How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[muon2]

Excellent idea on the alternate chop in Fremont assuming the green part has the same population as the blue district. The green chop of Fremont and the city of Newark are distinctly middle class. The blue parts are completely upper middle class to upper class with a median income around 120-130k easily. If we are going with a class map, the green chop of the Fremont area is better.I also think the 15th should pick up the yellow areas instead of the purple Hispanic areas. I think the Hispanic areas go better with the areas to its south. The Asian areas to its south, especially north and west of Capitol expressway around US 101 are fairly working class.

That would be my inclination as well, but I thought I'd lay out the case both ways. If Torie concurs, I'll proceed to my analysis of the division CD 14 and 16.

[minionofmidas]

Newark instead of southeast Fremont looks reasonable and from sbane's description sounds reasonable. Can we hear why Torie drew it the wayhe did (and why nobody raised it before seeing as SJ was discussed before)?

[Torie]

I think you need to work with my map, and the CA-14, 15 and 16 merry-go-round Mike, or we will be talking past one another. I am not going to trash my entire NoCal map design. Given the outer perimeters of those three districts as drawn, how do you divvy up the spoils? That is the question with my map. But yes, that aside, we are getting closer.

I will happy to do the same working with your map design, although given your very tight metrics, there really aren't many choices out there, are there? The computer drives your map, with mere humans having relatively few choices. Am I wrong about that?

Your challenge is fair and I accept. I'll do analysis of your map to see if there are a reasonable set of options to choose among.

I have constructed the following map to illustrate my analysis. I begins by following the 48 K chop out of Alameda, so it should be compatible with the Torie plan.



The lime green area is what seems to be the consensus core of CD 15. The only variable might be how far south to extend from Milpitas. I used the natural division that occurs where the Hispanic population dominates, and without breaking Alum Rock or East Foothills. This core area has a pop of 450 k with 48.8% AVAP. Adding the 48 K from Alameda gives a population that requires an additional 205 K to complete the district.

I can identify three basic choices to complete CD 15, two of which are shown in the map. The purple area is downtown and the Hispanic core of SJ including Alum Rock which wraps around some of those core blocks. This area is 56.7% HVAP and seems like it should stay together in a single district. The yellow areas sit between the CD 15 core and the CD 14 core shown in red. The third option would be to extend south from East Foothills into the heavily Asian areas, but that is a non-starter in Torie's plan.

Either the purple or yellow option would work with the CD 15 core, and both choices have AVAPs in the low to mid 20's. That means that CD 15 would be at best an Asian plurality district, and it brings up the issue of how to chop into Alameda. The Fremont chop in blue has a high Asian pop, but that doesn't seem relevant given the direction of the district as a whole. It is an erose peninsula, and the Asians in Fremont get split no matter how one cuts it. I would suggest consideration of the green chop instead. It has a lower AVAP, but make a less erose match to the rest of CD 15.

I think that resolving the shape of CD 15 first will lead more naturaly into the best division between CD 14 and 16.

Thanks Mike. It appears that your CA-15 core plus the purple zone (designed to try to unite Hispanics), is close to my last map, a modified version of which I post below. More will be added to this post in 15 minutes or so, so hang on.



Well I rather keeping working on this, rather than focus on the SC primary. The Pubs seem to have a death wish there.

On the class warfare theme, as we balance race and class and jurisdictional lines, and eroseness, I have concluded one bit of SJ has that "I know it when I see it" upper middle class feel to it, in its own little Shangra La little valley separated by a mini mountain from the SJ masses:



However this little salient of SJ does not.  It is just not up to Cupertino standards. It has more of the feel of Campbell.



To be continued.  There is a method to my madness.

[muon2]

I'm with you on your pics Torie. I saw the same thing in my analysis.

I'm confused on the extension SW of 87. There's a little pocket of Hispanics, sure, but it goes through so many Anglo areas the sum is only about 45% HVAP, and a significant piece of one of those chops into residents of Burbank. In exchange you could keep the Milpitas foothills intact as well as Alum Rock, since my satellite images of roads make me think those areas really do belong with the valley rather than a long link along the foothills to the south.

I also take it that you weren't interested in my Newark alternative, even with sbane's glowing endorsement.

[Torie]

I'm with you on your pics Torie. I saw the same thing in my analysis.

I'm confused on the extension SW of 87. There's a little pocket of Hispanics, sure, but it goes through so many Anglo areas the sum is only about 45% HVAP, and a significant piece of one of those chops into residents of Burbank. In exchange you could keep the Milpitas foothills intact as well as Alum Rock, since my satellite images of roads make me think those areas really do belong with the valley rather than a long link along the foothills to the south.

I also take it that you weren't interested in my Newark alternative, even with sbane's glowing endorsement.

