Digging Deep Into Draft Maps
In Which: I tell the story of Demographics tables. I explain what these maps could mean for current Councilmembers. And I interviewed for the Planning Commission.
Analyzing District Draft Maps
The City revealed the first set of draft District Maps on Tuesday. You can see what they look like in that article, or you can go directly to the website to check them out in more detail.
I’ve had a chance to look at them and do some basic math, and there are some interesting things about each map I want to highlight. So let’s dig right in!
Neighborhood Grouping
Maps 1 and 2 both have the same borders for Area A with the Mt. Eden and Glen Eden neighborhoods put together. That makes some sense as they share a high school and are adjacent to the industrial area and the shoreline.
Upper B Street was grouped with the Hayward Hills in every map, which is strange but may be making the best of a bad situation. The area between Upper B street and Upper D isn’t very high-income, but the north side by the creek is an older and established neighborhood in some places. The 238 parcels did a number on that area and it’s been a patchwork for several years.
The Garin and Fairyway Park areas are grouped together in two of the maps, which makes a lot of sense demographically and economically. But they’re also grouped with the Tennyson/Alquire neighborhood (south of Tennyson), which is probably a bit less ritzy. But the new developments along Mission down there are definitely higher end.
The Jackson Triangle is kept whole in two of the maps, but is either rolled in with Burbank and Downtown West of Mission or the Whitman area north of Tennyson. Downtown, according to the Downtown Specific Plan, is kept whole in two of the maps, but is split at Mission in one of them, with the East end rolled into the Hills.
You can also expect Council to comment on the weird L shape in Map 2 that connects parts of Longwood, Southgate, and Harder/Tennyson together.
It’s hard to know what the Demographer was thinking at this point, but there will definitely be more information during the Public Hearing on Tuesday.
Racial Demographics
Although race can’t be the only criteria that’s being considered when making the districts, the whole lawsuit that started this was focused on race. So let’s see how that breaks down.
On Map 1, there are 3 districts that are over 40% Asian, two Latine-majority districts at 37%, and one White-majority district at 39%.
For Map 2, one district is 44% Asian like Mr. Rafferty wanted, one 36% Asian-majority district, three Latine-majority districts between 33% and 36%, and one 33% White-majority district.
Map 3 has one district with an split-majority of 33% each Latine and Asian, two 40%-41% Asian-majority districts, one 44% Latine-majority district, one 33% White-majority district, and one district where there’s a slim 33% Latine-majority.
You can bet Council is going to comment on this because there was a lot of concern about taking a Latine-majority City and potentially taking that majority away in every district. That being said, having a diverse set of racial-majority districts is part of why this is happening, so it will be interesting to hear from the Demographer about it.
Voting Population
All of the districts have a similar Citizen voting-age population percentage compared to the population of registered voters (i.e. how many people can vote and how many people are registered to vote). They all have a spread between about 72% and 82%, with most districts being in the 75% range.
However, that’s citizen voting-age population. And that population is not equal in every district. In every map, District D had the lowest percentage of citizen voting-age population in relation to its total population. That may just be the reality of the Whitman/Mocine and Harder/Tennyson neighborhoods, but it’s one to bear in mind. It also tends to have the highest Latine population in that district, which could affect voting outcomes despite racial makeup.
Council Seats
District E on every map is going to be the one to watch out for. On two of the three maps, there are 3 Councilmembers who would all fall in that district—and on Map 1 there are 4. That could eliminate more than half of the City Council in 4 years, unless they sell their homes and move to another part of the city—a tall order with interest rates and home prices.
Strictly speaking it’s against the law to draw district maps that benefit political incumbents. But, as I discussed during the last public hearing, that doesn’t stop Councilmembers from defining their own neighborhoods in very specific ways.
Councilmember Goldstein, for example, is going to like Map 2 that separates Garin from Fairway Park, though that may put him into a district with Councilmember Bonilla. No matter what, Councilmembers Roche and Andrews are going to be sharing a district. And it looks very likely that four Councilmembers are going to be competing in some way with each other.
