News

County adopts final supervisorial map that splits Pleasanton into two districts

Supervisors Miley, Haubert address 'misleading' comments about process

Newly adopted district map divides Pleasanton among two supervisorial districts instead of keeping all of the city in the same district as it was previously. (Image courtesy of Alameda County)

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted the final county supervisorial redistricting map last week, which divides Pleasanton into two separate districts.

Pleasanton's boundary has been redrawn on the south side of the city, moving a portion from District 4 into District 1, which includes Sunol and parts of Fremont as well as neighboring cities Dublin and Livermore.

The map -- which determines which communities and cities are represented by which elected supervisor -- is part of the redistricting process that occurs every 10 years in conjunction with the census to ensure that each supervisor represents the same number of constituents.

According to the Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, the county has legal requirements to meet, including: Keeping district populations balanced within 5% deviations; not segregating minority populations into isolated districts; contiguity, not unreasonably splitting voting boundaries; keeping community of interests in a single area; and keeping city and census-designated places united.

Over the last six months, the board engaged the public and accepted community input in multiple formats, including online comments, "community of interest" (COI) drawings, emails, letters and maps proposed by the public, county officials said.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Some Tri-Valley residents who submitted input and advocated for Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore to be included together in the same district have expressed discontentment in the Board of Supervisors' decision to adopt a map that only moves a small portion of Pleasanton into District 1.

"We are disappointed that Pleasanton is still in District 4 and split without much consideration," said Kyoko Takayama of the Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting.

Takayama told Livermore Vine that although Supervisor Nate Miley, who represents District 4, "acknowledged that Tri-Valley is a community of interest and should be kept together, it was clear that he had no intention of keeping us together."

"To split 15% of Pleasanton into District 1 is not a good faith gesture, in my opinion, especially when it includes the least vaccinated census tract in Pleasanton," she added.

Newly adopted district map divides Pleasanton among two supervisorial districts instead of keeping all of the city in the same district as it was previously. (Image courtesy of Alameda County)

During the Dec. 14 hearing where the finalized map was adopted, county staff said they received approximately 150 COI requests. Miley asked staff if it would have been possible to accommodate all of the requests that were received, to which staff replied that it would have been "very difficult, if not impossible" as a number of the COI requests were competing with each other.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Miley explained that the reason he asked staff to clarify that point was because of a reader-submitted post in the Pleasanton Weekly's Town Square community forum, which accused the supervisors of gerrymandering and argued that Miley "refused" to give up Pleasanton from his district.

Miley said the Town Square post caused him "disappointment."

"I know I tried to do the best I could to get Pleasanton in a Tri-Valley district," Miley said. "I did everything I thought reasonable to push to see if there was a way of getting Pleasanton in a Tri-Valley district and in order to do that would have meant Oakland maybe not having three supervisors, which I thought was really fundamentally important for Oakland to have three supervisors."

Miley also said that getting Pleasanton in a Tri-Valley district would have potentially meant that the unincorporated areas wouldn't have two supervisors, which he also believed to be "fundamentally important."

Ultimately, Miley said splitting Pleasanton was the best option but he asserted that he and Supervisor David Haubert, who represents District 1, would work together to fulfill the needs of the Tri-Valley.

"I've known Supervisor Haubert for many, many years and I know that he and my office will collaborate extremely well relative to the needs and the interests and concerns of the Tri-Valley as I did with (former) supervisor Scott Haggerty," Miley said.

Haubert echoed Miley's sentiments and called attention to an article that he said suggested that Pleasanton was being split from the Tri-Valley. He did not specify the publication that the article was from but he argued that the piece was misleading because Pleasanton was already in a separate district from Livermore and Dublin prior to this year's redistricting process.

He said that while the new map does split Pleasanton into two districts, it does not "take Pleasanton out of the Tri-Valley but in fact helped bring part of Pleasanton into the rest of the Tri-Valley district" and as such, "the glass is maybe half full versus being half empty."

Haubert also said that although some people are not happy with the finalized map, the board of supervisors has received several positive responses from a number of Tri-Valley officials, including Livermore Mayor Bob Woerner.

"Nothing is perfect but we did the best that we could," Haubert said.

Pleasanton Mayor Karla Brown also expressed confidence in the collaboration between Miley and Haubert.

