El Dorado redistricting may significantly impact Tahoe
The Lake Tahoe portion of El Dorado County may not have a supervisor devoted just for that area.
Every 10 years all counties look at boundaries based on current Census results.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates El Dorado County’s population at 181,058, an increase of approximately 25,000 residents since the 2000 Census.
The county Surveyor’s Office has produced five options for future supervisorial district boundaries. Each version contains supervisorial districts with approximately 36,212 residents. The map alternatives will be formally presented to the Board of Supervisors April 26 at 10am at the county government center in Placerville. The board is expected to adopt a final map in July.
All of the redistricting map alternatives are available online. The website also includes reference maps, a feedback form, contact information, relevant agenda items, and will serve as a platform for future redistricting related announcements.
The redistricting team with Supervisor Ray Nutting will have a community meeting April 28 at the Pollock Pines Community Center, 2675 Sanders Drive from 7-9pm. Another workshop is May 5 at the El Dorado Hills Community Services District Pavilion, 1021 Harvard Way from 6-8pm. Details of additional workshops are pending, though it’s not known if one will be in Tahoe.
the trend is already starting if they are not even going to offer a workshop in tahoe!!
So what is the better of 2 poor choices for the county portion of SLT -1-join the city 2- stay with the county 3- form a new city called Tahoe Paradise!
Looks like # 3 will work now and in 2020.
IMO, the city should be dissolved and the county should be the only entity in South Tahoe. The last thing we need is another city in Tahoe Paradise. The redundant layers of government are costing the basin too much money. We could consolidate departments and have more accountability. Combine services and reduce duplicity. I can’t think of any good arguments for the efficiency of the city government. Not that the county is much better, but the county runs the jail and has to be here, the city does not need to exist. With the shrinking of our area’s population, we must change, we just can’t afford what we have. Come on, Norma!
NO NO NO, Tahoe Paradise City, thank you.
Alternatives 4 and 5 give Lake Tahoe two Supervisors. We could use double the representation we have now.
I like alternative 4. Away from the City of South Lake Tahoe and Norman!
Alternative 3 is the map for me!! And should be for any other resident that wants to prevent gerrymandering, kingdom building, party clustering and campaign donor preferential districting! This will not be popular with the larger developers, some sitting supervisors and political pundits. It literally breaks the majority of those special interests up in favor of true and pure numbers in precincts and allows the average county resident to be represented fairly and honestly by their choice of area of residence that will require sitting supervisors to learn all the problems and issues of the entire county and force them to make decisions based on the combined topographical and lifestyle populations of their districts, not by developer interests and donation pockets.
The Alternative 3 is the map I had asked Dan Russell to produce as a curiosity for information 10 years ago as it provides several benefits to this county and ease of adjustment from each decade to the next along with other revealed benefits, not the least of which is the fair and equitable distribution of precincts throughout the county that afford the opportunity to “gerrymander” districts for kingdom building, party line clusters and voter donation blocks to be coveted by any sitting supervisor or prospective candidate for election. The adjustability will function whether using mailer voter precincts or actual voting precinct locations and it allows for a good differentiation of the distribution requirements of the populations totals needed. Any other map allows for the politicalization of the counties populations.
A. All Supervisors will have to understand the impacts of their decisions on a North County through the populated and General Plan development directed Hwy 50 corridor and the South County agricultural issues and the District 5 change will finally require the Supervisor to be more cognizant of how to meld the South Lake Tahoe into the entire county and make them a part of the whole instead of a distant step child.
B. The topographical, economic and future development of this county will
all come in to play for every Supervisor, sitting and future and allow them to equally represent the whole county and work together for the good of all residents rather than political pundits and major developer interests.
C. The argument that this will alienate the community, cities, CSD’s and
Agricultural and topographical delineations are all the more reason to select this map. It will prevent special interests groups from prevailing over the average resident in the district.
D. The biggest reward will be to force supervisor candidates for re-election
and new candidates to learn about the entire county and they will have one long road trip to “glad hand” their prospective constituents.
Will this force them to understand areas they have not had to understand previously? What do you think? When you hear a sitting Supervisor saying from the dais that they haven’t been in that community or area for x years it behooves all of us to force the issue and request this board to do the right thing by the residents of this county and choose Alternative Map 3 for the good of everyone; not their developer and environmentally polarized friends and get off their political agendas and stop kingdom building and look out across this beautiful county and give us a break with honest and open decision making not backroom predisposed outcomes behind campaign rhetoric for ten more years!
Judith Mathat
Placerville, CA
530-626-9565
Sorry, I ment Norma.