Attended by about 20 people at Redway School tonight. A very positive and constructive discussion. Corolyn, Assessor Mari Wilson, and Clif were present.
It turns out that Sohum really only has about 5 or 6 thousand people. I had thought it was closer to 10 based upon the Hospital District stats.
Carolyn’s office has a page up with various links, including one to interactive GIS maps. Put your own districts together – the magic number being 26995 people per district – do I have that right?
Addendum: 26,925.
Sohum Parlance II 
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 23, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Carolyn Crnich
My thanks to all who attended. It is obvious to me that the people at this gathering were really giving thought to the redistricting issues and they came prepared with some excellent suggestions and questions. I hope the rest of our Community Redistricting Workshops and Pubic Hearings are as fruitful as this one.
June 23, 2011 at 9:50 pm
tra
Unfortunately I don’t have Excel on this computer. Tried to open it with MS Works spreadsheet but apparently that isn’t going to work.
I wanted to see if I could come up with a redistricting plan that would follow the general outline of what I suggested in an earlier thread — moving the Rio Dell and Scotia precincts from the 2nd district to the 1st district, moving Petrolia and Honeydew from the 1st district tot he 2nd district, and then looking for a few more precincts to move from the 1st to the 2nd to even out the numbers.
If somebody else has Excel (and the time) and wants to give it a try, I would be curious to see if something along those lines could be done.
Too bad the interactive redistricting map thingy Hank was working on before his departure from the NCJ never got finished. That would have been a whole lot easier to work with than trying to go back and forth between the precinct map and the spreadsheet to try to figure out which precinct are which. Oh well, just one more needless casualty of the game of editorial musical chairs that took place over at the NCJ. (Sigh.)
June 23, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Eric Kirk
We discussed it a bit tonight, but there are actually far fewer living in the Mattole Valley than our sources had reported. It’s something like 600, with nearly 5000 in the Rio Dell/Scotia area. Just doesn’t pen out.
June 23, 2011 at 11:37 pm
tra
Just doesn’t pen out
Oh well, too bad.
Just to be clear, are you saying that there are only about 600 people in the entire Mattole Valley (including Ettersburg, Whitethorne and so on), or are you saying that there are only about 600 people in the part of the Mattole Valley that is currently part of the 1st district (basically Petrolia and Honeydew)?
By the way, was there any clarification on what had been reported in a previous thread, that there was some proposal to add Hydesville to the 1st, as well as Carlotta, Bridgeville, Alderpoint and all of Southeast SoHum? If so, given that Fortuna would have to remain contiguous with the rest of the 2nd, was the idea really to push the 1st district line up around to the north and east of Fortuna, and then curl it back around to the south and west to capture Hydesville and then back out east to capture Carlotta and Bridgeville and then all the way south through Alderpoint and beyond? To me that just sounded like the most bizarre configuration possible, so I’m just curious if that is really something Carolyn was seriously considering, or whether the person who was talking about that on the other thread had just fundamentally misunderstood what was being discussed?
Aside from the original “coastal district” proposal, I’m having a hard time seeing where the 2,000+ votes that need to be moved from the 2nd to the 1st are going to come from, other than breaking off a piece of Fortuna and/or Hydesville or a piece of Rio Dell? I can’t imagine any of those options would be real popular with the locals in those areas.
What kinds of other options were discussed, or was the discussion just kind of vague?
June 24, 2011 at 7:01 am
Jim Ferguson
Very good meeting last night, well attended, with lots of important questions asked and valid concerns expressed. Sounds like it will be a pain to find something that works. Thanks to Carolyn and Mari for coming down.
Having been through two previous redistrictings, the level of openness, solicition of public input, and offer to the community that if they can come up with something that works, please send it in and they will present it, was just outstanding.
One new thing I learned last night was any redrawing of districts had to leave the existing supervisor’s home in the existing district. So, since Jimmy lives just south of Eureka, the First must still extend that far no matter how difficult it makes calculations.
June 24, 2011 at 7:03 am
Bunny
E….The hospital district tax is applied to approximately 10,000 parcels. As in places like Shelter Cove and Rancho Sequoia the majority are not occupied.
June 24, 2011 at 1:09 pm
tra
One new thing I learned last night was any redrawing of districts had to leave the existing supervisor’s home in the existing district.
Really? Is that a county ordinance, or a state law that applies to the counties? Because that’s not how it works with other kinds of redistricting, for example the Congressional redistricting that is now underway, which is quite likely to leave Mike Thompson’s home outside his current district.
And whereabouts in Fortuna does Clif live?
June 24, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Not A Native
Jim, Do you recall who told you about the requirement to leave the existing supervisor’s home in the district? I really hope you misunderstood. The truth is here in this excerpt from prop 8:
(e) The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map. Districts shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.
June 24, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Not A Native
Oops, I just realized that prop 8 doesn’t apply to county supervisor districts, I’ll have to research the county code. Guess now I’d guess a requirement as Jim wrote is likely. That sort of political manipulation is partly why State voters passed prop 8
June 24, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Jim Ferguson
The “home” issue is a statement Carolyn made last night. I assume she knows what she’s talking about.
The really funny thing, is if they redraw the Second so it just contains Fortuna and areas north and tack SoHum onto the First, when it goes into effect in January 2012 for 12 months Clif would represent SoHum even though he doesn’t live in it anymore.
June 24, 2011 at 8:16 pm
ED Denson
Surely the most benefit would accrue to Sohum if Fortuna, or some of it, were to leave the district. In many ways Fortunans should not vote in county elections anyway, because they are independent of the county government in many ways with their own ordinances, poilice, fire services etc.