I will eviscerate your most creative Newark option soon, very soon, but I need to cook the steaks for my guests now.

In the meantime, putting aside the 87 thing which I don't understand, and maybe the map below "solves" it, I think we are down to the class warfare theme, and the race warfare theme. I assume the class one gets the nod, since the chop of Sunnyvale is rather vicious, even though it gets rid of the SJ trichop. The class warfare map still takes in the SJ western salient, but that is because there are no upper middle class areas left to take, and that is the cut which reduces erosity.




  

[muon2]

I'm with you on your pics Torie. I saw the same thing in my analysis.

I'm confused on the extension SW of 87. There's a little pocket of Hispanics, sure, but it goes through so many Anglo areas the sum is only about 45% HVAP, and a significant piece of one of those chops into residents of Burbank. In exchange you could keep the Milpitas foothills intact as well as Alum Rock, since my satellite images of roads make me think those areas really do belong with the valley rather than a long link along the foothills to the south.

I also take it that you weren't interested in my Newark alternative, even with sbane's glowing endorsement.

I will eviscerate your most creative Newark option soon, very soon, but I need to cook the steaks for my guests now.

In the meantime, putting aside the 87 thing which I don't understand, and maybe the map below "solves" it, I think we are down to the class warfare theme, and the race warfare theme. I assume the class one gets the nod, since the chop of Sunnyvale is rather vicious, even though it gets rid of the SJ trichop. The class warfare map still takes in the SJ western salient, but that is because there are no upper middle class areas to take, and that is the cut which reduces erosity.




  

Yes, that's better, particularly in the foothills, but the part of 15 in the area bordered by 87/880/280 is only 45.9% HVAP. Is it worth the type of erosity I'm usually accused of for such low gains and an extra split?

Also, are we now just working on a socio-ethnic map? I thought we still wanted to reduce splits and erosity as much as play with classes.

[Torie]

I assume you mean the first map, and that little green jut there. Collectively it is only 49.5% Hispanic?  If so, I will find my Hispanics elsewhere.

[muon2]

I assume you mean the first map, and that little green jut there. Collectively it is only 49.5% Hispanic?  If so, I will find my Hispanics elsewhere.

Try looking along the east side of the 101 just south of your district. (wrong version of your map) It would help if I knew the ground rules for this map.

[muon2]

I assume you mean the first map, and that little green jut there. Collectively it is only 49.5% Hispanic?  If so, I will find my Hispanics elsewhere.

Try looking along the east side of the 101 just south of your district. (wrong version of your map)

I think the answer for your current map is just along the Capitol Expy just east of Monterey Hwy.

It would help if I knew the ground rules for this map.

[Torie]

How does this map look?  



Oh, I am aware of the SJ eastern foothills issue running north, both inside and outside of SJ, but it is just too white and rich to fit into the CA-15 theme. To append it would dilute the Hispanic and Asian percentages in CA-15, as heavily Hispanic or non-well-to-do Asian precincts down south would have to go in exchange. Race and class pushes it into CA-16 it seems to me. One can't have everything.

As to Newark v south Fremont, we have this:



So Newark is an ethnic grab bag, and its median income is about 40K - lower middle class/higher end working class. The S. Fremont bit has considerably more distinguished looking housing stock, just like right next door Mipitas (it's the "bourgeoisie" part of Fremont, and the Asian contagion has really caught on there).  Beyond that, picking up more Hispanics, disparate from Santa Clara County/Milpitas along a highway through an industrial zone with no people on one side, and salt flats on the other (in other words crossing a natural barrier), is not really the goal here. It is to max the ACVAP, while trying to keep to the extent possible the SJ Hispanics together. Finally, the jut north into S. Fremont is via a seamless string of housing tracts running  from beautiful downtown Milpitas straight north so that you have no real idea where the county line is from an aerial shot, with no natural barrier. That is why I did it in the first place, but now we have both ethnic and class reasons to boot.  

I assume everywhere agrees that the Newark option should be interred. Right?  Or are you all conspiring to harass me?  

[Sbane]

Well I rather keeping working on this, rather than focus on the SC primary. The Pubs seem to have a death wish there.

On the class warfare theme, as we balance race and class and jurisdictional lines, and eroseness, I have concluded one bit of SJ has that "I know it when I see it" upper middle class feel to it, in its own little Shangra La little valley separated by a mini mountain from the SJ masses:



However this little salient of SJ does not.  It is just not up to Cupertino standards. It has more of the feel of Campbell.



To be continued.  There is a method to my madness.

The neighborhood of SJ right next to Cupertino most certainly is upper middle class. Yes, the housing stock is older than the Almaden Valley, and it's not cornered of by hills, but the more relevant metric here would be the performance of the schools. Lynbrook high school is one of the highest scoring schools in all of California, and it's a desirable neighborhood that many people want to move to leading to high home prices.

