian

    International Corridor: 39.6% Hispanic, 23.7% Black, 23.6% Asian

    The COI we submitted outlines the following boundaries:

    MLK Way to 14th Street to Lakeshore Ave to 580FWY to the San Leandro border to the water (including the airport)

  33. No changes for redistricting! Livermore should not moved into the Fremont Zone. Leave it alone!

  34. I live in Livermore and am not happy with any of the redistricting maps.
    District 1 should include as much of the valley as possible. It should not extend into Fremont unless it needs more area besides the complete valley.
    District 4 should not extend into the valley and take area unless there is too much in the valley for District 1.
    It seems unnecessary to extend District 1 into Fremont at the same time as putting area into District 4.
    Classic gerrymandering.

  35. Eden Area needs to continue to have 2 supervisors

  36. Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore, the three Tri-Valley cities, must be kept together They are contiguous and coordinate and use the same basic services, e.g. Fire and water. We share emergency medical services and use the same medical facilities. We share the same transportation corridors and public transportation systems. We have the same traffic congestion and climate and air quality problems. We use the same cultural and entertainment venues and recreational parks. Tri-Valley is diverse in that it is suburban, agricultural with its wine industry, but also high tech with 2 national laboratories and a thriving growing tech sector. Sunol should also be included in the district as it fits into the Tri-Valley area much better than Fremont. Sunol kids attend Pleasanton high schools after the 8th grade so it makes sense that Sunol is included in the same district as Pleasanton. We need to be in one district with a supervisor who can help us better solve our common problems. Please keep these cities together in one District without splitting them.

  37. Please keep the Alameda county portion of the tri-valley together. It is possible to create a district that keeps them together. By putting Pleasanton with parts of Oakland, there is risk of both Pleasanton and/or southeast Oakland being denied a representative that truly cares about their interests.

  38. Fremont and Newark belong together. I believe the designation “FUN” was Fremont, Union City and Newark.

  39. I think the rural and wildfire areas of the county are getting shafted in all these plans as they get split up into all the districts. Instead they should be all in one district to have a county advocate for them. Plan 4A is the best of the three, but it is far from perfect. Putting rural and urban areas together makes zero sense.

  40. Pleasant, Dublin and Livermore in the Tri-Valley must be kept together and Sunol should be included. The current draft map dismisses my previously stated community of interest input and those of others in the Tri-Valley and even outside of the Tri-Valley as expressed in previous public hearings. The Tri-Valley cities are contiguous and use the same basic services, e.g. Fire dept, water sources. We share emergency medical services and use the same medical facilities. We share the same transportation corridors and public transportation systems. We have the same traffic congestion and climate and air quality problems. We need to be in one district with a supervisor who can help us better solve our common problems. We use the same cultural and social venues and recreational parks. Tri-Valley is diverse in that it is suburban, agricultural with its wine industry, but also high tech with 2 national laboratories and a thriving growing tech sector. Sunol should be included in the district as it fits into the Tri-Valley area much better than Fremont and Sunol kids attend Pleasanton high schools after the 8th grade so it makes sense that Sunol is included.
    .

  41. Please keep the Tri-Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin together and include Sunol. I live in Livermore and have never seen three cities closer to each other with virtually indistinguishable borders, closely aligned transportation, similar populations, economic, social, and climate goals, and intertwined social amenities, such as libraries, restaurants, theaters, newspapers, and parks. We share a water zone, fire department, and soon a mental health response team. Students from Sunol must go to Pleasanton schools when they go to high school. We are surrounded by hills which must be crossed to reach another area. If this isn’t contiguity, I don’t know what is. On the present visualization, we are joined with areas with which we have none of the above similarities and often competing interests and needs. Please keep these areas together for the good of all of us.

