Front Page  »  

Supervisors agree to compromise on redistricting

September 7, 2011

Following public outrage over a proposal by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors to adopt an unpopular redistricting option, the board voted unanimously on Tuesday to change their plans.

More than two dozen Templeton residents spoke against supervisors Adam Hill, Jim Patterson and Bruce Gibson’s plan to break their community into three separate districts. During the week leading up to the contentious meeting, Templeton residents sent the board 72 pages of letters condemning the Board’s plans for redistricting, according to the Board’s agenda packet.

And while the majority of the residents supported Option C, which would keep the community in one district, the board voted for a version of Option B that breaks Templeton into two districts.

Supervisors Frank Mecham and Paul Teixeira had battled for the tentatively approved plan that places Templeton into two districts leaving the north portion of Templeton, an area that is slated to be annexed into District 1 in the future, in Mecham’s district.

Mecham’s option B requires presentation at two future public meetings set for Sept. 13 and Sept. 20 before it can be officially adopted.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The sup’s weren’t listening on reason, I’m sure they had an ear full and knew the legal challeneges would be coming and Patterson knows he is in trouble with the voter’s of the North County. I’ve voted for him in the past but I am so sick of all this c@*p I’m not voting for ANY encumbert. I would even vote for Sarah Palin at this pint, because at least I know she is still for America and our rights. Has anyone read the blog ATFcleanup. The Obama administration should be impeached on this issue along. I will never trust Obama or Holder again. They are the worst of slime… What has happened to dignity and respect in this County, State and Country!


0

I’m not sure what an encumbert is, but I wouldn’t vote for one either! :)


0

LOL LOL, that was really funny, I’m literally sitting here laughin out loud.


0

Sorry I laughed so hard about the “Incumbent “, I often spell phonetically too, but SLORider’s response just struck me so funny. I will check out the ATF cleanup website. We have all known they were out of control all the way back to WACO and even the Randy Weaver incident (if I recall his name correctly)? We are all sick of it, the problem is to stick to our guns. VOTE THEM ALL OUT if they don’t listen.


0

“Following public outrage….” Yes the speakers for option C were outraged, nasty and uninformed

This article is misleading and cleverly written. I listened to the speakers from Templeton. True the majority of speakers were suppporting C which was not supported by any of the sups. However most of those speaking didn’t have their facts correct. They were just damn mad and wanted to attack Patterson. Over 50% of those supporting Option C implied their opinion had more weight becuase they were life long residents of north county. The most belligerent speakers received big applauses.

Like it or not the first criteria in dividing up districts is population and then other social and geographical factors are given weight.

Frankly I’m glad they are staying in District One.


0

I am pleased to see the Supes being responsive to public input. I am sorry to see that it took so much to get this issue straightened out.


Nice job, Templetonians, of keeping the heat on ’em!


0