As for Newark, it's median income is about 80k, about double what you said (is that statistic from the 80's census or something? I think Oakland and even Richmond have a higher median income ). It is similar to the income of Milpitas and Santa Clara, probably slightly lower than Sunnyvale and Mountain View, which I would include in that district. It does belong there. I don't exactly have a problem with the district crossing the industrial area to pick up Newark, but I don't have a huge problem with the Mission district chop either. This is the heavily Asian area in Fremont and is quite well off, very similar to the neighborhood around Lynbrook high school as it has Mission high school which is also one of the top schools in California. Now the thing here is that Newark may be a better fit for the 15th income wise, but where does the Mission district fit in then? One option might be if a wealthy inland east bay district was drawn and this area could be picked up by that. Otherwise putting this area into a district with Hayward makes just as much sense as putting it in the 15th. Basically this area has nowhere to go. So even though I don't have a problem with the 15th picking up Newark, I also don't care much if it picks up the Mission district. Muon's plan does reduce the erosity a bit, but the other cut increases the AVAP. In the end I don't feel that strongly about it since there is really no obvious district I would rather put the Mission district in.

[Torie]

So it would appear for Newark Sbane. Milpitas clocks in at 85K, and I suspect S. Fremont is about the same. The erosity thing is a function of ignoring the salt flats and water in-between. It creates "ersatz" compactness - which doesn't count in my book. Without that huge magnificent connecter precinct through Fremont covering vast acreages of salt flats and water and an industrial zone with no people living in it, the appearance of CA-15 would not look nearly so good. Newark just isn't part of the Santa Clara environment. It's more a proud member of the East Bay. I really think it is not a very good choice to go there.

Mike loved it because while it does not eliminate a muni chop, it chops just one connector precinct out of Fremont, and that to him is an irresistible loadstar - a veritable sun as to which he is hypnotically drawn inspired by Icarus's flight perhaps. I have a more complex game, which I know frustrates the heck out of him, but hey, I'm a mere human, and he's a computer genius.

As to the western SJ jut, I suspect its high test scores are more a function of its "Asianess"  than its wealth, but hey, it went into the "right" CD anyway, so it's all good no?  I don't dispute that it is solidly middle class.

[Sbane]

So it would appear for Newark Sbane. Milpitas clocks in at 85K, and I suspect S. Fremont is about the same. The erosity thing is a function of ignoring the salt flats and water in-between. It creates "ersatz" compactness - which doesn't count in my book. Without that huge magnificent connecter precinct through Fremont covering vast acreages of salt flats and water and an industrial zone with no people living in it, the appearance of CA-15 would not look nearly so good. Newark just isn't part of the Santa Clara environment. It's more a proud member of the East Bay. I really think it is not a very good choice to go there.

Mike loved it because while it does not eliminate a muni chop, it chops just one connector precinct out of Fremont, and that to him is an irresistible loadstar - a veritable sun as to which he is hypnotically drawn inspired by Icarus's flight perhaps. I have a more complex game, which I know frustrates the heck out of him, but hey, I'm a mere human, and he's a computer genius.

As to the western SJ jut, I suspect its high test scores are more a function of its "Asianess"  than its wealth, but hey, it went into the "right" CD anyway, so it's all good no?  I don't dispute that it is solidly middle class.

So how do you think the people buy the houses? I wouldn't be surprised if it has an income equivalent to Cupertino, but perhaps not up to Saratoga standards. Houses cost much less in Campbell and the areas to the east of it. Those are solidly middle class areas, but I would say the Lynbrook area is upper middle class. I don't know the entire history of the area, but I am sure it always had good schools which probably attracted Asians there, further jacking up housing prices and thus income. Trust me that area has a higher income than Campbell and surroundings. Anyways, if it's in the Cupertino district it's fine. It's with that city where it belongs. Xahar lives there btw, maybe he can tell us more about it.

One thing to consider in Muon's map of the Fremont area is that he barely picks up any population in Fremont and keeps another city whole. Your map chops Fremont. It's not a huge deal though.

[muon2]

It looks to me like many of the Mission district folks in Fremont are the very same sort you are so willing to excise in the Milpitas foothills. I'm still with sbane, but I'll postpone further discussion about erosity definitions for now.

There is a place where we can perhaps have our cake and eat it, too. I looked at the minimum selected block groups in yellow to make Milpitas and Alum Rock whole and found they are only 21.7% WVAP which is lower than your district-wide average. I've shaded a pale silver area (including one block group way west that's not in Sunnyvale) that has WVAP of 37.1% which is much whiter than your district as a whole. Same pop, check it out.

edit: I see I inadvertently grabbed a block of East Foothills in yellow as well. Ignore that, and you can return a matching block elsewhere.