  42. I support map A!

  43. As a resident to Alameda’s Urban Unincorporated Area Map A as it is the only map option that keeps our current representation level of two supervisors who represent the unincorporated area. All other map options would decrease our level of representation, which is unacceptable and inequitable. Putting the urban unincorporated area all in one single district would have significant impacts on our ability to advocate for our needs and best interest. Additionally putting the unincorporated area in a single district would mean one supervisor would have the ability to appoint all MAC and committee members which is not in the best interest of our community. Please consider the unique needs and dynamics of the unincorporated area when drawing the final lines of our districts.

  44. Please be sure to show your support for the Eden Area, the 4th largest population center in Alameda County after the cities of Oakland, Hayward, and Fremont. We need to continue to have 2 supervisors to advocate for our communities, especially since we do not have a city government to provide services. Our individual Communities of Interest can be kept together but be placed in different districts to give us 2 supervisors and their advocacy and financial support. Thank you for supporting Map A.

  45. Please do not reduce the number of supervisors representing Oakland from 3 to 2, since the proposed reduction is a policy issue. Thank you and be safe!

  46. I attended the Alameda County Board of Supervisors meeting on November 16. I was encouraged to hear Supervisor Nate Miley (my representative) ask the map-making staff if a Visualization could be created that achieves his three priorities:
    1. Give the city of Oakland three supervisors
    2. Split the unincorporated county area between two supervisors
    3. Move Pleasanton into District 1 with the Tri-Valley Community of Interest (COI)

    If I heard the staff person correctly, the answer was “yes.” I very much support this three-pronged solution, and I encourage the staff to take the time to make such a Visualization.

    What was concerning, however, was that after Supervisor Miley asked for a new Visualization, he stated that if it could not be done, then he would support Visualization A, which gives Oakland three supervisors and splits the unincorporated areas between two supervisors. What is does NOT do is honor the Tri-Valley Community of Interest.

    Supervisor Miley went on to state that he believes that keeping the Tri-Valley Community of Interest together would “balkanize” the Tri-Valley. He did not object, though, to keeping the Chinatown Community of Interest together or the Glenview Community of Interest together.

    His comments illustrate exactly why the Tri-Valley needs to have one supervisor dedicated to that Community of Interest. He began by asserting his three priorities (Oakland, unincorporated county, and Tri-Valley), but stated if they could not all be honored, then he would support the one Visualization (option A) that goes against what Tri-Valley residents want. In other words, as the supervisor, he clearly values Oakland and Unincorporated County above Pleasanton. As a Pleasanton resident, I want to be in a district with a Supervisor who puts my region first, not last. Supervisor Miley is clever; he’s done the math. He can afford to throw Pleasanton under the bus because our population will never be enough of a voting block to contest him. Creating a district that sets up Pleasanton residents to be disenfranchised is not fair. It does not matter if the supervisor is Nate Miley or someone else, the district is set up to always diminish the importance of Pleasanton.

    Most sincerely,
    Cathy Gabor
    1570 Loganberry Way
    Pleasanton, CA 94566
    (925) 321-5816

  47. We are in support of this latest map where Chinatown is kept in D3.

  48. While the draft map contains most of Glenview in a single district, there are two blocks- Greenwood from Greenwood/Park to Hampel and the section of Park between Brighton and Greenwood that are in a different district. This relatively minor change to include these blocks in District 5 would unite all of Glenview into one district.

  49. D and B are the ones that follow natural neighborhood borders, aren’t splitting neighborhoods in two pieces and follow the obvious geographical delineations that create neighborhoods (Freeways, major streets).
    A appears to be the result of backroom political negotiations – gerrymandering of the worst kind. Shameful.

  50. D and B are the only two that don’t appear to be some sort of political gerrymandering exercise (A in particular looks really suspect). D and B both more or less follow natural neighborhood/geographical borders and avoiding splitting neighborhoods in half (A is horrible in this respcet)

  51. I thank the Board of Supervisors for their diligence in carefully considering all maps and coming to the best conclusion that MAP A would be in the best interest of the county. We need two supervisors to help meet the needs of the unincorporated area that has no local government. Also, Oakland should have three supervisors to help ensure adequate services are delivered to people in need. I congratulate the BOS on making the right decision on November 16th and hope they do not second guess their decision.

