Editorial: Potential supervisor boundary change is wrong
by Press-Banner editorial board
Sep 01, 2011 | 5540 views | 6 6 comments | 833 833 recommendations | email to a friend | print
What is taking place at the county government level is exactly why the average person dislikes politicians.

In a draft report released to Santa Cruz County supervisors late last week, the Fifth District, which encompasses Scotts Valley, the San Lorenzo Valley and part of Santa Cruz, was split in a purely political way.

In the tentative report, the district was split straight down Highway 17 through Scotts Valley — making the eastern boundary of the district into a straight line. On a map, this looks like a logical and clean boundary. In reality, it’s as big a mess as can be.

The change would put all homes and business in the Granite Creek area, including the former Borland campus, Baymonte Christian School, several large churches and many residents, into the First District — a district that also includes Soquel.

As far as we can tell, the only good reason this cut has been made is to exclude Scotts Valley mayor Dene Bustichi, who lives on the east side of Highway 17, from running for the Fifth District Supervisor position. Instead, he would have to run in the new formation of the First District, in which he has very little influence.

Bustichi is mayor of a city the Press-Banner covers, so it might seem like we are simply backing a candidate. That’s not the case. We will make endorsements when the time comes, before next June’s election.

What we don’t like is splitting Scotts Valley in two for a political agenda. We believe that Scotts Valley as a whole should remain in District 5. The interests of people within the city are generally very similar — whether on one side of the freeway or the other — so it makes no sense whatsoever to have a supervisor whose district is mostly Santa Cruz and Soquel.

The Fifth District, as it is formed, works. Rather than splitting the city of Scotts Valley in two, the county should keep the district’s eastern boundary as it was, especially related to the city limits.

If the city is split in this illogical manner, it will cause unneeded confusion and only increase distrust of the political system, and it will be the politicians and special interests that are to blame.

Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Gerrymandering
|
September 08, 2011
Glad you can recognize the old gerrymandering, it is what is objectionable.
Lind outside Fifth
|
September 06, 2011
district proposed, also. It is good versus evil, do as I say, not as I do, mentality.

Lydia Smith
|
September 06, 2011
Sounds like your bias is more about hating a candidate than grasping the machinations of gerrymandering.
AverageWhiteMan
|
September 05, 2011
Average people like representation. The city deserves distributed representation. So, we actually PREFER to more voices, not less, but nice try.

Bustichi has mentioned he would be happy to run for a new seat, and you know that by opposing this, you are opposing his assumption of that position. You are either for the split and for Bustichi or against him.

The Churches are inclusive yes? Those who love me the most are those who have done against me, yes? What are you saving for if you are afraid to brush elbows with your neighbors.

Yea, it looks like your backing Bustichi, and Reed. The paper which uses the services of a Council Member is a blatent conflict of interest. That's why we have been subjected to the front page crotch shots and escalating sports coverage.

The change as proposed makes perfect sense. We LIKE representation than isn't gerrymanded. The fact is, the Bustichi participates in the Santa Cruz community boards and commissions, it's only FAIR that he is subjected to the vote of those he would seek to serve. If he wants to live and work in Scotts Valley, he should do so.

Or did you think that his behavior would have no consequences for Scotts Valley?

Elijah Karas
|
September 01, 2011
Bravo! Great editorial. Thank you for not being afraid to speak the truth. That's a rare thing in the print media these days. Peter, that took courage.
I concur
|
May 11, 2012
'nuff said.


We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.