News

Supervisors propose boundary changes to split Pleasanton into 2 districts

Cook-Kallio opposes plan unveiled last night at Dublin hearing

Two Alameda County supervisors took a plan for redrawing their district boundaries to Dublin last night in a public hearing that generated little interest and opposition only from Pleasanton.

Theirs was the first of six public hearings the five county board supervisors are conducting between last night and June 9 to gain comments from those in the districts that are affected by boundary changes. County boards must review their supervisory boundaries after each decennial census and must redraw their district boundaries to attain roughly equal populations.

Only 20 took seats in the spacious Dublin City Council chambers to hear the supervisors and county staff.

Last night, Michael Munk of the Alameda County Community Development Agency, who is assisting the board in the redistricting process, said the recent 2010 Census shows that the county's population has increased by 4.6%, or by 66,530 to 1,510,271, compared to 1,443,741 in the 2000 Census.

Although modest compared to the overall 10% population growth for California as a whole, Alameda County's growth was uneven, with a 9.8% increase in Haggerty's District 1 compared to a population loss of 5.38% in Miley's District 4.

Haggerty's district now represents the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, most of Fremont and a portion of Sunol and Dublin. Miley, who is president of the county board, represents most of Dublin, Castro Valley, east Oakland, and several smaller communities.

Munk said that to comply with redistricting requirements, the target population fort each of the five supervisory districts should total about 302,000 in population. Supervisor districts also should be contiguous and have easily identifiable geographic boundaries.

"They also must comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to assure fair and effective representations for racial and language-minority groups," Munk said.

For these reasons, Haggerty and Miley showed a new supervisory district map that had been prepared for the redistricting hearings that shows Pleasanton would be split into two districts along the north and south lines of Stoneridge Drive.

Haggerty would continue to represent the part of Pleasanton south of Stoneridge Drive; Miley would pick up the portion of the city north of Stoneridge Drive and west of I-680, including Hacienda Business Park and the Stoneridge Shopping Center. He would continue to represent most of Dublin although the new boundaries would still give Haggerty the eastern sector of that city.

The proposal brought an immediate objection from Pleasanton Vice-mayor Cheryl Cook-Kallio, who spoke on behalf of the City Council.

"I want to emphasize that we don't want Pleasanton split," she said. "We like the experienced representation we have for our population of 70,000 people."

Pleasanton officials pointed out that the city already is split into three state legislative districts, represented by Assembly members Joan Buchanan, Mary Hayashi and Bob Wieckowski, and by two congressmen: Jerry McNerney and Pete Stark.

"We want to keep Pleasanton in a single supervisory district as it is now," Cook-Kallio said.

But former Dublin Mayor Janet Lockhart disagreed.

"Dublin now has two supervisors (Miley and Haggerty), and I wouldn't want it any other way," she said at last night's hearing. "It's nice to know that there are two supervisors on the county board who are supporting us. We would be concerned about changing this."

Although Haggerty said he will wait until after all the hearings are held and comments made before making a decision on boundary changes, he and Miley both said they favored boundary changes. Haggerty said his district now is too big geographically, stretching as it does to the San Joaquin County line and south into most of Fremont.

"I'm not prejudging this plan," Haggerty said. "But it makes it a lot easier when you have two supervisors representing the smaller cities."

"I need to respond to those who say this city (Pleasanton) shouldn't be split," he added. "Fremont will probably say the same thing. They don't want to be split either. I'll approach this redistricting plan the same way I did the last time. I won't decide until the final vote."

Five more hearings are scheduled, each hosted by supervisors who represent those districts. They are tonight in the Hayward City Hall, 777 B St.; Thursday at the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association, 377 Paseo Grande; next Monday in the Northbrae Community Church, 941 The Alameda, Berkeley; next Wednesday, June 8, at the Alameda County Administration Building, 1221 Oak St., Oakland, and next Thursday, June 9, at the Fremont Library, 2400 Stevenson Blvd.

The deadline for submitting comments on the redistricting proposals is June 10, with the ad-hoc committee that is conducting the public hearings to submit its report and recommendations on June 13.

The county board is expected to vote on the redistricting plan on July 12 with a final reading of the ordinance that's passed to be held on July 26.

In reviewing population changes in Alameda County at last night's hearing, Munk said that in the last 10 years, the cities with the largest gains are Dublin, up 53.6% to 46,036; Emeryville, up 46.5% to 10,080' Albany, up 12.7% to 18,539; and Livermore and Pleasanton, both up 10.4% to 80,968 and 70,285, respectively.

Oakland, Fremont, Hayward and Berkeley, the largest cities in the county with populations above 100,000, grew only modestly or not at all. Oakland, in fact, saw a 2.2% population loss with 8,760 leaving the city to drop its population to 390,724.

Of these larger cities, Berkeley grew the most, up 9.6% to a new population of 112,580. Fremont saw a 5.2% gain to 214,089, and Hayward's population rose by 3% to 144,186.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by A Voter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 8:51 am

I don't know about anyone else in this town, but I'm pretty tired of Pleasanton being split up between politicians. It defeats the purpose of representation. The whole McNerny/Stark and Buchanan/Hayashi/Wieckowsk districts are perfect examples (remember Pombo?)


Like this comment
Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jun 1, 2011 at 9:37 am

According to Supv Haggerty at last night's meeting, "it makes it a lot easier when you have two supervisors representing the smaller cities." HUH??!! REALLY??!! Gerrymandering artificial political boundaries may work for the politician(s) involved, but it does absolutely nothing positive for Pleasanton residents!

The deadline for making public comment on the proposals is June 10. The County Supervisorial Redistricting Commission will be presenting the Board with their final recommendations June 13. Please send your comments to the Commission before the June 10 deadline and let them know we DO NOT want Pleasanton split between two districts. Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Jeff
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 9:59 am

I'm not saying I support splitting Pleasanton, but the proposed maps I've seen online are pretty far from what I would personally consider gerrymandering. You want to talk about gerrymandering look at what the state and Feds have done. Look at Senator Loni Hancock's district that covers all of Oakland, Castro valley, then shoots out through Dublin and Livermore. You want to see another crazy district check out Congressman Garamedi's district. I believe his district covers portions of four counties. That's gerrymandering.


Like this comment
Posted by DMK
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 1, 2011 at 11:37 am

What are they afraid of when they insist they must split Pleasanton 2 or 3 ways?


Like this comment
Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jun 1, 2011 at 11:45 am

Just my opinion, but to me it's gerrymandering anytime politicians ignore city limit and community of interest boundaries and instead establish arbitrary districts in order to give themselves, or their party, an advantage.

In this case, the proposed redistricting of Pleasanton ignores the Board's own "stipulations" as layed out in their presentation last night. First "stipulation": “Districts should be contiguous and use easily identifiable geographic boundaries”. The most “easily identifiable”, as well as the most appropriate boundary to define an area, is the one that defines its city limits. This is, of course, the boundary that is used for everything from electing our city officials to collecting taxes.

Next: “Communities of interest should be preserved”. Pleasanton, Sunol, Livermore, and Dublin are not just geographically adjacent. As noted in other public commentary regarding redistricting, residents of our communities “depend on the same transportation networks, we have similar demographics and sources of employment, businesses have formed partnerships throughout the area, our children play in the same sports leagues, and local governments collaborate on a multitude of regional projects.” If that doesn’t define a “community of interest”, I don’t know what does.

As "A Voter" noted, Pleasanton is already splintered at the state and federal level. Hopefully the Redistricting Commission will simplify the representation mess Pleasanton residents are dealing with in having three state Legislative districts, two state Senate districts and two Congressional districts. The fact that our state and federal representation is totally skewed gives the County *no* reason to further fracture our town by splitting us between two supervisor's districts just to make it "easier" for Supv Haggerty to do his job. If the job is too hard Supv Haggerty, step down!!

On a side note, does anyone know what the supervisors are paid? According to the County website: "The salary of the Board members is fixed by the Board itself", but I couldn't find actual salary numbers. Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by joan
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 1, 2011 at 12:26 pm

I too am tired of politicans dividing Pleasanton, isn't it interesting that NO MEETINGS OUR HELD IN PLEASANTON? What our they Hiding?


Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Haggerty is a big disappointment and has his own political agenda. He can care less about Pleasanton; especially since he has never lived here. By splitting the vote, he stays in control. That's the whole plan. Pleasanton's voice will never be counted, nor will we have a say in any County agenda's that affect us. But mark my words, we will financially pay for it. Just look at how the Board of Supervisors and our own City Council handled the misuse of funds in ACAP (the Ala. Co. Community Action Committee). The appointed Pleasanton Council member Rep. to that Board (was set up to receive a $100.00 stipend per mo.) never showed up for meetings. Nor did any of the other City Council Representatives. If issued, I wonder if they returned all of the money back to the City coffers.. The Agency Director was accused of fraud after it went bankrupt and was fired. The tax dollars we gave to ACAP were misused and there was no accountability. The bylaws state that one Council member from each City was obligated to attend one monthly meeting. They did not for a long length of time. Check it out for yourself in the Weekly and Herald. There were no Checks and Balances. Read Nate Miley's part in this whole scathing affair. Why would Pleasanton citizens want him to represent us? Please investigate the truth for yourselves.


Like this comment
Posted by Kelley
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jun 1, 2011 at 1:31 pm

Jeff the County has proposed one map and thats A and IT is gerrymandered, it splits Pleasanton into 2 so Haggerty can save his seat. Redistricting guidelines say split the largest cities first. There are way more cities that should be split first before Pleasanton. As for any other map proposed it's not by the supervisors it's by the public/citizens. That is what the supervisors office told me when a friend of mine called today.

The information listed in Jebs article in regards to Pleasanton boundaries that are a proposed takover by Sup. Miley needs to be corrected.

The map Sup. Haggerty is proposing to allow district 4 Web Link Supervisor Nate Miley to takeover is WELL into the north east end of Pleasanton and is drawn all the way to Livermore. Then it either captures all of Northern Pleasanton from 580 to what looks like possibly either the water/canal or stoneridge but then it continues west and captures ALL OF THE PLEASANTON RIDGE from 580 to Sunol boardering 680 south!!!

This is according to Sup. Haggertys new gerrymandered map AND by the way, the only map the Supervisors had the city clerks make, not only is this presumtuous, it gives the impression that these supervisors dont give a hoot about what YOU and I think. They are going to shove this down our throats whether we like it or not: Web Link.

Haggarty is trying to gerrymander Pleasanton so he can keep his seat. I wonder why Haggerty is willing to throw Pleasanton under the bus like this? He must be pretty worried about who plans to run against him in the near future...

The citizens of Pleasanton would NOT be give a seat at Supervisor Nate Mileys table and should NOT take this split lying down. This is a huge encroachment of Supervisor Nate who is always handling his constituency in Oakland. He is often late to meetings because he's "over taking care of Social issues in Oakland".

Pleasantons needs are much different than Oakland and Castro Valley Since Nate took over Dublin, it seems to have digressed. It seems to be changing into a more inner-city feeling over the last several years There is NO WAY that Nate can competently represent any portion of Pleasanton fairly since he is pulled in so many directions for portions of a massive city like Oakland and the rest of his region.

Dublin and Pleasanton have nothing in common with Oakland and to connect Oakland to Pleasanton by a Supervisor is not acceptable and will only create a lack of represenation for Pleasantonians! Pleasantonians need to fight back.

Email All the supervisors today.


Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Mr. Bing completely ignored the fact that two alternative maps were presented by a Pleasanton citizen, that keeps Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore whole and keeps them all in the same Supervisor district. They're not on the county's website, yet. But the staff said they'll be labeled Maps C and D.


Like this comment
Posted by Concerned Californian
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jun 1, 2011 at 2:56 pm

The counties and politicians like it the way it is - all of the folks on entitlements in Oakland, San Leandro and Castro Valley are paid for by the taxes of the hard-working folks in the Tri-Valley. They need their districts to favor the folks on entitlements who vote Democrat; and need for us folks in Pleasanton to just shut up and pay and not get a say. This process is supposed to be non-partisan, but run by politicians - what a joke. Politicians aren't going to do anything that threatens their power structure.


Like this comment
Posted by Kelley
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jun 1, 2011 at 3:13 pm

I don't know how Jeb can write an article when he wasn't there. Why didn't jeb speak about the other maps presented?

Map C and D do NOT divide Pleasanton. Redistricting allows for the largest cities to be split first. Therefore the sups should have mapped and Berkeley and Hayward as a split!!!!