Then comes the question of sequencing. In 2026 at least 2 seats are going to be up for election, but nobody knows which ones. Councilmembers Roche and Syrop would be up for re-election that year. If District E goes up that year, Councilmember Roche will likely be in until 2030 (Councilmember Andrews will be in office until 2028 no matter what, if re-elected). But if they choose two different districts, she’ll be out of a job until 2028. Councilmember Syrop is in the same position with District F.
Summary
There’s a lot to think about when it comes to these maps. Everyone has opinions about what’s they think is best. But if you notice something hinky, tell City Council about it. The consultants will appreciate your feedback, at least.
Interviewing For The Planning Commission
Interviews for City Commissions took place on Tuesday at City Hall. If you don’t know what went on, you’re not alone. City Council didn’t make this one available online like they did last year, though it was a public meeting. It’s technically allowed under the Brown Act—Council isn’t required to stream or record any of their meetings, they just usually do.
I applied for the open spot on the Planning Commission (PC)—vacated by Aiden Ali-Sullivan at the end of January. And although I wasn’t able to record or take notes on the interviews this year, I can let you know what the process was like firsthand.
Notification
I was notified on Thursday that I had been selected for the interview on Tuesday. The interviews usually happen in mid- to late-August, so you have to make sure you keep that part of your calendar clear. I was assigned a time-slot and asked if I could make it. I received notification by email, snail mail, and phone call with a deadline to confirm my interview appointment time by the following Monday.
Voting Revealed
The agenda for the meeting listed who applied and who Council voted for. The Council votes for applicants they want to interview—as many as they want—and whoever gets 3 or more votes gets an interview. This year, the person with the most votes received 6 and next two others received 5 .
I got 3: Councilmembers Zermeño, Syrop, and Bonilla
The Interview
Council was running late so I arrived with plenty of time to spare. I got a name-tag with a binder number on it—presumably so that Council could look at my application during the questions. When I was called in, I sat at a little triangle table with a microphone on it and the City Council seated in front of me. There was also one member of the public in the room, Planning Commissioner Ron Meyers.
The Mayor asked me to briefly introduce myself and say why I want to be on the Commission. I explained that the PC is a powerful body, making decisions that impact the next 30 years of development. I want to be on the PC to help meet Council’s strategic goals and make Hayward a better place for my child, who I hope will want to put down roots here when old enough.
Then came Question Time, but only four Councilmembers asked me questions. Councilmember Zermeño asked about infill projects, Councilmember Bonilla asked how to balance community growth, preserve neighborhood character, and meet sustainability goals with developments, Councilmember Syrop asked me to explain some of the important work the PC has done over the last year, and Julie Roche asked what I would do differently on planning.
I won’t bore you with my answers to the questions—I can’t remember what I said, anyway. But I said a lot and I was asked to stop for the sake of time on every question. As you might imagine, I know my stuff.
But Councilmember Roche asked two questions, and one of them was a special Political Question. She asked if I’d keep writing about the PC for the Herald if I was chosen. She was concerned about how the other Commissioners would feel, knowing that I’d be writing about them.
I explained that I would probably write differently if I was on the PC, if only because I’m not a fan of watching the same meeting twice. I said that I’d probably write less opinion if I was able to say it on the dais. But I insisted that the PC is too important to not cover—I try to explain why every time I write about them—so I wouldn’t stop.
Reflections
I haven’t heard back about whether I was chosen for the position or not—I have a feeling I didn’t get it. Mayor Salinas lamented how political the Planning Commission had become last year and Councilmember Roche framed her question to me as “a political one,” so there’s almost no chance Council chose me to be on the City’s most powerful appointed body. I occupy a unique place in City politics these days.
But even though I won’t get the seat, I wanted Council to see what someone who knows about planning, development, environmentalism, and community development could do for the PC. I also have no political ambitions. I honestly just want to see the built environment change for the better—walkable neighborhoods, medium-density development with easy access to shops and groceries for everyone, regardless of their income.
Mayor Salinas has it right: Hayward deserves the best. It deserves a Planning Commission that isn’t focused on running for City Council, that doesn’t view its unhoused residents with visible contempt, and that understands the mechanisms by which the Commission can make Hayward a model community for the rest of the State. I haven’t seen that this past year and, unlike most of Council, I’m actually watching.