  52. I just looked at Draft Map A and I’m disappointed to see that it looks almost just like our current Board of Supervisors Districts with small exceptions. In fact, it seems that Visualization Map A, just became Draft Map A.

    With the exception of moving Sunol into District 1A-Draft, Draft Map A continues to ignore a well-defined, geographically compact, contiguous, easily identifiable and understandable by residents community of interest. Draft Map A has placed Pleasanton in District 4A-Draft with Castro Valley, Ashland, Cherryland and part of Oakland, once again splitting up the Tri-Valley community of interest.

    When I submitted my last comments, Visualization Map D was not available, so I favored B. Unlike Draft Map A, Visualization Map D addresses several issues brought up in the November 4th meeting. The Tri-Valley is left intact in District 1D, including Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin with their unincorporated areas and Sunol. Unincorporated Ashland, Cherryland and San Lorenzo are together in District 4D. The Tri-Cities of Hayward, Union City and most of Fremont are in District 2D with the southeast portion of Fremont in District 1A. Oakland has in effect been split into two districts instead of three. Visualization Map D is the map that seems to most closely adhere to the redistricting criteria while addressing public concerns. Visualization Map B is a close second.

    The video from the November 16th meeting is not yet available, so I don’t know if Draft Map A is the only draft map to be provided for review and comment. If it is to be the only draft map, it would seem the redistricting criteria has been set aside and public commentary once again ignored.

  53. I live in Livermore and was unable to attend tonights meeting but wish to strongly urge that Visualization map A is dropped because it does not keep the Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore together. They clearly belong together geographically, have similar populations and use the same facilities, whether recreation, medical/hospitals, fire and water and entertainment. We depend on the same main commuter routes, 580 and have the same transportation, traffic congestion and pollution effects in common. There must be a fair way to meet constitutional mandates and population concerns and still keep these three cities in the same district.

  54. I live in Albany. We are in Alameda county. I do not want to be in a district with contra costa county. Plus, I can visit my congresswoman ‘s office very easily on Bart. Public transportation is much more difficult for me in Contra Costa county.
    Additionally, our major business street and heart of our city, Solano, spans both Albany and Berkeley. It doesn’t make sense to split a business district into two congressional districts.

  55. As a community of interest the Tri-Valley should be kept together. Therefore Visualization A is not acceptable The people in the Tri-Valley have common interests – we belong to Tri-Valley clubs (rose and garden) and organizations tackling issues and problems such as traffic on 580, homelessness, and air pollution, Please keep the Tri-Valley in one district.

  56. I am a resident of Livermore. My community of interest is the Tri-Valley – Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin. The three cities are almost interchangeable in my mind – I shop, go to doctors, meet with friends, attend events, etc. in all 3 cities. Therefore, I find Visualization A to be unacceptable and should not be adopted.

  57. I have lived in Castro Valley for 34 years. I have volunteered, shopped, worked and played in this “town” .The visualization map 4 D represents my desire for all unincorporated areas around and including Castro Valley to be included in one district along with San Leandro and parts of Hayward.. Our needs as unincorporated areas have not been well met when we were divided into more than one district. So let’s spend this next 10 years together voicing our needs to our Supervisor. The Tri Valley and Oakland do not have much in common with Castro Valley and these other unincorporated areas.I do not want to be included with Oakland or the Tri Valley.

    I envision all of these unincorporated areas to be experiencing great schools, fire protection and law enforcement. This is my vision.

    Thank you for your time.

  58. I currently live in District 1 in Fremont’s Mission San Jose area. I believe that Map B makes the most sense from a South-East Bay perspective. It keeps Fremont, Newark, and Union City together (historically Washington Township). Maps C and D both split Fremont fairly arbitrarily (I don’t see major community/ demographic differences among the new District 1C/D and 2C/D). Map A looks very similar to the current districts, but it has always been weird that Fremont has been lumped with Livermore. I believe lumping Castro Valley, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore together makes the most sense, which is mostly accomplished by Map B as well.

