MyDistricting | MIDPENINSULA
Enterprise Redistricting Software & Services by
Your comment has been added to the map.
Labels visible at zoom level 10.
Labels visible at zoom level 13.
Labels visible at zoom level 15.
Labels visible at zoom level 17.
Current Map Zoom:
Population and Geography based on 2010 census
I like A and B, with a preference toward A since the lines are less jagged as they are based on roads. And Board members would have a better idea where their ward ends. But either is better than C. Nice website BTW.
The maps are difficult to read - there is unnecessary noise for this evaluation (e.g. preserve boundaries, topography) and city borders stand out more than the boundaries of the proposed wards in all 3 scenarios. That noted, I strongly dislike C (agree with prior 'gerrymandering' comment) and prefer B over A. Ward assignments by city boundaries to the maximum extent possible makes more sense than traffic corridors and will be easier for the public to understand.
I very much dislike C; it makes little sense, and looks too much like 'gerrymandering'. Either A or B would be OK, but I prefer B ("city centric"), as - by tying wards more to towns/cities - it makes it clearer to people which ward they belong to.
I like both A and B, perhaps with a slight preference for A, but B is entirely reasonable as well. It seems that the main difference is in Mountain View.
Thank you for your interest in Midpen's ward redistricting project. All comments are visible to the public and will appear in this list with your name. For questions or assistance, contact Jamie Hawk, GIS Program Administrator (email@example.com).
For assistance or questions, please contact Jamie Hawk, GIS Program Administrator (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Do you wish to be contacted?