"Over the past 10 years, the city of Pleasanton has worked very well with County Supervisor Nate Miley," Brown said. "We have also worked very closely -- since his election -- with Supervisor David Haubert. I expect the two county supervisors will well represent our community going forward. They're both terrific professionals, experienced and will be excellent representing Pleasanton," she added.

A complete recording of the Dec. 14 hearing is available here.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Looking for more Livermore stories? The Livermore Vine will be your new source of vital news and information. Sign up to be among the first to get our daily local news headlines sent to your inbox for free.

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important political news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

County adopts final supervisorial map that splits Pleasanton into two districts

Supervisors Miley, Haubert address 'misleading' comments about process

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 6:47 pm

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted the final county supervisorial redistricting map last week, which divides Pleasanton into two separate districts.

Pleasanton's boundary has been redrawn on the south side of the city, moving a portion from District 4 into District 1, which includes Sunol and parts of Fremont as well as neighboring cities Dublin and Livermore.

The map -- which determines which communities and cities are represented by which elected supervisor -- is part of the redistricting process that occurs every 10 years in conjunction with the census to ensure that each supervisor represents the same number of constituents.

According to the Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, the county has legal requirements to meet, including: Keeping district populations balanced within 5% deviations; not segregating minority populations into isolated districts; contiguity, not unreasonably splitting voting boundaries; keeping community of interests in a single area; and keeping city and census-designated places united.

Over the last six months, the board engaged the public and accepted community input in multiple formats, including online comments, "community of interest" (COI) drawings, emails, letters and maps proposed by the public, county officials said.

Some Tri-Valley residents who submitted input and advocated for Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore to be included together in the same district have expressed discontentment in the Board of Supervisors' decision to adopt a map that only moves a small portion of Pleasanton into District 1.

"We are disappointed that Pleasanton is still in District 4 and split without much consideration," said Kyoko Takayama of the Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting.

Takayama told Livermore Vine that although Supervisor Nate Miley, who represents District 4, "acknowledged that Tri-Valley is a community of interest and should be kept together, it was clear that he had no intention of keeping us together."

"To split 15% of Pleasanton into District 1 is not a good faith gesture, in my opinion, especially when it includes the least vaccinated census tract in Pleasanton," she added.

During the Dec. 14 hearing where the finalized map was adopted, county staff said they received approximately 150 COI requests. Miley asked staff if it would have been possible to accommodate all of the requests that were received, to which staff replied that it would have been "very difficult, if not impossible" as a number of the COI requests were competing with each other.

Miley explained that the reason he asked staff to clarify that point was because of a reader-submitted post in the Pleasanton Weekly's Town Square community forum, which accused the supervisors of gerrymandering and argued that Miley "refused" to give up Pleasanton from his district.

Miley said the Town Square post caused him "disappointment."

"I know I tried to do the best I could to get Pleasanton in a Tri-Valley district," Miley said. "I did everything I thought reasonable to push to see if there was a way of getting Pleasanton in a Tri-Valley district and in order to do that would have meant Oakland maybe not having three supervisors, which I thought was really fundamentally important for Oakland to have three supervisors."

Miley also said that getting Pleasanton in a Tri-Valley district would have potentially meant that the unincorporated areas wouldn't have two supervisors, which he also believed to be "fundamentally important."

Ultimately, Miley said splitting Pleasanton was the best option but he asserted that he and Supervisor David Haubert, who represents District 1, would work together to fulfill the needs of the Tri-Valley.

"I've known Supervisor Haubert for many, many years and I know that he and my office will collaborate extremely well relative to the needs and the interests and concerns of the Tri-Valley as I did with (former) supervisor Scott Haggerty," Miley said.

Haubert echoed Miley's sentiments and called attention to an article that he said suggested that Pleasanton was being split from the Tri-Valley. He did not specify the publication that the article was from but he argued that the piece was misleading because Pleasanton was already in a separate district from Livermore and Dublin prior to this year's redistricting process.

He said that while the new map does split Pleasanton into two districts, it does not "take Pleasanton out of the Tri-Valley but in fact helped bring part of Pleasanton into the rest of the Tri-Valley district" and as such, "the glass is maybe half full versus being half empty."

