Redistricting Commission Selects ‘Compromise Map’ as Blueprint : D2 Loses PB But Gains Clairemont

by on November 15, 2021 · 7 comments

in Ocean Beach, San Diego

Compromise Map chosen as preliminary blueprint.

San Diego’s redistricting commission selected the so-call “Compromise Map” over the weekend as the blueprint for a final map establishing the boundaries of the city council districts.

The map selected will be further tweaked but it will be the preliminary map from which commissioners base any changes on. Commissioners expect the final boundaries to closely resemble the Compromise Map.

For District 2, the Compromise Map removes Pacific Beach, which is added to District 1, but includes east Clairemont. D2 already included west Clairemont.

The panel voted 7-2 in favor of the Clairemont United Compromise Map, which, according to the U-T, “unites Clairemont, Linda Vista, Normal Heights and Rancho Peñasquitos — four neighborhoods divided the last time new boundaries were drawn in 2011.”

Next, the Commission will hold five public hearings before finalizing new council district boundaries before a December 15 deadline.

Chairman Tom Hebrank, and commissioners Ken Malbrough, Fred Kosmo, Val Hoy, Roy MacPhail, Alan Nevin and Kristen Roberts voted for the Compromise Map. The U-T says, “MacPhail and Roberts said they could have supported either map.” Commissioners Justine Neilsen and Monica Hernandez both preferred the Collaboration Map.

David Garrick, at the U-T, makes the following points:

  • While the Compromise map boosts the Asian population in District 6, the Latino population in District 9 and the Black population in District 4, it doesn’t boost minority voting power as much as the panel’s second choice — the San Diego Communities Collaboration map.
  • The main shortcomings of the map appear to be that Scripps Ranch would be divided between Districts 5 and 6, and
  • Pacific Beach would shift from District 2 to District 1.
  • The new District 2 would unite Clairemont with Mission Beach, Ocean Beach and Point Loma.
  • The Compromise Map would make District 6 a heavily Asian district including University City, but it would leave the university campus in District 1 with La Jolla.
  • Shelltown and Southcrest would move from District 9 to District 8,
  • Redwood Village and Rolando Park would move from District 4 to District 9, and
  • Mount Hope would move from District 9 to District 4.
  • Webster and Ridgeview would be united in District 4.
  • The Compromise Map would increase the Asian population of District 6 from about 34 percent to 39.3 percent, compared to 40.68 percent with the Collaboration Map.
  • The Compromise Map would increase the percent of Asians in District 6 who are citizens and old enough to vote from about 29 percent to 32.44 percent, compared to the Collaboration Map with 34.82 percent.

For more, see this.

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

Sam November 15, 2021 at 11:52 am

What a sham. District 2 should be included with district 1. What on earth do people from Clairemont have in common with Pt. Loma?


kh November 16, 2021 at 11:01 am

We sure do share more in common with the other coastal neighborhoods, but the problem lies in having only 1 coastal district vs. 2.

The coast has a major, major influence on everything that happens in San Diego. If not for the coast, we’d be Riverside or something. This is part of the reason long-standing policy has been to provide 2 coastal districts.

There will forever be divided interests between those who reside along the coast, and those who only go for recreational purposes. If there was only one councilmember charged with representing coastal residents, we’d get even less consideration than we do now.


Frank Gormlie November 15, 2021 at 5:50 pm

Do voters in Clairemont care about the 30 foot height limit, I wonder? Do they care about vacation rentals taking over their neighborhood?


kh November 16, 2021 at 10:55 am

The ones in bay park/bay ho sure do care about building heights in general. There was a lot of pushback when Zapf initially supported redeveloping that I-5 Corridor.


Frank Gormlie November 16, 2021 at 11:05 am

Yup, you’re right, and thanks for the reminder. It became a major problem for Zapf.


Judy Swink November 17, 2021 at 12:14 pm

It makes sense to me to have the coastal area represented by two Council Districts. After the 2000 census, Districts 2 & 6 shared representation for Mission Bay Park, a decision which I think benefited Mission Bay Park – having two voices speaking for the area. The same will be true for the new coastal area districts if this map is adopted.


Frank Gormlie November 17, 2021 at 12:35 pm

Judy were you around back in the mid-70s when OB at least and MB and PB were in the same district?


Cancel reply

Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: