Town Square

Post a New Topic

The SRV will have a new supervisor.

Original post made by Treebeard, Danville, on Jul 26, 2011

Gayle Uilkema will be the San Ramon Valley's county Supervisor as decided today at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

Comments (8)

Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 26, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Not the entire San Ramon Valley. The map adopted was Map 17D Amended. It can be viewed at Web Link.

This map splits the SRV communities of Diablo, Blackhawk and the Tassajara Valley away from Alamo, Danville and San Ramon. Diablo, Blackhawk and the Tassajara Valley (site of the controversial New Farm project proposed outside the Urban Limit Line) will remain with District Three and be combined with the far East County communities of Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron and Discovery Bay. Not a great outcome for Diablo and Blackhawk which are now orphans in a distant district. A fine outcome for the developers of the New Farm project.

All of that and splits of Walnut Creek, Pinole and Antioch are the price of not splitting Concord in order to placate Supervisor Karen Michoff and get three votes.

Like this comment
Posted by [removed]
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 26, 2011 at 7:26 pm

Dear Editor,

As we deal with the announced reality of cheap political tricks by East Bay Democrats led by Mark DeSaulnier we can understand the preparations to bring civil and criminal actions against Mark, Susan, Karen, John and Federal in challenge to the resulting ordinance. It remains a fascinating question, “Did they really expect to get away with this façade of democracy?”

It can’t seem amazing at all to Contra Costans.

Like this comment
Posted by Ralph Hoffmann
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Jul 27, 2011 at 7:51 am

I won a bet I made with the President of LWV-DV before the discussion began that 17 D Amended would be selected by Karen, John and Federal.

This was clearly a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, and should be contested before August 9.

Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of Blackhawk
on Jul 27, 2011 at 7:52 am

[removed ] no reason to be constipated ... proposed map is fine.

Like this comment
Posted by [removed]
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 27, 2011 at 8:37 am

Dear Editor,

News service alliance, in their 24/680 south subscriber news service, provided this story on July 14 including a posted summary Web Link. The arrogance of imagined authority by three supervisors in their disregard for Contra Costans provides a bright spotlight on the façade of democracy in governments in OUR county. Corridor readers now must realize that Mary Piepho and her developers/supporters retain the Tassajara Valley and the 680 south corridor voters cannot vote to remove her next year. Karen Basting, a developer herself, as Chief of Staff, can now concentrate on service to developers focused on the Tassajara Valley without regard to corridor political pressure. This morning’s humor among news researchers imagines the new district 3 offices on-site at Alamo Creek.

We will now see the rest of the news service alliance story play out as communities and neighborhoods pursue regulatory, legislative, civil rights and criminal actions as a result of this charade.

Like this comment
Posted by disenfranchised
a resident of Diablo
on Jul 27, 2011 at 1:01 pm

At the Alamo Women's Club redistricting meeting, Diablo citizens presented a petition with over 55 signers in support of Concept 6, which grouped Diablo with the rest of the San Ramon Valley. Obviously, the Supervisors ignored our request, despite the fact that our community has a mere 1200 or so residents, and could easily have been moved into District 2 without significantly affecting the balancing among districts. The San Ramon Valley can now expect Developer (oops, I meant Supervisor) Mary Piepho to shove the urban-limit-line- busting "New Farm" (how Orwellian) project down our throats without fear of losing votes in the most affected communities of Danville and San Ramon.

Like this comment
Posted by psmacintosh
a resident of Danville
on Jul 27, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Yes, this is a poor outcome by dirty politicians! The "approved" map doesn't accomplish the voter's request for contiguity of communities, which it easily could have, and to have less political manipulation for party re-election objectives.

To split Diablo and Blackhawk from Danville and San Ramon and Alamo is WRONG. They are virtually the same people, with the same sports and schools.

District 2 definitely SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED DIABLO AND BLACKHAWK AND SAN RAMON EAST. This map is splitting communities unnecessarially. District 2 could easily give up some of the portions of Walnut Creek that were dumped into it (south of Pleasant Hill) to shed some population numbers. Those changes would equalize each other.

District 3 should NOT HAVE the areas of DIABLO AND BLACKHAWK AND SAN RAMON EAST, but should have the whole city limits of ANTIOCH. Those changes would probably increase District 3 a bit, which is better.

District 5 should have dipped farther south to hit the Lafayette city border. Also District 5 should have dipped farther south behind Clayton to touch District 3 down there, although I'm not sure whether that would gain it any people or not. Those changes would equalize each other or even increase the population of District 5.

District 4 could gain a bit more of Walnut Creek that sits south of Pleasant Hill, if necessary to have more of WC.
Or, better yet, District 4 could have given up Pleasant Hill and put that into District 5. I wonder what the population of Pleasant Hill is? That might have equalized those districts, after District 5 moved out of Antioch.

District 1 is OK, but could include a bit more of Pinole and maybe even Hercules (depending on District 5's numbers).

Like this comment
Posted by psmacintosh
a resident of Danville
on Jul 27, 2011 at 6:31 pm

I don't know how many citizens actually even TRIED to utilize the district map site that was supposedly provided to assist the general public in researching, investigating, formulating their opinions and then providing their feedback to the Supervisors and others about these redistricting issues?
I TRIED to utilize the map site. I TRIED to make a map and to manipulate a map. I was going to submit my own recommendations, or at least see if I could make a reasonable, non-political map. BUT IT WAS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO UTILIZE THE SITE AND DEVELOP A MAP because there were freezes, crashes, refusals to update, etc.!!! It just didn't work.
I am VERY computer proficient and, after hours of effort, I finally GAVE UP trying.

Piepho's office even agreed with me that the site wasn't working well or correctly!
So, if there is any LAWSUIT against a map, one possible grounds for complaint could be that the "public evaluation and feedback" portion of the process was INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT, AND TAINTED because of the failure of the online mapping software to work in a reasonable fashion.
I was one of the public who TRIED TO BE INVOLVED AND BECOME EDUCATED and I gave up because of the non-working mechanism of this online system. I know that a lot of folks probably couldn't spend the time to try as I did, but I bet there were others who did try and also GAVE UP in sheer frustration at this broken mapping system. One of the main methods of "public involvement" that was offered was broken and didn't work. So the "public involvement" stage was flawed, broken and insufficient (in spite of the numerous informational "meetings" that were help and the numbers of people that did so up to state their protest.

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

Please give us a hand while we flout federal law
By Tim Hunt | 11 comments | 618 views