  59. Please consider keeping San Leandro under Congressmember Barbara Lee’s purview as the proposed map appears to moving this community out of the Alameda and Oakland congressional district.

  60. As my wife, Chris Lowe stated, we live in unincorporated Castro Valley and depend on the county for basically all our services. Like so many communities in the unincorporated areas, we must rely on private, business and church donations to help our population to survive. It’s time for the County to step up and do it’s part! Visualization D (district 4D) is the closest that the supervisors have come to actually giving my COI a voice.

  61. I prefer Visualization B. As a resident of Fremont I believe the needs and interests of Fremont, Newark and Union city are far more aligned than the interests common to Fremont and Livermore (and rural areas east.)

    Thank you.

  62. The best choice is D, with B a close 2nd.

  63. We live in Palomares Hills, unincorporated Castro Valley. We are in a high fire danger area as other area of Castro Valley are.
    We depend on Alco to provide prevention services and protection .Our COI is the unincorporated area of the county and District 4D would hopefully give us a bigger voice and more attention to our needs. Having Oakland or Tri-Valley cities as part of our district would NOT. Out of your proposed possibilities, Visualization D is our best choice

  64. Albany is the northernmost city in Alameda County and very much identified with Alameda County cities and interests. This map moves Albany into a district made up entirely of Contra Costa and Solano County cities. Albany is small with about 20,000 residents. Our interests are not well-aligned with the cities in Contra Costa and Solano counties and we are so small as to lose our ability to impact our representation under this scenario.Albany and Berkeley are close knit communities sharing a major retail corridor that goes through both cities (Solano Ave). We also celebrate our combined community through annual community events such as the Solano Stroll street fair which is hosted by both Albany and Berkeley. Albany has a much greater affinity and community of interest with Berkeley and Oakland. University Village, UC Berkeley student family housing, is located in Albany with 974 units.The children of the UC Berkeley University Village residents attend school in Albany. Albany belongs in VCD_OAKLAMORI_1107.

  65. I commend the intent of putting all the urban unincorporated areas into one district to group voters with shared interests but I really prefer option A from a pragmatic standpoint. The county is not geared to provide municipal services and does not do a very good job of delivering these services. Folks in unincoporated areas need help from our supervisors staff to navigate the labarynth of county agencies. Each Supervisor gets the same staff budget. If we are all in one district we actually get less help from the county. SPreading us out in two districts like it is today makes the most sense. Grouping us all into one district is efectively cutting us off from critically needed services

  66. The East Oakland Black Cultural Zone district is vital to the economic vitality of the community and surrounding neighborhoods. For years, it has held key cultural and political stake to the Black community, and this should remain.

  67. The East Oakland Black Cultural Zone (BCZ) has been identified as a community of interest (COI) where Black and African American families have traditionally lived, worked, raised their children and worshipped for generations.

    The common interests of this community are in our people, our schools, our parks, our places of worship, and our voting power to protect our right to live and thrive here.

    In Map E, the area as identified by the BCZ has significant African American voting power and representation across three districts (E,F and G) with some representation in D as well. This, we feel is the best distribution of our community which keeps us together without dividing neighborhoods

    It is important that current district lines are used in the drawing of current maps as they are areas that our communities have been organizing around for decades.

    A significant presence in the voting population, our community makes up to 49% of the voting population in these areas.

    This area is also the area where we share common disparities that need collective and community power to stand against.

  68. My COI is located in East Oakland. I am a Daycare Provider who has been in business for 37 years. My business is located in District 7. D7 is where the many schools, childcare centers, and daycares are located and have been providing services to many families with children in the community. They also provide food to low-income families and people who are in need. There are also programs located here that are available to assist parents with the cost of childcare and fees. All of these services provide a safe, nurturing, and healthy environment for kids to learn and grow. Keeping schools in the current district will enable kids to go to school in their area, keep proper funding aligned with the schools in the neighborhood, and keep children going to local daycare/childcare centers in their district. It keeps money reinvested within the COI. Splitting up D7, D6, and D4 will divide the funds, cause families to seek other resources, and will divide the community. In Map E, this area has significant African American voting power and representation across three districts (E,F and G) with some representation in D as well. This is the best distribution of our community which keeps us together without dividing neighborhoods. 

