San Fernando Valley residents found new hope this week that their collective voices could be better heard at the county level after a new map emerged that would redraw political boundaries to keep the Valley “united” and potentially represented by a single supervisor grounded in the area.
But the proposal — arising in the waning weeks of the county’s marathon redistricting process — runs counter to hopes elsewhere across the vast region, in such places as Pomona.
The 14-member redistricting commission has not yet settled on a final map that would redraw political power for the next 10 years. But as it nears a Dec. 15 deadline, the angst is building as the potential winners and losers of the process speak louder on their preferences.
L.A. City Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents a swath of neighborhoods in the San Fernando Valley — himself fresh off a contentious redistricting of his own City Council — made a plea for a new proposed county-level map dubbed Map 78.
“The Valley has for the last century had a distinctive identity, and today we have distinctive issues around public transportation planning, air quality, water quality, public health, housing — all issues that the Valley as a whole has common interests in, and yet we don’t have any guarantee that a resident of the Valley, despite having 2 million people living here, will have a representative on the Board of Supervisors or on the Metro board,” he said.
For weeks, a sprinkling of San Fernando Valley advocates had been lobbying for at least baseline representation on a map they’d assumed would split the Valley.
Some had all but given up, given the direction the commission appeared to be headed. The panel was even contemplating breaking off Sylmar into District 5, a prospect that concerned local residents because the community identifies itself with other northeast Valley communities currently in District 3.
But the new proposal keeps the Valley “whole,” essentially carving it out on its own district, roughly spanning from Calabasas and Malibu on its most western and southwestern flank to Burbank and Glendale in the east.
Krekorian was joined by a chorus of supporters for the new map — which would greatly increase the chances of a supervisor on the board being from the Valley.
The distinctions about where communities are on the final map are important for many communities in L.A. County. For years they have built up cultural, socioeconomic and political bonds with neighboring communities in the political battle for resources and services.
If Sylmar, for instance, went to District 5, rather than District 3 under a new map, local advocates and residents worry they would have to forge new bonds with a new supervisor.
The same kind of concern has sparked huge public input from Southeast L.A. and East L.A. residents, as well as those from the San Gabriel Valley, where in such places as Pomona, city officials and residents want to ensure the city is not lumped into a district it has no identification with.
A redrawing map might work great for one community, but not as well for another in terms of voting power.
“Map 78 might be good for the San Fernando Valley, but it screws Pomona,” said Henry Fung, a mapmaker who designed the original map F.
Under 78, for instance, Pomona would be moved into District 5, the county’s northernmost district, currently represented by Supervisor Kathryn Barger. But that’s exactly what many of its residents and leaders don’t want. They want to be in District 1, joined with other similar communities of interest that hug the 605 and 60 freeways, and which share common identities, resources and often pool together to fight together in the same political battles.
Moreover, it could change the political dynamic for Barger herself.
And therein lies the rub for the commission — which is required by law to make sure that roughly 2 million people populate each of the five supervisorial districts under a new map, as well as accounting for shifts in population growth, and ensuring that traditionally disenfranchised populations have a fair chance to elect a leader of their choosing. Moreover, this is the first time in the county’s history in which a citizens commission has done the redrawing — taking it out of the hands of members of the Board of Supervisors themselves.
On Wednesday night, during a mammoth public comment period, residents, elected leaders, non-profit leaders from the San Fernando Valley, East, South and Southeast L.A., the San Gabriel Valley and the South Bay all voiced distinct visions for what they say is the best version of what the redistricting map should look like in a region of 10 million plus.
But after four hours of public comment, the future was cloudy as the new proposal emerged, bolstering hopes of San Fernando Valley residents in gaining more political force. Supporters say the map also assuages concerns of other areas in the county, where concern was emerging about votes being diluted and communities split across districts.
But other proposed maps are on the table.
At issue for days have been three maps — and their offshoots. But the question of how various communities of interest in the county can achieve the most voting and political force has become intertwined with a conversation about race, the history of redlining in the county, and concerns about exclusion and inclusion of ethnic and socioeconomic attributes of populations based on shared historic, political, geographic and socioeconomic identities.
At the front of the table, the commission is considering a map that would join Southeast L.A. communities with South L.A. (Map B-2), another that would join Rancho Palos Verdes with Panorama City (Map F-1) and another that would stretch a historically Black district to the coast (Map G).
On Wednesday night there was continued robust support from the San Gabriel Valley for a derivation of Fung’s map — F-1 — which would keep Pomona in District 1, currently held by Supervisor Hilda Solis.
Residents and leaders in the Gateway City area showed support for Map G, also an offshoot of F. In both maps, communities such as Vernon, Huntington Park, Maywood South Gate and Downey are all kept together and two Latino-voting majority districts would be created, though for many the devils were in the details. F-1 also appeared to garner support — with requests for some tweaking — that would keep Asian-American and Black communities whole.
Monique Bacon, a community member and also a member of The Coalition of 100 Black Women/Los Angeles Chapter, said during public comment that the proposal “keeps our African American communities together, providing us with a real voice to be able to elect a supervisor that will work in our best interest.”
Many have been wary of Map G, which stretches District 2 to coastal cities, a point that has raised concern among critics in a community that the district’s traditionally African-American voting force could be diluted with the force of Whiter coastal areas, including communities within the Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Bacon said if the commission went with G, she’d want to be assured that the city of Carson and Cal State Dominguez Hills are included in that district.
The proposed stretch of District 2 was made with the intent of acknowledging the legacy of 20th-century red-lining and racially restrictive covenants that for decades kept African-Americans from living closer to the coast — in effect, helping to shape the political dynamics of the current District 2, which includes Inglewood, Athens, Hawthorne, Culver City and Ladera Heights.
Eileen Hupp, president and CEO of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, a longtime resident of the area, applauded B-2 because it kept seaside communities on the peninsula and others hugging the coast — including Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Long Beach and Torrance — squarely in District 4.
“It is extremely important to keep the Palos Verdes Peninsula aligned with the San Pedro community. Our history, our economy, our community organizations are inextricably linked and center on the fact that both the San Pedro community, and the Palos Verdes community are harbor communities. The impact of the ports is part of our development. Our communities have grown up together over 100-plus years,” she said.
But it was the same argument from just about every region of the county — that splitting communities long bonded together with shared identities would hurt them — from Southeast L.A.’s “SELA” neighborhoods to Thai Town, Koreatown and Little Tokyo to East L.A to Sylmar.
Commissioners acknowledged that whatever the final outcome, not all will be pleased.
What seems apparent is that there will be at least two Latino voting majority districts, based on the growth of that population reflected in Census 2020. The commission appears to want to look more closely at F-1, G and the new map, 78. Commission Co-Chair Carolyn Williams appeared to hint at a push to drop the B map from consideration, but it didn’t happen.
The commission next meets for a special meeting at 3 p.m. Sunday, Dec. 5, with the next public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 7.
You can find all proposed maps at https://redistricting-lacounty.hub.arcgis.com/.
Meetings are posted at https://redistricting.lacounty.gov/.
