Dividing Up B'game's Council

Two and a half years ago we noted the possibility of City Council: Allot Seats by District?.  It looks like that day has arrived courtesy of the same attorney we wrote about back then.  The DJ is reporting

District elections are headed to Burlingame, according to City Manager Lisa Goldman who confirmed officials received a letter threatening to sue for the change if it was not adopted voluntarily.  Before the Burlingame City Council meeting Monday, March 2, officials discussed in closed session the city’s existing election format relative to state voting law, according to the meeting agenda.

Following that discussion, Goldman said officials agreed to move away from the current at-large format and adopt the by-district system during the next Burlingame City Council election.  “Because our next council election is not until 2022, we have time for a robust public process and thorough review of our demographics as we move forward,” said Goldman.

If you go back and read through the whole post from 2 1/2 years ago, you can review the concerns about gerrymandering districts to accomplish.....well, I'm not sure what it is trying to accomplish.  It looks like we will be hiring a demographer to analyze the racial make-up of various neighborhoods and somehow divide up the city accordingly.  I can imagine on one hand this might make it a more open race and cheaper to run in each district.  The costs of signs, direct mail, etc would be less.  But how do you hold debates?  Do we hold five debates--one for each district since candidates from different districts are not running against each other?  If a sitting councilmember moves to another district for some reason--say a renter whose rent goes up--do we have another election?  You can't very well have four councilmembers from the other districts appoint someone to fill out the term when they don't "represent" that district.

There are a lot of other good comments in the old post about how the mayor would be chosen/elected, etc.  This has the feeling of a "goat rodeo" in the making.  Here's an old favorite 2013 election photo to ponder along with the goats.

Comments

[Jennifer Pfaff]

Yes, I did read the staff report and also another news article about Palo Alto (I think it was PA) challenging the lawsuit, and so far coming out on the losing end. It's getting ridiculous, another example of State overreach and how little remains in local control. At some point, why would cities even need Councils when the majority of decisions are "guided" by fear of lawsuits. Change? Well change is fine, so is "progress" if it really is, but change for sake of change....not. ' Just a really sad state of affairs.

[Just Visiting]

So wait: the council isn't in touch with 80% of the voters here? Or you just disagree with the voters? You see how those are different, right? And you understand that we live in a democracy? That is the fundamental underpinning of our nation's governance, starting in 1776 (powers derived from the consent of the governed, and all that).

As to Mrs. Pfaff--that's right, the problem is with the State's legislation, not with the city council, none of whom seem excited about the change, but all of whom recognize it isn't in the city's interest to spend hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of the City's dollars on a lawsuit the city will almost certainly lose. As noted in that news article, this isn't a 50/50 proposition. To date, no city has won such a legal challenge, and those that fought spent millions in the process.

[Joe]

I sort of lost the thread of the 80% figure and who was being discussed. As to the "disconnectedness" of the council, it's an issue by issue matter which to me means they are "disconnected". My post on A Chat With the New Mayor relays no disconnectedness at all. And I agree with JV on the rest of them as well. The issue for me is "mission creep". Did we waste an incredible amount of time and energy on BPD Use of Force? Absolutely. Banning natural gas--total mission creep and expensive when "affordability" is supposedly an issue in town. But I digress a little.

The original questions in the older post (linked above) and in this post are hard to solve (sitting member moving, debates, empty seats...). Outreach to Mullin and Becker seems like the only viable option and likely to be a polite listening session followed by....nada.

The real concern was stated to me by a very alert resident: "today I have five city councilmembers, soon I will only have one". Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not totally exaggerated.

[Phinancier]

I wonder if we could increase the council to 7 or 9 with the new ones being at-large? It would be better than where we are headed.

[Phinancier]

Lempert sitting right on the fence. What a waste of newsprint. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/pros-and-cons-of-district-elections/article_ed0c7740-95cb-11eb-8fff-ebf0b256a51c.html#utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1617631210&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

[Just Sayin']

If it ain't woke, don't fix it.

Wise words from my Granny.

[Jennifer Pfaff]

Oh oh, ' not so sure about that idea, Phinancier. Just look at what's going on in PA with their huge Council. Personally, I think it's too many chefs in the kitchen. I cannot imagine what their meetings must be like.

[hollyroller@gmail.com]

What does "woke" mean?

[Psych 201]

woke adj. 1) describing a feeling of feeling bad and ascribing it to something someone else did to someone you don't know. 2) having a sense of guilt about a feeling that you think you should have but don't really have. 3) the sense of misplaced anger one feels when 1) and 2) are not shared by people with more sense than you.