    We need to ensure that the underrepresented areas in my COI will get proper funding, support, and equality. We need to ensure that the Black residents will be valued and treated fairly if you redraw the lines in my COI. East Oakland has to fight for everything we get. The Black Community fights extremely hard for their rights and if moved or split up, we’d lose our voices and collective voting power.

    Concerned East Oakland Resident & Business Owner

  69. Deep East Oakland is the COI for me. It is where I was raised, where my mother’s daycare business has been located for over 37 years, it’s where my brother and his family resides, and where I currently reside. It’s also where the Roots Community Center is located, as well as various black churches, other community organizations and nonprofits that have impacted the community positively with their efforts. I went to school Elementary – High School here. I grew up here, volunteered here, and had my first job here. I’ve formed long lasting friendships and relationships here and I have more memories than I can count here. Together I see all of this – all of us as a collective. Our joint experiences, lives, efforts, and close proximity has fostered a sense of togetherness when faced with the many disenfranchising endeavors to divide, deprive, disable, prevent and strip this community of its rights to equality, representation, its voice, opportunities, and equity.

    I read the responses to the Redistricting Commission’s Survey for the residents of districts in Oakland. The responses for District 7 residents, (Deep East), are in favor of splitting up D7 and some of the comments are not from AA/Black residents. “The Hills want to split from the “flat lands” is a reoccurring comment as well.

    This area in East Oakland is home to over 40,000 residents of Black/African descent. Blacks/African Americans comprise almost half (46%) of the voting-age population in this COI, followed by Latinos/Hispanics (23%). It’s critical to keep this large AA/Black community and voting bloc centered in districts that preserve AA/Black political power in this community. The true name of this COI is the Black Cultural Zone.

    We need to keep the BCZ COI together to secure the black voices within this community and to make sure that they can continue to speak as one voice that represents all goals, strength, and body. Splitting us up lessens our impact, our values become skewed, and our voices undervalued as well as silenced by others who are unfamiliar with what we have come to know about our community in familiarity and shared experiences. Map E seems to be the choice that best meets what I believe ensures that the unified AA/Black political strength within these districts remains.

    Redistricting Commission, what will you do to ensure that my COI will be protected, maintain our collective power, structured to value our voices, and consider the needs of the residents within it?

  70. Map D seems a very balanced approach to redistricting. As a San Leandro resident, I shop in Castro Valley and Hayward as well and belong to a faith congregation in Castro Valley.

  71. I think that map D represents what has been asked for by the public. Map D has effectively 2 supervisors representing Oakland. A third supervisor has a part of Oakland, but that part is mostly parks and has very few people.
    The map unites the Tri-valley. The Tri-valley has very different requirements for transportation than the rest of the more urban parts of the county. In addition it is joined with south-east Fremont, which again has much in common with the Tri-Valley. District 1 in option D includes a true community of interest.
    In addition, map D gives the 3 largest cities in the County two representatives. Hayward for a long time has felt that it has not had a fair distribution of county resources for health and welfare. This would give Hayward a better chance of making its case.

  72. I think the D map is the best. It combines the best of the previous maps. It divides Hayward realistically. The unincorporated areas are together. For all practical purposes, it gives Oakland 2 supervisors.

  73. Great effort, looks good. However I would request to make one district for San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Castro valley

  74. As an Albany resident for 44 years on a block that spans Albany and Berkeley, I am writing to beseech you to not separate Albany from our current Alameda County congressional district. Although we are also contiguous with El Cerrito, we identify with Alameda County, serve on its juries and share its concerns. Our primary business street is shared with Berkeley so we need to be represented by a congressperson who represents both of our cities. Please do not cut us off from our current district and tack us on to another district that would not adequately represent our needs. Thank you for your consideration.