Here are the other maps. Pleasanton residents need to write the Board of Supervisors stating that they support maps drawn by the Alameda County Citizen Redistricting Task Force.
C:
Web Link
Maps D:Web Link



Like this comment
Posted by Jeff
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Kelley,

I'm not sure where you come up with this stuff, but your credibility is slowly dwindling. You are 1,000% wrong about Mr. Bing not being there. Call him and ask.


Like this comment
Posted by concerned
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 1, 2011 at 3:55 pm

The whole public meetings with the county supervisors are charades. Don't expect them to listen to the public at all. The way the supervisors work is when each district supervisor asks for something for their district, the rest of the supervisors support him/her. They know that they need each others support (i.e., you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). Unless there is a district supervisor who does not want the realignment as proposed, consider it a done deal. These districts have already been "approved" in the back room.

Almost everything our city has done with the county has been city-wide issues; not neighborhood issues. Splitting up our community with two supervisor districts is not a good solution here. At election time, don't expect either of the district candidates to be in Pleasanton since our voters are fragmented into two districts. When was the last time you saw an Assemblyman in Pleasanton (either working or campaigning)? We have three Assembly Representatives, splitting up our community, meaning our voting block is not big enough and we get ignored.

The real solution would be to split up Alameda County. The Tri-Valley has nothing in common with the west part of the county. Since we are in the same county, we have to provide subsidized housing based on the average income in the whole county, not our area.

To Patriot, who is Pleasanton's representative on ACAP (the one who does not attend meetings)? Did you know Pleasanton City Council on May 3rd voted to give ACAP another $129,539 to wind down ACAP on top of $300,000 contributions paid to ACAP. I don't know if ACAP has ever been an assert to our community or if we pay into it and all the programs and money goes to the other side of the county. This would be a good investigative article for the Weekly to see where our money has gone in this program and what benefits we received. Or was this essentially a donation to other cities in the county?

Personally I think Haggerty is messing with Pleasanton because he hates Mayor Hosterman so much. Unfortunately, it is the residents who loose in their game. Rumor out there is that Hosterman is considering running for County Supervisor. Haggerty is doing a preemptive strike to split Pleasanton up into two districts; hurting Hosterman's chances since the community she represented will not be able to completely vote for her. It is all about politics!


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 1, 2011 at 4:18 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"Personally I think Haggerty is messing with Pleasanton because he hates Mayor Hosterman so much."

Yup, I think that about sums it up.


Like this comment
Posted by County employee
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm

Patriot and concerned citizen get their information from where? ACAP meetings were held quarterly, no stipend attached to any representative. All communities received some services in whole or part and it was a board of 13 members. Any vote taken needed 7 members to pass. The executive director was terminated and is now under investigation.


Like this comment
Posted by Fun time
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm

[Post removed because it was off topic]


Like this comment
Posted by supes salary
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 5:00 pm

"On a side note, does anyone know what the supervisors are paid? According to the County website: "The salary of the Board members is fixed by the Board itself", but I couldn't find actual salary numbers. Web Link"

About 151K in salary plus the employees share of pension benefit costs (18K). Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by concerned
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 1, 2011 at 5:30 pm

Plus lots of stipends for the many meetings they go to. Many of the transportation meetings pay stipends, which I can potentially see for city council members who are really not paid, but should not be given to County Supervisors whose full-time job, along with pay, is their position.

To County Employee, the executive director reported to the board. The board is ultimately responsible for what occurs there. There are much more problems than just terminating an executive director, otherwise all we would need to do is replace that person. The buck stops at the board. I went to the city website and see that Cheryl Cook-Kallio is on the Board of Directors for ACAP, representing Pleasanton. I wonder if she ever went to a meeting based on what I read at the Bay Area News Group.

If you go to the Bay Area News Group website (Web Link) , you will see the DA may investigate ACAP. The article includes:

"The board had many problems meeting as a quorum, and a Freedom of Information Act request by Bay Area News Group for minutes of the board's previous meetings showed that it met only once in all of 2010 to give direction to the staff.

"As a whole, the governing board did not take responsibility over management," said Felicia Moore-Jordan, re-entry services director for ACAP. "They did not take fiduciary responsibility."