June 24, 2011 at 8:55 pm
tra
ED,
The same could be said of folks who live within the city limits of Eureka and Arcata. The GPU is a good example, nearly half of the folks voting for the County Supervisors who get the final say on the new GPU are, in effect voting for Supervisors who will change development rules for other people, rules that don’t apply to those city-dwelling voters at all since they have their own planning departments and their own general plans. But that’s the way it is, and it isn’t going to change.
As far as the idea of splitting off part of Fortuna to make the redistricting work, I’m all for it, but I doubt it will happen. But just for the sake of argument, I’ll repeat my question from earlier — whereabouts in Fortuna does Clif actually live? (I’m not asking for the actual address or anything, just the general area.) This is relevant since apparently the redistricting has to accomodate him and the lines can’t be drawn in such a way as would leave him outside his district. (Ah, the cushy perks of incumbency…)
June 25, 2011 at 8:56 am
Anonymous
Jim, did you also learn that Shelter Cove was in the First District? Even though you said it had NEVER been in the First?
June 25, 2011 at 12:15 pm
annonymoose
I just looked at the relevant parts of the California election Code and it looks to me that a supervisor’s residence does not have to be a determining factor. maybe I’m reading this wrong.
Section 21506. The term of office of any supervisor who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which he or she was elected.
At the first election for county supervisors in each county following adjustment of the boundaries of supervisorial districts, a supervisor shall be elected for each district under the readjusted district plan that has the same district number as a district whose incumbent’s term is due to expire. A change in the boundaries of a supervisorial district shall not be made within 45 days before the first day for circulating nomination papers for an election of supervisors in the county or between the direct primary election and the general election.
June 25, 2011 at 4:45 pm
ED Denson
I agree, Tra, the problem exists with all incorporated cities including Eureka and Arcata. No one but us has ever seemed to notice.
June 27, 2011 at 2:26 am
Anonymous
As long as those of us who live in incorporated areas can’t be taxed by the county in any way I have no problem not participating in elections.
June 27, 2011 at 6:55 am
tra
I just looked at the relevant parts of the California election Code and it looks to me that a supervisor’s residence does not have to be a determining factor. maybe I’m reading this wrong.
Is is possible that there is another section of the CA Election Code where there is requirement that the supervisor not be redistricted out of their district, or perhaps there is a county ordinance to that effect?
Or perhaps Jim F misunderstood Carolyn and the rule is that redistricting a supervisor out of their district cannot be the reason for redrawing the district lines in that way, but that as long as there is some other valid rationale for redrawing the lines in a way that happens to do so, it might be allowable?
June 27, 2011 at 7:54 am
Eric Kirk
No, Carolyn was very clear on the point. The current Supervisor’s residence must remain in the district. Not that it really matters. The Supervisor’s residence is going to be in some district, and all this seems to mean is that the number designation doesn’t change. The problem is that this means Jimmy, who lives in Humboldt Hill, must remain in the “First District” while Clif’s residence in Fortuna must remain in the “Second District.”
June 27, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Ernie's Place
Having to form a district that includes a supervisor’s home is faulty at best. What if the current supervisor is not even running for reelection? As indeed, Jimmy Smith is not. Do we still have to conform to his district? If that is truly the case, what is the reason for redistricting. What if the supervisor lived in the farthest corner of the hinterlands? Is the whole county stuck with including his home is some bizarre, malformed district configuration simply to accommodate the supervisors home?
I understand all the yadda-yadda about forming a district to purposefully eliminate someone from a position on the board. But, I think that the need for representative districts are more important than where a supervisor lives. If Jimmy is quitting, why not move his district into Clendenen’s. Have elections that would have Clendenen running for office in the newly realigned first district. He is a strong advocate of city living, he would be an excellent representitive for a more urban area.
Form the new Second District with the criteria of:
1- Rural
2- Southern most
3- Add the rural areas of eastern Humboldt until a sufficient number of heads were included.
There, it’s all solved!
June 27, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Not A Native
Looking at the code annonymoose cited, its very clear. There’s definitely no requirement to leave a sitting supervisor’s residence while redistricting. The code specifically addresses the term and election procedure when redistricting puts an incumbent’s residence outside the district they represent.
I think Carolyn is absolutely wrong and I’m kinda shocked she’s so slipshod in giving her opinon. But I grant her this, its the supes job, not hers, to do redistricting so she’s outside her authority. Eric, if you disagee about the requirement, I’d like you to explain your reasoning, in light of thr statute.
June 27, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Jim Ferguson
Shelter Cove, as a subdivided entity and stand alone community did not exist until 1965. It was in the First District only until the next redistricting in 1971 and has been in the Second ever since, connected to the rest of SoHum. To me, a piece of coastline that had 100x more sheep than people doesn’t count as a community though since it’s been a name on a map for 150 years, I guess you got me. Technically, I was wrong.
June 27, 2011 at 2:36 pm
bob
carolyn said it’s a 1995 appeals court decision that deals with the residence of the incumbent needing to remain in the same district. she promised to ask county counsel for a citation to that ruling so we could look it ourselves. i think i have to agree with eric that it may just be a numbering thing–there’s no way that a supervisor can have the exact same district, because all the districts will be different based on the census numbers. but i’m going to wait to see the court case before deciding whether or not i agree with county counsel’s opinion–perhaps the other lawyers frequenting this blog will look into it, too. personally, i suspect that we may not all agree with county counsel.
June 27, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Eric Kirk
What if the current supervisor is not even running for reelection? As indeed, Jimmy Smith is not. Do we still have to conform to his district?
Yup. I guess the rationale is that he could change his mind.
If that is truly the case, what is the reason for redistricting.
To ensure that the districts are equally represented in numbers.
What if the supervisor lived in the farthest corner of the hinterlands? Is the whole county stuck with including his home is some bizarre, malformed district configuration simply to accommodate the supervisors home?
Yup.