  75. My choice is map A. I currently live in district 4, Fairview district. I feel very strongly that we should implement Map A, as that configuration best matches our community’s interests. I would literally move if you implement Map B.

  76. As large as Oakland is the boundaries just don’t make sense North Oakland and East Oakland are being divided from the rest of Oakland . In your quest to keep South Alameda together you are not doing that for the largest city of the county of Alameda the map does not reflect it.

  77. Why is Pleasanton not with Livermore, Fremont and Dublin?
    That doesn’t make any sense.

  78. Nice work. I strongly prefer map visualization B. It’s by far the simplest. I could explain the districts drawn in B without reference to anybody’s legacy precincts. There are fewer warts, jags, and odd bits. Let it be.

  79. As a resident of Hayward/Alameda County, I appreciate that Visualization Maps B & C respect significantly more community of interest concerns than Map A.

    If Hayward is to be split in order to reunite other areas, I agree with the split outlined in Map C or, perhaps, a split along Harder road rather than the one outlined in Map B. South Hayward is a high needs area with little in common with the Tri-Valley and should not be in the same district. Lastly, I concur with the multiple comments that recommend a two district split for North County rather than three as currently proposed in all three visualizations and look forward to seeing that map when it’s available.

  80. Thank you very much for emphasizing all Community of Interest (COI) feedback.

    Could the new map that divides Oakland into two districts be uploaded to the interactive website seven days before the next meeting (by November 9) so the community and Supervisors have time to review? This new map should also reflect as many community of interest inputs as possible, such as keeping the Tri-Valley in one district and the unincorporated communities (San Lorenzo, Ashland, Hayward Acres, Cherryland, Castro Valley and Fairview) together in another district.

    Please add layers for city and CDP boundaries to the interactive online map.

    Please address the ongoing technical difficulties in participation (people not able to access the meeting, not being called on when hand is raised, being removed from the meeting).

  81. Echoing everyone else’s comments about keeping the Tri-Valley together. Pleasanton and Livermore have much more in common with Dublin than Castro Valley or the East Oakland Hills.

  82. After reviewing the map visualizations and listening to the speakers at the November 2, 2021, Redistricting Meeting, I’d like to offer the following comments.

    While Map A does reflect the Supervisory Districts within a 5% difference from the ideal population, I would like to see it used as a starting point only, or preferably discarded. Map A makes only slight changes from the Supervisory Districts as they were set during the 2011 Redistricting process when arbitrary lines were drawn that ignored and divided several communities of interest like the Tri-Valley, the Tri-Cities and the Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo areas. 2021 Redistricting is our time to fix this.

    My thanks to Q2 Data for additionally offering Maps B and C that keep the Tri-Valley and Sunol, along with their associated unincorporated areas, together. I hope that specific, well-defined community of interest configuration is retained throughout these proceedings.

    Map B is my preferred configuration as it incorporates not only the Tri-Valley and Sunol into one district (District 1B), it also puts the Tri-Cities of Fremont, Union and Union City together (District 2B), as well as associating Castro Valley, and most of Hayward with the the Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo areas (District 4B).

    I do have one question on Map B. Why was that small portion of Hayward shown in District 1B not included in District 4B with the rest of Hayward? It’s hard to tell how the numbers would change without knowing what part of each city’s population makes up the % of ideal population noted for each District on Map B. However, if the small portion of Hayward shown in District 1B was relocated to District 4B, that would certainly lessen the difference from ideal for District 4B. Additionally, while that change will increase the difference from ideal for District 1B, without numbers it’s not clear how much. It’s hard to believe that a small part of Hayward would share more resources, let alone a community of interest, with the Tri-Valley than they do with their own city structure.

    My thanks again to Q2 Data for taking our commentary into consideration on these initial visualizations. I hope the Supervisory Board does the same as we continue through this process and it comes down to the final decisions.

