Submitted Written Public Testimony 2021-2022 Redistricting Process
October 26, 2021 Public Hearing
• Email from Larry Alexander, on behalf of No More Napa Islands received on October 26, 2021.
December 14, 2021 Public Hearing
• Email from Kevin Teague received on December 13, 2021. • Email from Amy Martenson, Chair, Napa County Progressive Alliance received on December 13, 2021
January 25, 2022 Public Hearing
• Email from Napa County Progressive Alliance Steering Committee received on January 25, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 4
From: Napa County Progressive Alliance Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 6:16 PM To: Clerk Cc: Sco Sedgley; Steve Po er; David Campbell;
Subject: Public comment for special mee ng on Oct. 26, 2021 Item 3A
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Good evening, Napa City Council:
My name is Larry Alexander. I am chair of No More Napa Islands, an action team that is part of the Napa County Progressive Alliance, which advocates for immediate municipal annexation of all county islands eligible for LAFCO’s streamlined annexation process to enfranchise their residents and bring them into the civic life of the City. On behalf of this group, I am here tonight to describe where I live and my community of interest-- the largest county island, the West Pueblo/Linda Vista county island.
My neighborhood is located south of Trancas and west of the Highway. It is completely surrounded by the City and is affected by City services and decisions, yet I am not a part of the City because for years the City has failed to annex my neighborhood, leaving us in the County. Had the City annexed this neighborhood, we would currently be a part of District 2 but are instead in no district with no opportunity to vote for a city council representative, the mayor, or city ballot initiatives. In other words, we have been disenfranchised
ATTACHMENT 4
About 1,400 residents live in my neighborhood, which is predominantly working class and a majority Latinx. If annexed, it would be the lowest income neighborhood in the City. We lack storm drains, adequate lighting, and have poor streets. My neighborhood is shown as a gaping hole on the City’s election map that was created in April 2020 for the last election, an election in which I did not get to vote, even
though my wife works in the city and my son goes to a city high school.
When the City Council adopted its current election map, it cast aside information gathered regarding communities of interest and instead carved up Napa based on major roads and geographic features, touting the importance of easy-to-understand districts. What is easy to understand about portions of the City actually being in the County, including many streets that are part City and part County? Why isn’t the City Council concerned about the voter confusion that creates or the fact that 1,400 underserved residents are not being counted and cannot vote?
The City has already mapped and completed an engineering study of the West Pueblo/Linda Vista island, the main precursors to annexation.
It has only to pass a resolution in order to annex it and could still do so in time for its residents to be included in the redistricting process, so they could become a part of their district of choice, being close to three districts. For example, I believe that given our demographics and inadequate infrastructure that we have more in common with and would have a stronger vote being a part of the central district— District 4.
The county island issue came to light during the districting process almost two years ago. The City has had more than enough time to annex the largest islands and should at least annex the largest island, the West Pueblo/Linda Vista island, for which the City Council has nothing left to do except pass a resolution, now and in time for redistricting. As has been stated before by the City itself, “It is the right thing to do.” ATTACHMENT 4
Sincerely,
Larry Alexander
No More Napa Islands, Co-chair
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
From: Napa County Progressive Alliance
To: Redistricting
Subject: Written Public Comment for Public Hearing on Redistricting on Dec. 14, 2021, Item 3A Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 11:48:54 PM
Attachments: Rafferty re Integration of WPLV Island.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council (and City-hired demographer):
At the first public hearing, Napa County Progressive Alliance Steering Committee member, Larry Alexander, submitted public comment on the West Pueblo/Linda Vista county island where he lives. He explained how this island represents a community of interest bound together by race, being a majority Latinx, socio-economic status, being primarily working class, a concern regarding inadequate and aging infrastructure, and a history of being excluded from the civic life of the city. He stated that he believes this community has more in common with the central district, District 4 directly to the east, than District 2, dominated by Browns Valley, which currently surrounds it. His observations are corroborated by data we submitted in 2020, as well as by the map the city’s demographer, Paul Mitchell, submitted that joined this island with the central district in draft map Plan D to create the highest Latinx citizen voting age population district of the final four maps he presented to the Council.
