Town Square

Post a New Topic

Alameda County 2021 Redistricting - Final Update

Original post made by Billie, Mohr Park, on Dec 4, 2021

This is the final update to my Alameda County 2021 Redistricting posts.

Despite overwhelming support to keep the Tri-Valley together, or perhaps because of it, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors who were present at the Dec. 2nd meeting (Brown, Haubert, Miley and Valle) unanimously approved a redistricting map that moved "16%" of Pleasanton from District 4 into District 1. According to County Counsel, this was the last meeting at which the Board could make changes. The first reading and adoption of the approved map will take place at the December 7, 2021, meeting. For all intents and purposes, redistricting in Alameda County is complete.

As the consultant traced/read aloud the final boundary, the part of Pleasanton that will now reside in District 1 consists of the Foothill neighborhoods west of the 680, the neighborhoods south of the Arroyo Valle and west of Main St./Sunol Blvd., and south of Sycamore and Minnie St. Sunol was placed wholly in District 1. The appproved map with the official lines drawn, is now posted here: Web Link As of this posting I don't see it included in the interactive mapping.

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, felt that 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."

My comment: While certainly exacerbated by COVID, the poverty in Alameda County is being treated like something new to be addressed. Supervisor Valle calls himself the voice for the "underprivileged" and "underrepresented". I'm still trying to understand how the "underprivileged" and "underrepresented" are helped by not honoring the Tri-Valley COI, or leaving Pleasanton in District 4, splitting Pleasanton between Districts.

Although Draft Map A2 was favored by Tri-Valley commenters online and during the meeting, and it, with its accompanying visualization map, were the only Board approved drafts that kept the Tri-Valley together in District 1, neither were seriously considered by the Board as starting points for a final map. Mostly this seemed to be because Draft Map A2 divided Hayward, a city of 163,162. The Supervisors felt that it would be better to split Pleasanton, a city of 79,894. In fact, at one point both Pleasanton and Dublin (pop. 71,468) were being split between Districts 1 and 4. It should be noted that a letter from the Hayward Mayor and Council was submitted in public comments stating that they were okay with being split, giving the third largest city in Alameda County "strengthened" representation of two supervisors.

During public comments, Pleasanton Councilmember Arkin, as well as Livermore's Mayor Woerner, Vice Mayor Munro, and Councilmember Kiick spoke strongly about keeping the Tri-Valley community of interest together, favoring Draft Map A2. Mayor Woerner had also written a letter on behalf of his city. Councilmember Cavenaugh, Piedmont, spoke about following the law and prioritizing keeping communities of interest together like "the Tri-Valley", over city boundaries, because it's the law.

Mayor Brown responded to me via e-mail regarding official input from Pleasanton to the Board:
"Thank you for your email. You are right, regarding State Legislators, the Town of Danville plus the cities of San Ramon, Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton have campaigned to stay together with one State and one Assembly representative based on transportation funding challenges and other shared projects that would mutually benefit the entire Tri-Valley region."

"When solely the Alameda County Supervisor position has been discussed, there is no simple answer. I see benefits for both two votes for the Dublin, Livermore Pleasanton areas, and only one vote that has a bigger voice for the entire area."

"As you stated, officially Pleasanton has not taken a stand for the reasons above. Looking back over the past 10 years, Supervisor Nate Miley has done a very good job for Pleasanton, and if he continues to be our representative, that is a good option. I also work well with Supervisory Haubert, so both are solid representatives for us."

There is, of course, no guarantee that either our elected city officials, or our "solid representatives" on the County Board will stay the same for the next 10 years. What is known at this point is that Pleasanton, by itself, city and unincorporated area, will now have two Supervisors to deal with, and the Tri-Valley community of interest remains split.

Census population figures: Web Link

Census population by race: Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 11 comments | 2,598 views

Reflecting on lives this Thanksgiving Day
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 1,191 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,086 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Pleasanton Weekly Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Pleasanton Weekly readers contributed over $83,000 to support eight safety-net nonprofits right here in the Tri-Valley.