Town Square

Post a New Topic

Supervisors narrow choices for new district maps

Original post made on Jun 30, 2011

During a three-hour public hearing on Tuesday, Contra Costa County's board of supervisors came one step closer to writing new district lines. Initially presented with five concepts, the supervisors deliberated over 13 maps before deciding on three of the most favorable.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 6:37 PM

Comments (4)

Posted by FanDanville, a resident of Danville
on Jun 30, 2011 at 4:00 pm

"The three surviving maps, concepts six, nine and 12, are currently being amended to address concerns expressed during Tuesday's meeting. Two of the concepts keep the San Ramon Valley in the same supervisorial district."

Of these three maps, only Concept Six makes any sense to me at all.
It has the least variance in population sizes.
It keeps the SRV together in OK fashion.


Posted by [removed], a resident of Alamo
on Jul 1, 2011 at 7:05 am

Dear Editor,

Two polling efforts started by news service researchers on Tuesday have tested 680 south communities for voters' interest in remaining in District 3. Responses illustrated dissatisfaction with Mary Piepho as the primary reason to seek Concept Plan #6 that would place 24/680 south corridor in District 2. It is obvious to corridor voters that they have greater commonality with the entire 24/680 south corridor as a district proposed in Concept Plan #6.

Further polling questions concentrated on Alamo and Diablo as more aligned with Walnut Creek than the San Ramon Valley. Responses illustrated voter's desires to be linked to Lamorinda and Walnut Creek. For Alamo, Walnut Creek was confirmed to be downtown for the majority of residents. Specifically, Alamo and Diablo voters want an end to Mary Piepho's arbitrary and often antagonistic abuse of these communities.

Important result of polling is voters' belief that redistricting is only a political event that serves supervisors' political supporters and potential for re-election. A majority of those polled have no confidence that supervisors have any interest in serving the will and interests of Contra Costans.


Posted by [removed], a resident of Alamo
on Jul 5, 2011 at 9:29 am

Dear Editor:

UPDATE:

The Alamo Improvement Association President, Roger Smith, has sent a letter to CCC-BOS that accurately and simply explains redistricting choices and impact in the 680 south corridor, Web Link.

The letter's presentation provides commonality of values among your readership area as choices among the concept plans and proposals discussed June 28, 2011 by CCC-BOS.

As your readers review Roger's well-considered points they should consider attending the next CCC-BOS redistricting hearing July 12 in Martinez. To date, supervisors have ignored our public voices in developing districts to their own selfish political interests. Your readers need to carefully consider what another ten years of similar districts and continuation of current supervisors will mean to our communities and neighborhoods.


Posted by [removed], a resident of Alamo
on Jul 8, 2011 at 10:44 am

Dear Editor,

UPDATE:

AS communities throughout Contra Costa expect CCC-BOS to be fully self-serving in defining their districts, only counsel and analysts are prepared to monitor the July 12, 2011 CCC-BOS redistricting hearing in preparation for regulatory, legislative and legal actions against the resulting redistricting ordinance. News services continue to recommend residents attend and be heard at the hearing so there is a record of opposition to CCC-BOS self-interests. More importantly, 24/680 south residents are encouraged to send notice to their supervisors concerning their preferences for redistricting based on the commonality of interests in 24/680 south corridor.

In news service polling, Contra Costans are prepared for supervisors' self-serving results. Contra Costans' focus is the 2012 supervisors' elections and community-based campaigns to replace incumbent supervisors.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 34 comments | 934 views

Moneyball, the Sequel: Billy Beane for President!
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 673 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 662 views

Be an Exhibitionist!
By John A. Barry | 5 comments | 283 views