The city attorney stated that the City will be annexing these county islands but not until after redistricting. He stated that while council members cannot count the population of this island during redistricting, they could be forward thinking and consider how annexation of this island and its 1,400 residents would affect the districts and make decisions accordingly.
The only draft map being presented at tomorrow’s hearing is the current district map, which does not address the issues surrounding the incorporation of this large island into a future district, issues we brought up last year when the map was adopted.
We have resubmitted a letter written by our attorney Scott Rafferty dated April 26, 2020. In it he explained that unless the City passes an ordinance, the island would automatically go into District 2, creating a population variance of more than 13.3% based on 2010 census data, a variance that would likely be even higher now using 2020 census data. He proposed a solution that would respect the future desires of the island residents, suggesting that the city lands just east of the island be joined with the central district so that upon annexation the island could stay in District 2 or join with District 4 or be split at Carol Drive with the western half staying in District 2 and the eastern half joining with District 4. We submitted that map using DistrictR. https://bit.ly/3pX3Vj4 While we, again, urge you annex this island now, so the population can be counted, and it can be incorporated now into a district, at the very least you can demonstrate good faith and a respect for the desires of these future city residents by attaching it to both districts; that way, without having to pass a resolution, it could join to either district or be split between them. This solution would help equalize the population between districts 2 and 4, guarantee flexibility in incorporating the island into a district upon annexation, and ensure island residents have the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the decision.
If you are unwilling to address the West Pueblo/Linda Vista island issue now when it is timely and convenient, it is unlikely that you will do it in the future.
Sincerely,
Amy Martenson
Napa County Progressive Alliance, Chair
P.S. Attached is Larry Alexander’s recent letter to the editor, “Don’t Wait to Annex the Largest Island."
https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/letters/dont-wait-to-annex-the-largest-island/article_f0d62eb5-4bf0-564a-879e-0010c2a45b28.html? utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
Scott J. Rafferty
Attorney at law
1913 Whitecliff Court (202)-380-5525
Walnut Creek CA 94596 [email protected]
April 26, 2020
Ms. Tiffany Carranza
Clerk
City of Napa
via electronic mail
Dear Ms. Carranza:
My client and I hope to write separately, before or after tomorrow’s meeting, to reflect on the successes and accomplishments of this proceeding, the first to comply with the FAIR MAPS Act. You, the council, and the staff have set a model that every city in the state is well-advised to consider when they redistrict next year. I know that, it your case, it was a lot of hard work.
We have a continuing concern for the integration of the islands, especially West Pueblo/Linda Vista, into the city upon their annexation. As added effective January 1, 2020, Section 21623(a) requires a city to add new territory “to the nearest existing council district without changing the boundaries of the other council district boundaries [sic].” Map A places the entire West Pueblo Island inside District B (Brown’s Valley).
We question whether this is appropriate, especially since it will cause a population variance of more than 13.3%. Our view is less important than the desires of the residents at the time they join the city. Therefore, we propose two alternative interim approaches for the Council and its demographer to consider. (1) Move these eight census blocks southwest of the intersection of Redwood Road and St. Helena Highway from District B to District C (purple).
This involves the motels and retail along Solano Avenue and a population of 253 (only 132 of whom are adult citizens). With this small change, the West Pueblo Island adjoins both B and C, and can therefore be attached to either. Any movement of population out of B mitigates the excess variance. After annexation, one possibility would be to attach the twelve blocks east of Carol Drive to district C. The blocks have an additional population of 1,065 (pink). This would reduce the population variance to
8.4%.
The combined pink and purple areas correspond to a block group that will (after annexation) have the lowest per capita income in the City of Napa ($20,467). Sixteen percent of the population over 5 speaks Spanish, but does not speak English well.
