What are Haggerty's main points for justification of this change?

Has someone challenged him on the gerrymandering point? If so, what is his response?

I don't know a lot about redistricting, but I think Haggerty's district had the largest population growth while other districts had a decrease in population. so by law the 5 districts have to be pretty close in population so I guess something has to give. Can't speak to the right way of doing it, but there has to be changes.

Pleasanton does not have to be split. Also I send an email to Gina at the Ptown Weely to update this post for me to note that each supervisor is conducting a specific meeting vs the supervisor maps being discused.

For example instead of the meeting in dublin saying "Review Proposed Maps for District 1 & 4" it should say Meetings "Meeting Conducted by Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4 and Supervisor Scott Haggerty, District 1". But I have not seen the change yet.

*Tuesday = May 31, 2001
Meeting Conducted by Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4 and Supervisor Scott Haggerty, District 1

*Wednesday - June, 01, 2011
Conducted by Supervisor Nadia Lockyer, District 2

*Thursday - June 2nd, 2011
Conducted by Supervisor Wilma Chan, District 3 and Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4

*Monday - June 6, 2011
Conducted by Supervisor Keith Carson, District 5

*Wednesday - June 8, 2011
Conducted by Supervisor Keith Carson, District 5, Supervisor Wilma Chan, District 3 and Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4

*Thursday – June 9, 2011
Conducted by Supervisor Scott Haggerty, District 1 and Supervisor Nadia Lockyer, District 2

If you can't attend this evening's meeting, *please* send an e-mail to the Supervisory Board Redistricting Committee regarding their plan and its negative impact on Pleasanton.

Meeting information/presentation material/map:
Web Link

Contact info: Web Link

Just did.

Still waiting for a cogent explanation of the pros/cons of this suggested move. Otherwise, I will continue to assume that it is just another example of gerrymandering. I thought we passed an initiative that puts an end to stuff like this.

I think it's all political gerrymandering and I don't see *anything* positive for Pleasanton. Furthermore, dividing Pleasanton into two districts doesn't even come close to meeting the three "stipulations" the commission outlined in their presentation. Here's part of what I said in my comments to them.
-----
As noted in your presentation for this evening’s meeting, California law and the Alameda County Administrative Code stipulate, “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.

Your presentation further stipulates, “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.

Your stated goal is approximately 302,054 in population for each supervisory district. Using the figures from the “Population Change Alameda County 2000-2010” chart in your presentation, District 1 can reach the population goal by grouping Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin, Sunol, Castro Valley, Fairview, Cherryland and Ashland together in one district. The population count is 306,246.

In addition, although you do not furnish specific data for every community, in reviewing the information you do provide regarding the ethnic breakdown of the existing districts, the district grouping I outlined above would not skew your final stipulation regarding “fair and effective representation for racial and language minority groups”.

Please do not divide Pleasanton between two County supervisor districts, fracturing our ability to work as a whole community within the County. Please do not split up the “community of interest” we have with our regional partners, Livermore, Dublin and Sunol. Gerrymandering artificial political boundaries may work for the politician(s) involved, but it will do absolutely nothing positive for either Pleasanton residents or our adjacent communities of interest.
-----
We'll see . . .

Someone plese explain to me what Haggerty does, what a supervisor does, and what does it matter what district you are in????

How did the meeting go? What was the main justification for proposed move? Was there any sign that Haggerty would back off?

The information in listed in Jebs article relating to the map boundaries, MUST be corrected.

The map Sup. Haggerty is proposing to allow district 4 Web Link">Web Link Supervisor Nate Miley to takeover is WELL into the north east end of Pleasanton and is drawn all the way to Livermore according to Sup. Haggertys new gerrymandered map AND by the way, the only map the Supervisors had the city clerks make, so they are pretty much trying to force this on us: Web Link">Web Link

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!!!

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 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, San Leandro and Castro Valley for that matter. There is NO WAY that he can competently represent any portion of Pleasanton fairly since he is pulled in so many directions for Oakland. Really, 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!

The information listed in Jebs article related to the map boundaries needs to be corrected.

The map Sup. Haggerty is proposing to allow district 4 Web Link">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">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 Oakland.

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.

[Post removed because it was inaccurate]

[Post removed because it was off topic]

[Post removed because it was off topic]