Haubert also said that although some people are not happy with the finalized map, the board of supervisors has received several positive responses from a number of Tri-Valley officials, including Livermore Mayor Bob Woerner.

"Nothing is perfect but we did the best that we could," Haubert said.

Pleasanton Mayor Karla Brown also expressed confidence in the collaboration between Miley and Haubert.

"Over the past 10 years, the city of Pleasanton has worked very well with County Supervisor Nate Miley," Brown said. "We have also worked very closely -- since his election -- with Supervisor David Haubert. I expect the two county supervisors will well represent our community going forward. They're both terrific professionals, experienced and will be excellent representing Pleasanton," she added.

A complete recording of the Dec. 14 hearing is available here.

Comments

Pleasanton Parent
Registered user
Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 20, 2021 at 7:26 pm
Pleasanton Parent, Pleasanton Meadows
Registered user
on Dec 20, 2021 at 7:26 pm

But did you see the person at the grocery store without a mask! For shame!!!!!

….can’t make this stuff up folks.

I suggest we all start paying attention to what’s important


ddclausen
Registered user
Old Towne
on Dec 21, 2021 at 9:52 am
ddclausen, Old Towne
Registered user
on Dec 21, 2021 at 9:52 am

Can you provide us a more localized map for only Pleasanton?


Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Jan 15, 2022 at 7:21 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Jan 15, 2022 at 7:21 am

"To split 15% of Pleasanton into District 1 is not a good faith gesture, in my opinion, especially when it includes the least vaccinated census tract in Pleasanton," she added.“ …. The medical tyranny requirement for supervisorial re-districting?

PART 1
Saint Frances's wisdom carried down through many priests, and more than one school of thinking. By the time it reached Fr. Richard Rohr, in his early years of training as a priest, one of his teachers used to repeat to Rohr, "God is a humble God." This teaching came out of the Saint Francis branch of Catholicism which trained Rohr. Fr Rohr uses the "God is a humble God," from time to time to stress several aspects of his own practices at The Center For Contemplation And Action. One such aspect seems to be, if your heart is in the right place, (harmony, love, light, and forgiveness) and you feel it's important, and you have thought and prayed on the matter for some time, God encourages that soul to explore. That doesn't mean those who want to stay where they are, are wrong, it means, it's more than okay to try, you are still loved by God. Additionally we go through phases in life. When operating in harmony, love, light and forgiveness, one learns the greatest force overcoming evil is not power but love.

In my reality, love can be a Class 4 CME from our Sun that is turned in the last few moments to miss Earth and pass between Earth and the Moon, as a kill-shot CME did on the one hand as a gift of love (as happened in 2012) or, love can even be sending a destructive Class 4 CME from our Sun to Mars as occurred in late 2021 to impede further negative energies from launching greater incursions into our Earthly realm after inviting negatives to leave our Solar System or even inviting them to join with positives, as sometimes occurs. END PART 1


Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Jan 15, 2022 at 7:23 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Jan 15, 2022 at 7:23 am

PART 2
God is a humble God, is not the Aleister Crowley "Do what thou wilt." Crowley became captured by power and darkness, and served God representing a negative path in service mostly to self. Yes even Crowley served God.

Today, medicine has been captured by a single man serving the dark side, reveling in, using and reaping wealth and power of office, who aggressively reaches out to destroy all his detractors. He has become the voice of medicine serving the ancient few families running things since 325 AD and part of a 6000 year old death cult. Today that death cult controls the media, government and the allowed narratives keeping many in fear. This fear control narrative is ending. The narrative is realigning.
Christ did not hate the devil that was tempting Christ. The devil serves an important soul-training duty. Our nation has been captured and is being liberated by White Hats to preserve free will taken from us by the tyranny of science. I do not hate the devil; he represents our free will choices. I reluctantly accept that there is something teaching me and giving me choices for my soul growth. This is not the abandonment of God on my part. This is my inner determination aligned with the light and service to others in harmony part of God's higher purpose.

This message I leave as a grandfather. Nations that place priority of science above a love of God, quickly devolve into tyranny. We will not be that nation!


Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Jan 15, 2022 at 7:47 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Jan 15, 2022 at 7:47 am

PART 3

Apparently I’m not alone Web Link


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

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.