2 Draft HUSD District Maps Appear!
In Which: We get a first look at the draft district maps for HUSD, Older white folks dominate public comment for City districts, And City Council remains mixed on the districting process.
HUSD Districting Continues At Breakneck Pace
HUSD’s Districting process keeps speeding along. Having started after the City of Hayward’s process, it’ll be done before the end of June. Here’s the most recent timeline:
June 12 at 6:30: Next public hearing during Board Meeting
June 19: Final drafts drop at https://www.husd.us/board/districting
June 26: Final public comment before the Board votes.
Then that’s it. It’ll all be settled on June 26th.
The initial draft maps have already dropped. Check them out:
There’s a document that shows more detail and gives the rationale that went into the lines for Plan A and Plan B—I personally like Map A over Map B. But there’s still time to get your feedback in! If you don’t like them, these maps can be changed! Go to the Community Tools tab and submit your maps if your community is broken up here.
At the last School Board meeting on May 22nd, the biggest public feedback seemed to come from the unincorporated areas wanting to be their own district—Map A takes that into consideration pretty well. The reasons ranged from silly—feeling left out because they don’t live in Hayward and the District’s slogan is “Made in Hayward”—to the reasonable—they don’t have the same resources at their disposal outside of City limits.
But you could also argue that Castro Valley may not have a lot in common with Fairview or Cherryland aside from being not-Hayward. But maybe that’s enough for some people.
The School District Board pushed for the school feeder patterns to be taken into account—the path from grade school to middle school to high school—because, as Trustee Oquenda said, “Those are certainly communities in and of themselves.” And Trustee Rawdon agreed, “Neighborhoods really seem to coalesce around schools.”
Trustee Rawdon still didn’t have his answer about the San Leandro System of representation. Allegedly Attorney Scott Rafferty had agreed to look into it, but wasn’t in attendance at the meeting. He’s busy suing 3 districts at the same time and all.
One of the student trustees commented that many were concerned about the Unified School District becoming un-unified by having districts—a common concern around districting. The consultant pointed out that how people govern depends a lot on individual temperament—whether they take the full District into account or just their area—and that the board always has to come together to vote on things. She assured them that people will just have more geographically diverse representation.
There were also, understandably, a lot of questions around outreach with a process moving, according to Staff, “incredibly quickly.” There’s no way they’re going to get sufficient feedback in the timeframe, but if people don’t like how it turns out we only have to wait until 2031 to be able to move the lines around all over again.
City Districting Ramps Up
Tuesday was the most recent public hearing on districting in the City of Hayward. The consultant dropped some new information about the timeline for the districting process.
5/28: Public hearing (That’s this meeting)
6/11: Workshop (virtual, no information yet)
7/9: Workshop (in-person at Chabot College, exact location tbd)
8/13: Public Hearing 3
8/19: Deadline to submit Communities of Interest and other maps to be considered in the draft maps
8/27: Posting initial draft maps
9/3: Public hearing on draft maps and election sequencing
9/10: Deadline for Communities of Interest and other maps for final draft
9/17: Final maps posted
10/1: Public hearing 5 on final maps and draft ordinance (on election sequencing)
10/8: Meeting to adopt ordinance
Process complete by 10/15
Although the initial process was supposed to be finished by mid-June, it seems like the City Attorney’s Office had it out with Attorney Scott Rafferty and settled on a longer timeline. This is good news for those of you who want to give more input, but likely cost the City some money to make happen.
When it comes to how much people should do—make a whole map or just their own neighborhood—the Consultant said “Do what you can—what you’re comfortable with.”
On the outreach front, the City has sent out a mailer to 63,454 addresses in the City. Unfortunately, their website only had 2,412 page views as of May 23rd, and I’m probably at least a dozen of those. They’re also doing outreach to about 200 community organizations, businesses, and faith organizations—though several of the businesses listed are no longer in operation.
Older White People Bring District Maps
The public comment split roughly into two camps: Against Districts and Submitting Full Maps. Both of these groups were dominated by older white people—the kind of people who are both free at 6:30 on a Tuesday and have the most to lose from the change to districts.
The only people of color who gave public comment were there on behalf of larger organizations. El Puente Comunitario which, much like during the HUSD process, expressed a desire to reach out to community members—especially those who speak primarily Spanish. And the Chamber of Commerce, which stands to lose a lot of power and influence from the switch to Districts—they’ve been king-makers in the City for a long time.
Standing against the districting process, one asked if “districts is what we should do.” Quoting at length from a news article, the speaker put forward the City of Santa Monica as an example of what Hayward should do. Santa Monica is currently mired in an ongoing court battle—likely a very expensive one—and is arguing that Ranked Choice Voting is enough to satisfy the California Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, that case isn’t settled and Hayward’s clock is already ticking.
A second speaker against districting summed up the argument against it pretty well in her opening statement, “I don’t like what I don’t understand.” She then complained about the lack of connection in her neighborhood—something we all face in the capitalist time crunch—and made borderline-racist allegations that her neighbors “used to have rooster fights—used to have pitbull fights.”
The remaining speakers embraced the process and put forward some thoughts of their own. One showed slides of racial information by block—offering up the information for consideration by the public—and suggested that “interstates and railroads make great boundaries.” While he did mention that they have often been used to “divide” neighborhoods, that description falls short of reality. Freeways, especially, have historically been used to racially segregate communities since their creation. Although they do constitute an “artificial boundary”, it also runs the risk of packing communities of color into segregated districts—packing being against the Federal Voting Rights Act.
The other speaker had drawn up a draft map with, he admitted, absolutely no respect for communities of interest—however helpful that is—and also encouraged the somewhat problematic use of roads and train tracks as dividing lines for districts. Thankfully, the consultants are required to avoid packing protected communities into single districts and a demographer will ultimately be preparing the final draft maps.
