The Santa Clara Valley Water District board wants your advice.
They ask that you take a survey
– the top item on their website – and rank five maps that are up
for debate after the water board motioned to revisit the choice of
a map that divides South County and joins Palo Alto with Gilroy.
But some think the survey is only political maneuvering.
Vote for your preferred district boundaries at the Santa Clara Valley Water District poll.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District board wants your advice. They ask that you take a survey – the top item on their website – and rank five maps that are up for debate after the water board motioned to revisit the choice of a map that divides South County and joins Palo Alto with Gilroy. But some think the survey is only political maneuvering.
Three of the maps were recommended by the redistricting committee who met over a span of 15 weeks in cities across the county gleaning public comment and participation. The fourth map is one that likely will go away – it’s been the momentum for controversy that has Gilroy’s city council threatening legal action and mayors from Palo Alto to South County angry. The fifth is a new map that the board drew Tuesday that still bisects South County, joining Gilroy with Campbell and Morgan Hill with the entire eastern section of the county.
At the request of the water board, staff public administrator Rick Callendar created the survey that was online about 4 p.m. Tuesday. The Times received an e-mail alert about the survey at noon today. A press release was not issued, but Callendar said alerts are sent to the public via a large e-mail list.
“The board asked to make sure the information was out there and make sure we get feedback from the maps. That’s the only way I know how to get public comment,” Callendar said.
The survey asks you to rate your preference on the proposed maps on a scale of: I do not like this version, neutral or I really like this version. There is a space to provide comments and leave your name, title, organization, address or e-mail are optional. Callendar said making it mandatory would upset more people than assuring anonymity.
“I tried to make it work for everybody,” Callendar said.
The only board director to vote against the Palo Alto-Gilroy map was Patrick Kwok, who said all five maps will be brought back to make sure all angles and options are on the table with this go-around.
“Any aspect of getting public input through surveys or comments is a good idea. If some can’t make it to the meeting … We need to be really transparent and open with this process,” Kwok said.
Others, who oppose the oddly shaped map the board voted through April 29, say the survey is a sham.
“It’s not a true survey,” Susanne Wilson said. She headed the redistricting committee and is a former county supervisor and San Jose city council member. “If it were just getting the word out … to get opinions in that manner doesn’t pass the test of reason for a true cross-section of people.” Wilson said she is not telling anyone she knows to take the survey.
The reconsideration of the map comes at the command of mayors from Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Gilroy and Morgan Hill who all sent letters outlining their discrepancies with both the way the map was adopted and the map itself. Initially the map was drawn after support from Gilroy Mayor Al Pinheiro and Morgan Hill Mayor Steve Tate, yet the end result did not comply with resolution to keep communities of interest together: Palo Alto is an urban area and Gilroy has vastly different concerns with groundwater, reservoirs and agriculture.
Political motivations are what moved the lines on the map, many have speculated. The joining of Palo Alto with Gilroy makes it difficult for potential candidate Supervisor Don Gage to win the Gilroy-Palo Alto seat since the population is far greater in the north. The maps Q, Q2 and Q3 all divide Gilroy from Morgan and will lessen the chance of any South County person to serve on the water board. The recommended maps S and T keep South County together.
A call was placed to water district CEO Beau Goldie but not returned Wednesday.
Current District 1 Director Rosemary Kamei has encouraged public participation since the process’ onset asking constituents to engage and submit their maps and thoughts. “We’re trying to do as much outreach … with another opportunity to give their opinion,” Kamei said.
The survey can be done hundreds of times by an individual on the same computer if the history is cleared; there are no restrictions on voting. Callendar said he has received 32 comments as of about 1 p.m. Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Curtis Wright represented the elected officials in the county when he spoke at the board meeting where it was decided to reopen discussion on how to draw the political districts. He is on the water commission – a liaison among cities and the district. Wright spoke on their behalf and as a Monte Sereno council member.
“If they had taken one of those recommendations, there would have been no controversy,” Wright said Wednesday. “This was very preventable. That’s the sad part.” He added that “perception is what counts” and when it comes to the survey, “they will use it to justify whatever they want to view.”
Several members of the board Tuesday said they wanted more public input and outreach so that all who wanted could be heard at the public forum scheduled for Thursday. Wilson suggested airing a public service announcement on KLIV radio.
“I don’t think I can find anything to compliment the board of directors on at this point,” Wilson said.
The board will reconvene Thursday at 6 p.m. at 5750 Almaden Expressway in the water district headquarters. There, the public will have the opportunity to speak and from those comments and recommendations, the water board will decide once again which map to use. Another meeting is scheduled for Friday at 1 p.m. to maximize public input. The survey will be online at www.valleywater.org until about 5:30 p.m. Thursday. A decision could be made Friday, or a tentative special meeting scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday.