Miley said he was stepping aside after a Bay Area News Group editorial said Miley should be replaced on the board since his daughter worked for ACAP."



Like this comment
Posted by concerned
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 1, 2011 at 5:55 pm

As for changing district boundaries, Haggerty did this once before.

This is from the Oakland Tribune on March of 2007:

"Haggerty, who is engaged to Dublin vice mayor Kasie Hildenbrand, bought a new home in east Dublin and moved in earlier this month.

Chris Gray, Haggerty's chief of staff, confirmed Haggerty's purchase and relocation into the newest part of his supervisorial district. Haggerty had lived in Livermore.

The move comes three months after Alameda County's Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a boundary shift that put that slice of east Dublin into Haggerty's district. "

This is a time when Haggerty changed a boundary to convenience himself, and not the people he represents. There were no meetings on this. Just backroom deals.


Like this comment
Posted by Old Money
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2011 at 10:01 pm

Me thinks Concerned Citizen is just jealous s/he can't afford to live in Danville. Ha Ha. Please tell the folks in the Oakland Hills and Piedmont they "live on entitlements". Please check the median housing price and the school scores for Castro Valley. Please enjoy the scenic route along the Fairmont Ridge and the breathtaking bay views on your next trip through San Leandro. In exchange, I'll skip the crappy view of the endless sprawl, smog, radioactive contaminated water, and LA freeway system which is Pleasanton and spend my money in more deserving vibrant cities. Thank you.

................................

Posted by Concerned Californian, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, 6 hours ago

The counties and politicians like it the way it is - all of the folks on entitlements in Oakland, San Leandro and Castro Valley are paid for by the taxes of the hard-working folks in the Tri-Valley. They need their districts to favor the folks on entitlements who vote Democrat; and need for us folks in Pleasanton to just shut up and pay and not get a say. This process is supposed to be non-partisan, but run by politicians - what a joke. Politicians aren't going to do anything that threatens their power structure.


Like this comment
Posted by Awfulfarter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2011 at 6:52 am

Haggerty has a long history of shafting Pleasanton. It's time to get rid of him. Miley will use the opportunity to shaft Pleasanton to Oakland's benefit. It's really time to split Alameda and Contra Costa County along north/south lines, so we can be free of being the West Counties' slaves.


Like this comment
Posted by Ralph
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2011 at 7:26 am

Good lord! I really wish the weekly would get ride of the comment section. It does nothing but allow people to come on here and say whatever they want without any accountability.

I have a vague memory of the lawsuit against Haggerty, but I think the part the poster is leaving out is the income. I don't believe there was any settlement. If I remember correctly not only did the courts rule against the former staff member, she was then prosecuted for illegal activity that came out during the trial. So this woman went from filing a lame sexual harassment case to being prosecuted for illegal activity she admitted during the trial.

Oh my gosh, Jeremy bingham has a history of beating up family members at Christmas. Enough said.

If all of you are so mad and fed up, why don't you get off your butt's and go to the redistricting meetings throughout the county and express your displeasure rather than complaining about it online. My guess is you won't cause by the sounds of it you guys couldn't even make it to Dublin to complain about it.


Like this comment
Posted by Ralph
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2011 at 7:29 am

Correction on my last post. The second paragraph, second sentence is supposed to say outcome...not income.


Like this comment
Posted by ?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2011 at 8:19 am

Will it honestly matter if we attend those meetings? Won't morally corrupt politicians like Haggerty continue to do what they do to protect their power bases until they are voted out?

I for one am so tired of fighting all the issues that ineffective government is placing in front of us. It could be a full-time job trying to counter-balance the all negative influences.

Haggerty should be ashamed of the blatant gerrymandering that he is trying to get away with. And his justifications for the move are incredibly lame and an insult one's intellegence.


Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 4, 2011 at 9:36 pm

The comments are very amusing. So let me post mine. It appears the dislike for Haggerty is because he favors extending Stoneridge Drive to the East. Oh my, what a concept. But, should the boundary of his district be changed to south of Stoneridge Drive, he won't even have a vote on that. There is actually is a law, (maybe the law should be changed) requiring boundaries of Supervisors to be within distinct areas. So, i guess accusing Haggerty of gerrymandering is cute way offset his influence. And, gosh golly what if Haggerty moved to Pleasanton. lol


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

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.