Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 25 of 40 <br />Attachment C <br />schools and similar concerns as Centennial and it makes sense to include the two <br />neighborhoods together rather than separate them. <br />I found the arguments for keeping Redwood Shores in its own district, and not combined <br />with the Bair Island community, to be specious and politically motivated. Before map 13f <br />was approved, I recall that the desires of Redwood Shores residents was to not split up <br />their community - there was little a priori complaints about combining Redwood Shores <br />with Bair Island. Map 13g maintains Redwood Shores' autonomy, while linking it to <br />another community in the city with similar setting by the bay, similar isolation from the <br />rest of the city, similar demographics, and similar issues with respect to risks of enhanced <br />earthquake and flood risk. Bair Island and Redwood Shores have far more in common <br />with each other than either community have with most of the rest of Redwood City. If <br />map 13g is adopted, Redwood Shores will have an election in 2020 that will allow it, as <br />it did in 2018, to weigh in on the council composition in 2020. I don't have that <br />opportunity, as a resident of proposed District 2, as is also the case for residents of <br />districts 5 and 6. In addition, there may also be an open seat in District 1 (Redwood <br />Shores) if Ms. Masur is successful in her State Senate bid. With all of the proposed maps, <br />every other neighborhood community in Redwood City is either combined with other <br />neighborhoods and/or is split up within the districts. There is no justification for treating <br />Redwood Shores preferentially compared to any other neighborhood in the City. Map <br />13g does not break up Redwood Shores as its citizens requested, and grants it an election <br />in 2020 - this is more than fair treatment for that community, especially as district <br />boundaries will necessarily need to be changed after the 2020 election. <br />Map 13g is the only map that provides the fairest transition into district elections. It is equally <br />fair to all incumbents and all neighborhoods/communities, it ensures that at least one of the two <br />new majority -minority districts will elect a new member to the council in 2020, and does not <br />force, for structural reasons only, extensive turnover in the Council for the 2020 election, given <br />that that the district maps will have to be modified after 2020. <br />Of the four options presented to the public on March 26, I strongly encourage you to adopt map <br />13g. Should other maps be presented for consideration I urge that you judge them based on the <br />criteria I discussed above and only adopt one of them if the meet or exceed map 13g based on the <br />following:: <br />1. Fair and equal treatment to all incumbent council members and <br />neighbohoods/communities. <br />2. Ensuring that at least one majority -minority district will be able to elect a new council <br />member in 2020. <br />3. Minimize forced structural changes to the Council in advance of having to redo the <br />district maps following the 2020 election. <br />Thank you for your hard work and consideration of my recommendation. <br />Best regards, <br />Dan Ponti <br />54 Finger Ave. <br />Redwood City, CA 94062 <br />259 <br />