RAC21 Committee Meeting – 004
Jul 1 2021
6:00 pm Virtual Meeting
,
Solano CountyRAC21Redistricting Advisory Committee 2021 |
|||
| COMMITTEE MEMBERS | REDISTRICTING TECHNICAL TEAM | ||
| District 1 | Tiffanee Jones (D1 Lead) | County Staff | |
| Alex Matias | Michelle Heppner | ||
| Cassandra James | Stewart Bruce | ||
| District 2 | Chris Angle (D2 Lead) | Allan Calder | |
| Stephanie Cobb | Bernadette Curry | ||
| Mina Diaz | Bill Emlen | ||
| District 3 | Delon Jackson (D3 Lead) | Ryan FitzGerald | |
| Mike Nail | Timothy Flanagan | ||
| Debra Russo | John Gardner | ||
| District 4 | Shawn Smith (D4 Lead) | ||
| Steve Greenberg | Consultants | ||
| Vacant | Paul Mitchell | ||
| District 5 | Jim McCully (D5 Lead) | Chris Chaffee | |
| Lisa Donahue | Sophia Garcia | ||
| Rosie Enriquez | Kimi Shigetani | ||
July 1, 20216:00 p.m.
Virtual Meeting via Microsoft TeamsClick this Link to join the TeamOr call in (audio only)Phone: +1 323-457-3408, Phone Conference ID: 134 333 514# |
|||
|
Agenda
|
|||
| Question 1 What is the nature of the common social or economic interest of your community? You can describe what the common interests of your community are and why or how they are important |
Question 2 Where is your community located? You can define it by neighborhood, streets, address, proximity to a key landmark (such as a school of community center), or other boundaries. |
Question 3 What are the geographic definers/boundaries of your neighborhood? Examples of definers/boundaries could be highways, roads, rivers, hills, or parks. |
Question 4 What is the rationale for your community of interest to be used in this redistricting effort? Please describe how boundary lines might have a unique impact on your group. |
Question 5 What do you like about the current district lines? What do you dislike about the current district lines? |
Additional Comments | |
| 1 | The term of art “Common Social or Economic Interest” is new to me, and I’m uncertain of its definition (I googled the term and found no definition…). Given my own interpretation, I reckon these are common “interests” in my neighborhood, though the role of county (vice city) government in these are also uncertain, to wit: 1. K-12 Education. My understanding is that county’s involvement lies mostly in special needs students. If county government plays any role in distribution of education funding, special effort needs to be exerted to change the underfunding of school districts that have poor tax bases, the result, often, of the historical disadvantaging of communities of color. 2. Infrastructure 3. Health Care 5. Agriculture Water Policy |
Vista de Vallejo, historically (1932) bounded by Amador Street, Camino Alto, Tuolumne Street and Fleming Street. This development was originally advertised promoting its proximity to Vallejo Junior High School, Vallejo High School, and the adjacent Vallejo Golf Course. | N/A | I think our community has a pretty clear sense of the history of the “Vista”, as it’s commonly referred to. Splitting the community for boundary reasons would be opposed, I think, by politically sentient community members. | I think that the modern Vista boundaries, which extend along the northern extension of El Camino Real and its adjacent extension west to just beyond North Camino Alto, are just fine. Our community falls comfortably within District 1 boundaries, and should not change, as we (personally) are very comfortable with the representation we currently enjoy. | I’ll be interested to learn what impact census data have upon proposed district boundary changes. |
| 2 | The common social and economic interest that is important to me is that the City of Vallejo be held together in one piece. I want to lift our entire city and public waterfront up. We all have an interest in the entire Western waterfront for conservation, public health, tourism and economic development in Vallejo. We moved to Vallejo because of the diversity of people, fabulous public waterfront, and the wonderful potential Vallejo has. I realize that you have population limits to consider, but if the new census data allows, please include at least the South western portion of Vallejo in District 1. | Vallejo city limits, and that little pocket of Solano County that is within Vallejo City limits. Key landmarks is the entire north and south western public waterfront. | Option 1 — All of Vallejo City Limits, including the unincorporated pocket within Vallejo City limits (I realize that may be too many people)
Option 2 — Current District 1 plus the southern portion of Vallejo that is west of highway 80 so that all of the north and south western waterfront of Vallejo is in one district |
Moving the boundary lines south to include more of Vallejo means that we include more Vallejoans who are in poverty, and who need more access to grocery stores, and who want their city streets clean, and who want to attract new small businesses. We also need all of the south western waterfront included because we need to improve the north and south western waterfront as a whole. A clean public waterfront with small businesses and recreation activities will improve Vallejo’s economy and public health. If the south western waterfront is cut out — as is currently — the waterfront improvement needs of the South west will be diluted as it is in the current district lines. | I like that the current lines leave most of Vallejo together. I dislike that the current district lines leave out the Southern portion of Vallejo. The most important part of southern Vallejo to include, if we cannot include all, is the south western part of Vallejo because the entire city needs to be free from poverty and to improve the entire public waterfront. | Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I want Vallejo and Vallejo’s entire waterfront to be welcoming to everyone so that we improve public health, economic vitality, and make Vallejo a destination for all bay area residents. |
| 3 | I think what is important to address within Dixon, is accessible housing, the climate crisis, improving local economy from local businesses, improving education, police reform. These are important because Dixon suffers from perpetual apathy when it comes to civic engagement and we do not make proactive efforts to improve our town. | Dixon, ca. The town is small enough that to bifurcate it further is unnecessary. | The climate is becoming more arid and the lack of greening and wide black streets is exacerbating the heat island effect in the area. | I don’t any group needs to qualify there needs; we need to address every group as being impacted and unique with adjudicating requirements that are not equitable. | I think we need to do a better job with districting to make sure that are communities and demographics are being accounted for appropriately. | |
| 4 | Educational excellence not influenced by political ideologies. Academic excellence, teaching the Constitution, respect for authority. Support for the police; law and order, working towards building community, offering support for kids” programs that provide safe and fun recreation | Vacaville, Browns Valley | Hills, hwy 80 | Schools | None that I’m aware of | I would like to learn more about what are the issues in my community and how I might be able to help |
Minutes – July 1, 2021 RAC21 Meeting
1. Roll Call (Committee Members) – RAC21 Chair
Meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
| COMMITTEE MEMBERS | ||
| District 1 | Tiffanee Jones (D1 Lead) | P |
| Alex Matias | P | |
| Cassandra James | P | |
| District 2 | Chris Angle (D2 Lead) | P |
| Stephanie Cobb | P | |
| Mina Diaz | A | |
| District 3 | Delon Jackson (D3 Lead) | P |
| Mike Nail | A | |
| Debra Russo | P | |
| District 4 | Shawn Smith (D4 Lead) | P |
| Steve Greenberg | A | |
| Vacant | ||
| District 5 | Jim McCully (D5 Lead) | A |
| Rosie Enriquez | A | |
| Vacant | ||
2. Comments from the Public (Guests) – RAC21 Chair
There were no comments from the public.
3. Community Outreach Meetings
-
- Discussion – All
Members discussed the community outreach meetings. Discussion included other languages to be included for translation. Group also discussed getting more participation in the process. - Comments Received – Attached
- Discussion – All
5. Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.