If you thought the city council redistribution process was interesting at the redistribution commission level, with thousands of public comments, hundreds of card submissions, several mid-term commissioner replacements, at least a few drastic changes to district boundaries, and more … brace yourself as everything changes this week as the process moves from commission to city council, where several council members have already indicated they will work to make significant changes to the map recommended by the city council redistribution commission just a few days ago.
The map details that have shocked the most – both for some current board members and their stakeholders – appear to be significant changes recommended by the San Fernando Valley District Redistribution Commission and current CD4, where council member Nithya Raman could lose contact. with the majority of voters who elected her just a year ago.
The changes angered Raman, city council chairman Nury Martinez (who represents Valley CD 6) and valley council member Paul Krekorian, who – like Raman – could lose most of his current CD 2 voters. if the K 2.5 plan of the Cutting Commission recommended is implemented. The trio are so unhappy that they brought forward a motion last week to create an ad hoc redistribution committee for the Council, even before the map and the Commission’s report were finalized, and began to speak out against the currently recommended card.
âIt is clear that too many voices across the city have yet to be heard and we have a set deadline,â Martinez said in a statement about the motion. âWe cannot reasonably move forward with a map that raises concern for so many marginalized communities when it will have such an influence in the lives of all Angelenos over the next decade. If we’re looking to build a stronger, more equitable Los Angeles, we need a map that reflects that.
Meanwhile, Krekorian was quoted in an LA Daily News story saying the map recommended by the Redistribution Commission is an “embarrassing proposal for new council districts that ignores public input and deprives half a million people of the right to vote.” And Raman pinned a long thread on his discontent with the recommended card at the top of his Twitter feed.
But while these three council members are unhappy with the recommended map, as are many residents of the valley communities who may also be moved to new council districts, a large number of communities and constituencies on the other side. of the Hollywood Hills, including in our own The Greater Wilshire area praised current mapping recommendations. These include measures to unite Koreatown into a single municipal district, mainly moving the Greater Wilshire area in CD 5 with other single-family neighborhoods, uniting many of the city’s Jewish communities in CD 5, keeping Thai Town and Historic Filipinotown together in one district, and more.
And with all the dissent rising from the valley and parts of Raman’s current CD 4, many stakeholders who are happy with the recommended map are now worried that the changes they have strongly insisted on, which have been honored by the Decoupage Commission in its recommendations, can be quickly overruled by city council … so these communities, too, are now joining forces for a show of force at the next round of hearings.
For example, the Hancock Park Homeowners Association and the Miracle Mile Residential Association have sent emails to their members denouncing what they call the Council’s attempts to “deal behind the scenes” and “gerrymandering” and urging their members to contact Council members to urge them to honor the presumably more transparent Mapping Commission mapping process and retain the currently recommended draft K 2.5 plan, which unites most of these two areas in CD 5, as many residents do. ‘have asked in recent months.
(The HPHOA also placed an ad in the Buzz to reach a wider local audience with the same plea.)
But in addition to specific mapping issues, some groups are also starting to play a longer-term game, with protests against the redistribution process itself. With this year’s Decoupage Commission appointed primarily by elected officials, including the same representatives whose district boundaries are being drawn, and with most of these commissioners in daily contact with the officials who appointed them, these organizations have already started pushing for changes in the next round. redistribution, after the 2030 census.
These include both the LA Times, which ran an op-ed last week calling for a truly independent Citizen Redistricting Commission … and California Common Cause – which made a presentation at the last Redistricting Commission meeting. last week calling for several reforms, including NOT elected redistribution commissioners, a ban on ex parte communications between commissioners and municipal authorities during the redistribution process, and a ban on replacing redistribution commissioners for any reason whatsoever, but a serious fault during the redistribution process. And several of these recommendations were also included by the Cutting Commission itself in its final report.
And there also appears to be a growing wave of support – including from the Redistribution Commission itself – for a voting measure to increase the number of city council districts in the city, which is far behind the count in other large metropolises (Chicago has 50 city councils, and New York has 51). The lower number of representatives means that Los Angeles voters are under-represented in their local governments compared to those in other citiesâ¦ and that each council member wields far more power than those in other cities.
The stage is therefore set for a few weeks of drama at least equal to what we have seen so far, if not more intenseâ¦ and it all starts tomorrow, Tuesday, November 2, when City Council hears the official report of the Decoupage Commission, and also votes on the Martinez / Krekorian / Raman motion to create an ad hoc Decoupage Committee. (Note that although the meeting starts at 10:00 am, and these items are # 44 and # 46 on the agendait is common for items to be inadmissible at city council meetings, so it is difficult to say in advance when the specific discussion will take place.). The meeting will be broadcast live on cable channel 35, online at https://clerk.lacity.org/calendar, and by phone at (213) 621-CITY (Metro), (818) 904-9450 (Valley), (310) 471-CITY (Westside) and (310) 547-CITY (San Pedro area).
And, again, this is only the first step in the broader Council process, which will take place this month and next. At tomorrow’s meeting, according to a memorandum from the city’s legislative analyst on the process, council members will have the opportunity to give their opinion on the recommendations of the decoupage commission, and also a chance to propose their own motions to change the map of the cutting board. After those motions, according to the memorandum, city council then votes on its own recommended redistribution map, and then must hold two public hearings on it, at least a week apart. Its final card must be adopted by December 31. So a lot will happen over the next eight weeksâ¦ and it could happen at breakneck speed, starting tomorrow.
If you would like to weigh in on the redistribution recommendations, or on the specific motion for city council to create its own ad hoc redistribution committee, you can consult the Council File page for each of the questions. To submit comments on either, simply click the “Submit a public comment“(marked with a red” New “icon) at the top of what follows Pages of the Council’s file:
CF 21-1243 – Motion to create an ad hoc redistribution committee
You can also write directly to any or all of the current city council members, who will discuss and vote on these issues tomorrow:
board member.blumenfield @
board member.rodriguez @
board [email protected]
board member.kevindeleon @
Finally, for those who wish to dig deeper, you can also check out the full report (over 500 pages) of the Redistribution Commission here.