  83. Can city boundaries be included in the base map for the visualizations, it is too difficult to understand where cities are broken up with the current map.

    Also, I do not expect the Supervisors to be experts in redistricting, so I would like to see them lean heavily on the redistricting consultants. The public needs to see that the priorities or COI’s and the ranked criteria are front and center.

  84. When I see the COI input map, 2 regions had the most consensus: Eden area’s unincorporated population want to be together as well as Tri-Valley’s 3 cities want to be together. From the COI point of view visualization A does not reflect those COI by dividing Tri-Valley into 2 despite of the COI inputs.

    Redistricting should be about representation of people and their communities. Regular residents need to know who represents them in easily identifiable district.

    Finally staff is doing as much as they can to get COI input. It is challenging under the ever changing COVID regulation. I would like to see supervisors reach out to get more voices aka communities of interest from their constituents.

    It is too bad lack of COI from Oakland does not help consultant to draw fair district lines.

  85. The tri-valley communities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin should remain together instead of split as they were in the last redistricting of the county. The Tri Valley has similar needs and experiences. For instance, the commute issues we have here are vastly different than Fremont, which is on the other side of the hills.

  86. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important issue.
    I believe that our COI should reflect ALL people regardless of ethnicity and economic status. Of course those comments regarding maintaining their economic-social-status (even race) may be in the majority. However we as people need to steer away from that. It will take extra effort but we will be a better society for future generations. It will give HOPE.
    I understand that the comment delivered by Mr. Pierre Bierre is long and philosophical. However, it delivers more than those “protecting their rights”.

    So my COI is one that we ALL have SAME ACCESS to better education, health services, police and fire services, safe parks and recreation, safe streets, regulated noise pollution. That we don’t see others like THE OTHER. That NOBODY is entitled to better services. That we work for the COMMON GOOD without detriment for our own family.
    Lines are lines. But they can define us as a community. Fairly or Wrongly. Thank you for reading my comment.

  87. I think that map B gives a better distinct regional representation of the areas throughout Alameda County. Putting an emphasis on that representation is paramount in terms of our Alameda Country communities feeling represented and appreciated.

  88. My desire is that the area of unincorporated Hayward known as “Fairview” and served by Alameda County should stay within the service boundaries of Alameda County.

  89. I agree wholeheartedly with the detailed comments made by Billie Otis. The Tri-Valley (Livermore, Dublin, AND Pleasanton), plus possibly Sunol, should be in one supervisorial district, as they meet the criteria of:
    #1 Supervisorial districts shall be geographically contiguous,
    #2 Keep Neighborhoods and Communities of Interest intact, and
    #4:Supervisorial district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents.

    The current configuration that split the Tri-Valley, with Livermore and Dublin in District 1, and Pleasanton in Distirct 4 makes no sense. It appears to be an obvious case of gerrymandering, which must be avoided. We are one geographic/community of interest, comprising East Alameda County, and should be represented by one supervisor.

  90. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on Alameda County 2021 Redistricting. The following addresses the criteria established for this process.

    Criteria #1: “Supervisorial districts shall be geographically contiguous.” and
    Criteria #4: “Supervisorial district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents.”

    The Tri-Valley portion of Alameda County consists of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin. These cities, and their associated unincorporated areas, are “geographically contiguous” as well as “easily identifiable” by the nomenclature “Tri-Valley”. The Tri-Valley is, by its very nature, geographically compact (Criteria #5). Although not usually included in the Tri-Valley terminology, Sunol could easily be included in the same District as it is geographically contiguous and very similar to Pleasanton’s unincorporated areas, Happy Valley and Castlewood. Sunol is an unincorporated Census designated place (CDP).

