|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The past week has seen a barrage of news, editorials and incendiary blog rants regarding the City Council’s recent decision to create four separate council districts in future elections. Please note that these comments are my own and do not represent the City Council, and my decision was made with the greater good of all Pleasanton residents in mind.
The process to determine individual council districts was prompted by a Southern California attorney who threatened legal action against the city if we did not do so, citing the California Voting Rights Act as a basis. All California cities that have fought this law have lost, except one that is still tied up in the courts.
Faced with squandering public funds in a no-win lawsuit, I voted to change to district elections.
The process was well-publicized in both electronic and print media, and four public meetings were scheduled to elicit input from residents. An expert demographer consultant was in attendance as well as an outside attorney to guide an open and transparent process.
Several maps were submitted, primarily from the demographer, but some from the public as well. All the demographer maps were legally compliant with the law and adhered to the required criteria for drawing the maps.
At the fourth and final public meeting on Feb. 24, after multiple discussions and public input, a final map was chosen and voted upon by a 3-2 vote, including my own.
I will preface this by saying that all the maps had some advantages and disadvantages, there wasn’t one “perfect” map. I, and the majority supported the map that offered the most representation for our downtown and the core of our city. While district boundaries will affect elections, know that I and my fellow councilmembers will continue to make decisions that affect all of Pleasanton, not just our own districts.
Each district includes multiple “communities of interest” to increase the chances that there is a candidate to run in each district. The one downside to this map is that it cuts through a neighborhood in the south of Pleasanton, something I worked hard to avoid. The demographer tried but was unable to meet the legally compliant population number criteria.
Since Feb. 24, there has been a swell of outrage spewed by one special interest group with many members who are not even Pleasanton residents, and a political agenda to boot.
The four meetings are archived on the city website for you to review. Comments about the map’s legality, gerrymandering and more are unfounded and baseless, and the reality is quite the opposite.
I have repeatedly provided my city email to anyone in the community who wants the full facts of this issue, and I encourage anyone who wants them to please contact me at varkin@cityofpleasantonca.gov.
What has been most discouraging throughout has been the lack of kindness and respectful dialogue. In these tumultuous times we must strive for collaborative dialogue, whether we agree or not. As the world unravels around us, my hope is that Pleasanton can still retain a sense of community and civility because I am convinced that we are better than what has been demonstrated.
Editor’s note: Valerie Arkin is the current vice mayor of Pleasanton. She is serving her first four-year term on the Pleasanton City Council after being elected at-large in November 2020. Prior to that, Arkin completed three terms on the Pleasanton Unified School District Board of Trustees.
This guest opinion is more of the same spin attempt to justify the majority vote for the Tangerine map for districting.
One new injection from Arkin, “one special interest group with many members who are not even Pleasanton residents, and a political agenda to boot.”
That statement is another fabrication spewed by Arkin.
Valerie, please identify that “special interest group”, I wish to connect!
The Lime map presented for districting was absolutely the correct map to use for districting. the Tangerine map was absolutely the wrong map to use for districting.
The paid demographer received $50K payment for his work. He gave the three city council members what they wanted. Not what was best for the city of Pleasanton and its residents.
“Since Feb. 24, there has been a swell of outrage spewed by one special interest group with many members who are not even Pleasanton residents, and a political agenda to boot.”
Complaints about a special interest group with a political agenda? Arkin seemed to have no problem with Moms Demand Action (special interest group with a political agenda) promoting their useless “safe storage” ordinance in the city that was elevated as a “top priority” item by the city council. Nothing mentioned during the hearing process about safety problems/violations with guns in Pleasanton but the staff report cited the (nonexistent) “problem” of a few hundred firearms related accidents nationwide as the “justification” for enacting it.
Assigning blame to/spreading innuendo about residents who are doing nothing wrong is not “kind”, “respectful” nor “moving forward”.
Boy, didn’t take long for the usual people to get started. “What has been most discouraging throughout has been the lack of kindness and respectful dialogue.” Miss that part? How about contacting Valarie directly, at the email address she’s providing, and discuss what seems to still be an issue on your part – direct dialog and communication instead of the usual drivel. I’ve dealt with her many times when she was on the school board -she’s open minded, happy to discuss concerns, consider other points of view, and will publicly state her opinion. Try engaging differently/directly instead of through your keyboard.
I appreciate the Vice-Mayor’s comments; however I do think if she is going to call out a “special interest group with many members who are not Pleasanton residents” she needs to identify that group. This entire process smacks of political agendas and I do not like the idea that the district was gerrymandered to preserve a voting bloc.
Valerie Arkin’s hostile contempt towards nonresidents that bring goods and services into this community, nonresidents that help with money to the holiday fund, the assets nonresidents place in this community, nonresidents technology and business savvy that helps this community thrive is an outrages insult to nonresidents in this community by an ungrateful Valerie Arkin.