ATTACHMENT 4
Rafferty to Carranza, April 26, 2020, page 2
Twelve percent lives in poverty. Eight percent are not citizens. Forty-five percent of eligible voters are Latino. We believe that the Island, or at least its eastern half, has more in common with district C than district B, but the Council should give the opinions of the City’s new residents greater weight.
Blue – District A Orange – District B Green – District C Purple, Pink and Crosshatch Orange – Island
ATTACHMENT 4
Rafferty to Carranza, April 26, 2020, page 3
(2) Am
end the ordinance to govern how annexations are added to existing districts.
New Section 21623(c) allow charter cities to adopt by ordinance “a different standard for adding new territory to existing council districts.” Conceivably, this could provide additional flexibility in the case of West Pueblo and other future annexations. I defer to Mr. Barrett on whether such an ordinance is appropriate, and what standard it might establish.
Sincerely,
Scott J
. Rafferty
ATTACHMENT 4
From: Napa County Progressive Alliance
To: Redistricting
Subject: Written Public Comment on Special Meeting on Redistricting, Item 3A, January 25, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:28:07 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL]
Napa City Council:
The Napa County Progressive Alliance is again providing written comment on an ongoing concern: the City’s decision to wait to annex the largest county island, the West Pueblo/Linda Vista county island, until after redistricting has been completed and its refusal to attach the eight precincts east of the island to the central district, District 4, so that upon annexation the island could go into District 4 or be split between District 2 and District 4 without the Council needing to pass a resolution for that to occur.
As was written in our letter to the editor printed on January 17th entitled Voter Discrimination in Napa?, we suspect that the reason the Council wants to wait to annex this island until after redistricting is because annexing the island now would put District 2 over the 10% ideal population allowed by the FAIR MAPS Act, necessitating a change to the current map. In addition, without attaching those eight precincts to District 4, unless the Council passes a resolution, the island would automatically go into District 2 once annexed. Both of these actions would have the effect of diluting the vote of working class and Latinx voters, which is unacceptable.
District 2 has the lowest Latino Citizen Voting Age Population of the four districts. District 4 has the highest. Placing island residents, who are working class and a majority Latinx, into District 2 would dilute their vote and make it impossible for them to elect their candidate of choice. Furthermore, adding that population to District 2, overpopulating it, would give District 2 more voting power than District 4.
While the two board members who represent these districts were only concerned about what is legal, both should be concerned about what is right and the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law.
Furthermore, why isn’t District 4 representative Narvaez advocating for his district generally and for the Latinx community specifically by insisting that his district has equal population and that decisions made increase, and do not dilute, the voting power of the Latinx community? If the Council continues in the direction it is going, which we suspect it will, it will violate the spirit of the FAIR MAPS Act in terms of the top three mapping criteria. 1) Equal population: The Council should not plan for District 2 to be over the 10% ideal population allowed by the FAIR Maps Act, whether it is legal or not. 2) Contiguity: With this large county island in the middle of a district, the district is not contiguous. 3) Respect for communities of interest: The island residents share little in common in terms of social and economic interests with Browns Valley-dominated District 2 and share more in common with voters in District 4; they should be joined together for fair representation.
Shame on the members of the Council for their continued refusal to recognize the voting rights of island residents who have experienced decades of historical discrimination, including redlining, disenfranchisement, and paying more in taxes and fees to get less, all of which we laid out in the video we made back in 2020, which we are including again here. At this point, Council members' actions appear to be a deliberate attempt to suppress the working class and Latinx vote to maintain the status ATTACHMENT 4
quo and their own power as part of Napa’s political establishment. We are documenting it for posterity.
Sincerely,
Napa County Progressive Alliance Steering Committee
References:
Campbell, David. (2022, January 17). Voter Discrimination in Napa? Napa Valley Register. https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/letters/letter-voter-discrimination-in-napa/article_39a0fbd0-4ebc- 544b-bd4c-fddfeee4a26b.html
Nelsen, Beth. (2020, August 31). The Islands of Napa. https://youtu.be/zRTsbBgE7Sc ATTACHMENT 4