A new district elections map

|
(6)

There's only about a month left before the Redistricting Task Force starts to finalize a new map for supervisorial districts in San Francisco. You can look at the draft map the task force is working on here. The Guardian held a forum on the topic Jan 26 and that's lead to an alternative community map, which is here. The group that worked on the draft community map is continuing to meet, and I'd love to hear more feedback on it. You can email comments to map@sfbg.com or just post them as comments here.

Comments

Nonprofiteers who don't live in these neighborhoods or San Francisco are drawing this map in order to keep the cash flowing.

The best thing that could happen to the North Mission is for us to put Randy Shaw out of our misery and be drawn into D9 where we belong because the land use issues and transportation issues of the N. Mission are those of the Mission proper, the Mission Area Plan. In D6, N. Mission is the stepchild where votes are secured but which is but one of many varied land use divisions.

The nonprofiteers who are putting together this plan have mismanaged progressive organization to challenge downtown corporate dominance of land use and lost at every turn. Had they been able to organize communities, had they had connections with residents and had they worked to earn our support, then things might have turned out differently.

Just as we cannot count on the banksters who cratered the economy to fix it, we cannot count on the nonprofiteers in the land use and housing sector to do anything but continue to misrepresent our neighborhoods so that they continue to get paid while our neighborhoods absorb all of the hits from development plans they could not stop, and would not stop because they got their cut.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

little sense to listen to either of them. They are single-issue focused and really don't care about anything other than their own self-perpetuation.

Better to take politics out of re-districting and simp,y do it by the numbers. I doubt overall that it would make much difference, except for a reduction in endless tactics and instead a focus on policies.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

Single issue and self perpetuating to the extent that they will consume the coalitions they've used to keep their power until those coalitions cannot provide them cover and they no longer have political pull to keep themselves going. It is like bacteria in a petri dish that grow and multiply until their waste products poison the environment. We've got strep union and staph nonprofit.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 04, 2012 @ 10:43 am
D8

This proposal divides Diamond Heights between D7 and D8. As a DH resident this is not acceptable to me. DH should remain intact as a community of interest in D8.

Posted by Patrick Carroll on Feb. 04, 2012 @ 12:12 am

another failed proposal going nowhere. sorry guys but progs are losing power in SF. Deny all you like. Then look at who gets elected to the Assembly, and other city offices. Also say bye bye to Slappy Ross. Cunnie is your new sheriff

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2012 @ 11:06 pm

Looks like the traditional power bases of PacHeights, Sunset, etc., are getting extra representation, and the innovative parts of the City are getting under-represented in this plan. That the best solution because the traditional power places know what is best for the city, and the newer groups can't even do long division without a computer.

Posted by JQ on Feb. 29, 2012 @ 1:26 pm