On Tuesday, May 3, 2011, CCC-BOS will review 4 plans for new boundaries for supervisors' districts. Of local impact is the intention of Walnut Creek to be in one supervisor's district versus the current division in three districts. More importantly, Saranap, Tice Valley, Alamo, Diablo and Blackhawk neighbors, via news services polling, wish to exit district III and be more linked to Walnut Creek and the Lamorinda area.
Your readers may wish to review the four boundary plans available as part of CCC-BOS agenda, May 3, 2011.
Posted by Opinion, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Please choose option 4 or option 1 as to hopefully produce a challenger for the district III seat. We need a person who puts the citizens before themselves. We have been locked in oppression for too long now.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on May 1, 2011 at 8:14 am
This morning’s Contra Costa Times provides exceptional perspective for Contra Costa County redistricting and it should become Dolores Fox Ciardelli’s Diablo Views that publicly define our corridor’s interest in such redistricting. For Dolores’ study, Daniel Borenstein and Lisa Vorderbrueggen published perspectives on the redistricting process that point to the selfish interests of the supervisors rather than the commonality of communities in each district.
Daniel Borenstein appropriately calls for supervisors to “fix Contra Costa ugly political boundaries” and condemns the selfish politics that established those boundaries. Mr. Borenstein provides an appropriate plan not part of the four concept plans to be considered by CCC-BOS on May 3 at 11AM at their meeting in Martinez:
“The logical solution provides an East County district from Antioch to the county line; a shoreline district from Pittsburg to Pinole; a West County district for part of Pinole and the cities south of there; a district combining Lamorinda and the San Ramon Valley; and a Central County district that includes Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Clayton and most of Concord.”
Lisa Vorderbrueggen in her column today pointed to the considerations driving the boundaries decisions as focused on the supervisors’ home address and political support rather than the commonality of communities within a district. Certainly in OUR current CCC District III it does not matter what Mary Piepho selfishly wishes as a district because she is a lame duck that can only be re-elected if she runs unopposed. The message to be made clear to all supervisors is “they work for us and we do not work for them.” It is Contra Costans that should decide the commonality of communities that belongs in each district and supervisors should only provide compliance with such requirements.
Posted by jrm, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on May 3, 2011 at 12:52 pm jrm is a member (registered user) of Danville Express
I am soo done with the whole Nejedly clan supping at the trough of the public, enough already. Mary Piepho's brother gets free healthcare benefits costing us $24,000 per year? Come on....can't wait for voting time!
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on May 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm
It could be appropriate to consider who voters want as 2012 candidates, by name or description, as part of considering what boundaries of THEIR districts they wish established by CCC-BOS. Knowing who voters want in their regions of the county could guide what district boundaries are drawn. Voters would likely respond with commonality among regional communities and define communities' linkage that should be the resulting districts.
Quite surely, district boundaries should not defined by any supervisor's preference or political opportunities. Each district belongs to its residents and each supervisor is those residents' employee.