    The most appropriate, identifiable and understandable boundary to define an area, is the one that establishes a city’s limits and associated unincorporated areas. This is, of course, the boundary that is used for everything from electing our city officials to collecting taxes. Unfortunately, in 2011, several iterations of the Board’s Ad-hoc Redistricting Committee’s preferred map proposals split neighborhoods, blocks and even individual houses on a street between Districts. There is absolutely no good reason to draw geographic boundaries that split *any* resident, or group of residents, in *any* District, away from their community – even in a way that supposedly “minimizes its division” (Criteria #3). Nothing minimizes the confusion and complexity when known entities are needlessly divided.

    Criteria #2: “Keep Neighborhoods and Communities of Interest intact.”

    Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin and Sunol (incorporated and unincorporated areas) are not just geographically adjacent. As noted in 2011 public commentary, and even more true today, residents of our communities depend on the same infrastructure and transportation networks. We have similar demographics and sources of employment; businesses have formed partnerships throughout the area. We share essential services like the LPFD and medical facilities. Our children play in the same sports leagues. The three city governments collaborate on a multitude of regional projects. If we in the Tri-Valley don’t define a “community of interest”, I don’t know what does.

    During the 2011 redistricting, the Ad-hoc Redistricting Committee (Supervisors Haggerty and Carson), pushed plans to (1) split Pleasanton between two Districts, or (2) separate Pleasanton completely from Livermore and Dublin and align us with Oakland and Castro Valley. At least Pleasanton wasn’t split between two Districts.

    Criteria #6: “The board shall not adopt supervisorial district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.”

    Given the political climate in which we currently exist, it would be naive not to acknowledge that gerrymandering efforts are alive, well, and creating havoc in every aspect of politics, including to personally benefit individual politicians. Criteria #6, instead of being last in priority, should be the overarching mission statement towards achieving a fair and balanced redistricting. It should also include restrictions against accepting redistricting changes proposed to personally benefit an individual Supervisor – like setting/moving a boundary line so a Supervisor can live in a certain area and still maintain their position, or to protect a Supervisor’s “relationships”, business or personal, within their current district.

    Every effort must be made to consciously and consistently address and eliminate any and all gerrymandering attempts.

    I look forward to seeing a redistricting plan that will retain communities as whole entities, preserve “communities of interest”, and distribute Alameda County’s current population evenly between the five districts while still planning for future growth over the next 10 years. Thank you for your consideration.

  91. D1 should be Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Sunol. D2 should be Fremont, Union City, Newark. D3 should include Alameda, San Leandro and unincorporated Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo and unincorporated Hayward. D4 should be Castro Valley and Hayward. D5 should include Albany, Berkeley, all of Oakland and Emeryville. County leadership and city leadership should be working together in concert with one another and the boundaries should align so the needs and interests of the residents of these cities are not split between 2-3 supervisorial districts.

  92. I want to see redistricting that doesn’t leave such a large D1 area, which feels unrepresentative geographically. I also want to see redistricting that puts San Leandro and our unincorporated partners (i.e. Ashland, San Lorenzo) into the same district but distinct from others, because we seem to have a skewed split with strange parts of Oakland and Alameda that make no sense geographically, demographically, or economically. Also, I have no idea why Pleasanton is grouped in D4 with Oakland or why Fremont is excluded from D2.

    Here’s my idea: D5 remains as is. D4 covers most of Oakland and Alameda. D3 covers San Leandro, East Oakland, the airport, Ashland, and San Lorenzo. D2 covers Hayward, Union City, Newark, and Fremont. D1 covers Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton.

    Thank you for your time and attention to these comments.

  93. I think the tri-valley – Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, should be represented by one Supervisor. Thank you for your consideration.

  94. homesite

  95. 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.

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

  97. Keep the districts as they are now.

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

  99. 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.

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

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

  102. I think the districts are fine

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

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

  104. 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.

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

  106. 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.

  107. 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.

  108. 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.

  109. 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.

  110. 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 .

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

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

  113. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  119. 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.

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

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

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

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

  124. 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.

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

  126. 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.

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

  128. 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.

  129. 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.

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

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

  132. 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.

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

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

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

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

  137. 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.

  138. 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.

Stay Connected

Sign-up to get email updates.