Legally Agreed Upon Public Comment
Attorney Scott Rafferty came next, getting a full 15 minutes to make comments. Mayor Salinas made sure to point out that this time was allocated “per the agreement,” presumably in reference to the lawsuit settlement. Mr. Rafferty spent his comment period going through over a dozen different maps, showing different ways that communities of interest could be considered.
The first showed “hard-to-reach” voters, which were the most important to him because, he said, they are “the people most likely to be disempowered.” Much of the consideration in being “hard-to-reach” is socio-economic—poor people don’t have time or resources to go to City Hall, you know?
Other maps included:
Areas with more than 25% of the population below twice the poverty level
Areas with more than 15% containing non-citizen adults
Educational attainment—high-degree earners vote a lot more and shouldn’t overwhelm the will of less-educated voters.
Areas with high or low levels of children
Areas with a high or low level of renters
Areas where many people have moved within the last year
Historic communities—Russell City was held up as an example
Areas with high levels of crime
The police beat map
Different building zones—single family vs. high density
School site lines—who goes to what schools
Natural disaster risk areas—flooding, earthquakes, etc.
Ethnic grouping—different from racial grouping, but arguably more important
These are all different things that define communities. Mr. Rafferty also said that it was important to have distinct districts—very much against the current Council’s wishes. Rafferty encouraged areas “that are distinct and not a microcosm of the whole city.” He said that distinct districts “makes the council more representative and more accountable.”
The information presented is, honestly, useful. Unfortunately, given the painfully confrontational first impression that Mr. Rafferty made with the City Council, it’s not likely that they’re going to care how useful his information is. Mayor Salinas has made clear how much he dislikes the process—if not districting as an idea—and the whole thing might have gone differently without the lawsuit.
City Council Still Has Mixed Feelings
After Rafferty’s comments, Mayor Salinas’s only question was directed to the City Attorney: “I heard that one potential community of interest was Russell City. And I was just curious, does Russell City exist today?” The City Attorney presumably said, “No.” [Editor’s Note: It was difficult to hear the Attorney’s actual comment.]
Russell City was a formerly unincorporated area in what is now the industrial sector of Hayward. It was annexed under problematic circumstances in the 60’s and the residents were forced to scatter across the region, state, and country. The City Council recently agreed to look at recommendations for reparations for the former residents of Russell City and their descendants, but Russell City no longer exists as a geographically coherent community.
Councilmember Angela Andrews caught that the list of businesses targeted for outreach was outdated and asked if that list could be changed. The consultant was quick to point out that they also have contacts with the Chamber of Commerce—which only represents member businesses—but also said they’d follow up with City Staff on an updated list. Councilmember Andrews also suggested swim clubs and Home Owner’s Associations as points of outreach.
Councilmember Syrop—one of the least hostile to the process—wanted to make sure that the population requirements for districts is communicated to the public—districts have to be within 5% of the “ideal” size. He also asked for all the additional mapping information that was shown to be shared with the public in some way. “I just really want to make sure we’re equipping the community with all the information necessary for them to think through their mapping suggestions.”
Councilmember Syrop then asked that the Community Services Division be included in the outreach efforts, not just businesses—a helpful way to get it to hard-to-reach voters. Finally, he highlighted the potential cost of fighting the lawsuit like Santa Monica: $22,000,000. “There’s a reason,” he said, “why cities across the state have made this decision.”
Others on City Council continued to be cold on the process. “I’m as frustrated as you are,” said Councilmember Zermeño, “but it’s something we have to do and that we need to embrace to a degree.” He pushed back on the suggestion that the current City Council isn’t accountable to the whole city. “I personally am responsible to every one of the 160 residents of the City.” Mayor Salinas quickly suggested that he might mean 160,000, instead.
Councilmember Roche asked how many maps had been submitted, and the Consultant said that only 3 or 4 had been given so far. This doesn’t include communities of interest, however, which are much easier to create. In a turn, Councilmember Roche seemed to embrace the idea of districts—she admitted to taking part in the state-wide redistricting efforts in 2020—but had a small slip when explaining the benefits. “The idea is that you’ll have better representation—I mean, I shouldn’t say better. I love all my colleagues… You’ll hopefully have more nearby representation.”
Councilmember Bonilla said that there are “pros and cons either way,” but insisted that the process is “a very significant and important undertaking.” He understood that there are “lots of different ways of cutting these lines” and asked for continued community input: “Continue to partner with us.”
Councilmember Goldstein continued the push for community involvement, “It is really important to be involved, stay involved, and get your neighbors involved.” But he then fell back on his insistence that not everyone is cut out for governance. “Governing a city this size works best when people know how to do it.”
There’s an argument to be made that this also allows for the system to enforce a certain mindset on Councilmembers. 1/3 of current City Councilmembers were appointed by Council from the commission pipeline where Commissioners are also appointed by Council. Councilmembers Ray Bonilla and Dan Goldstein were both known to City Council for years before they made it to the dais.
“In my opinion,” Councilmember Goldstein said, in reference to City Commissions, “one of the reasons our system works so well in Hayward is there’s a way for people to get involved, stay involved, and be mentored in how to govern and govern responsibly.” This process also slows change, increases similarity of thought, and solidifies the status quo. Stability is something that many on Council seem to crave, and the at-large process encourages stability—for better or worse.
Councilmember Goldstein closed his comments by asking the City Attorney if Ranked Choice Voting was another option available to the City, as the public commenter had suggested. The City Attorney responded that Ranked Choice was not applicable, but that his office would check if it would have an impact were it ever implemented.
Mayor Salinas, in a rare turn, elected to give no comment on the subject and adjourned the meeting.