[minionofmidas]

What is the population of the huge Newark-surrounding precinct, and where do they presumably live - in its southeastern part? Maybe we could have our cake and eat it too in regards to issues of de facto and, as it were, de jure erosity as well? (Though the part angling around to beyond the bridge would always look ugly.)

[muon2]

What is the population of the huge Newark-surrounding precinct, and where do they presumably live - in its southeastern part? Maybe we could have our cake and eat it too in regards to issues of de facto and, as it were, de jure erosity as well? (Though the part angling around to beyond the bridge would always look ugly.)

The block group is population 3906 and is all located at the Milpitas border. Torie's plan would need about 6 K from Fremont in addition to Newark in CD 15. Any little pocket in addition to the aforementioned block group would do.

[Torie]

What is the population of the huge Newark-surrounding precinct, and where do they presumably live - in its southeastern part? Maybe we could have our cake and eat it too in regards to issues of de facto and, as it were, de jure erosity as well? (Though the part angling around to beyond the bridge would always look ugly.)

The block group is population 3906 and is all located at the Milpitas border. Torie's plan would need about 6 K from Fremont in addition to Newark in CD 15. Any little pocket in addition to the aforementioned block group would do.

It seems they live in two very disparate nodes, one where you describe, and one north of Newark (the streets in the green zone). What a bizarre precinct.  Someone must have been on crack when they drew it.



I see the two white plurality precincts you wanted to grab Mike in west downtown SJ, wading through some lightly populated Hispanic precincts to get them.  It is a reminder to look at precinct size. Anyway, I decided to just go for the whole hog. In for a penny, in for a pound.  Sorry boys, I just can't do Newark. It is just so wrong. I could not sleep at night having crossed that bridge too far. You don't want that do you?

Are we done with SJ now?  By the way, that county airport precinct east of Mountain View is not an American dream precinct. It is tiny 75K condos wedged between the freeway and the airport!  (Maybe those are pied a terre's, where the pilots "do" the stews, except that I suspect it is not the SJ commercial airport. I wonder what airport that is.) But the adjacent precinct already took a bite out it, the airport creates a natural barrier, so let the deed be done.  There is only one precinct CA-14 can lose in return, and only one, there on the east edge of the now famous west SJ jut of which we have spoken, and speculated so much, and it is too large. So that precinct will need to be chopped in half. In the meantime, CA-15 has 1,400 folks too many, and CA-14 1,400 residents too few.

Thanks guys, and particularly Mike for all your hard work on this. I appreciate it very much, and yes, it made the map better.



Oh, and just for fun, I did a zillow of sales in east Cupertino versus the SJ west jut, and yes, Sbane was right. The housing prices are about the same. It is amazing how little a million bucks gets you in this neck of the woods, a 2,000 square foot cookie cutter house on a small lot, without a view. At least my a tad larger cookie cutter house of about the same value has a magnificent view. Those damn Asians are driving up housing prices! Deport them all!  

[Sbane]

Oh, and just for fun, I did a zillow of sales in east Cupertino versus the SJ west jut, and yes, Sbane was right. The housing prices are about the same. It is amazing how little a million bucks gets you in this neck of the woods, a 2,000 square foot cookie cutter house on a small lot, without a view. At least my a tad larger cookie cutter house of about the same value has a magnificent view. Those damn Asians are driving up housing prices! Deport them all! 

Yeah, housing prices are still pretty ridiculous in certain parts of the Bay Area. But those areas also have a very high income. 100k in Laguna Niguel versus 130k here. And the Bay Area is very good at keeping supply low. Some parts of the Bay Area have seen prices drop a lot. Similar houses on the east side of San Jose go for about 300k, though incomes also drop proportionally. And if you are fine with living in the Hayward flats, down to about 250k.

[Torie]

Hey, sbane, don't put Laguna Niguel down like that!    But yes, Cupertino > Laguna Niguel. This is kind of a fun chart - a ranking of cities by per capita income over 50,000 in population. Your town beats LN too!  

[All Along The Watchtower]

Hasn't Prop 13 inflated home prices in the Bay Area (among other areas), since it gives people who bought houses ages ago a major incentive to stay in their homes, and a disincentive to sell, in a place where supply is already low, and demand is already high?

[Torie]

Hasn't Prop 13 inflated home prices in the Bay Area (among other areas), since it gives people who bought houses ages ago a major incentive to stay in their homes, and a disincentive to sell, in a place where supply is already low, and demand is already high?

That is a factor, although mitigated by the housing price decline, which pushed more homes towards an assessment valuation that matched their real value. In some counties, you can sell one home and buy another, and carry over your prop 13 cap. We live in a crazy world.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Hasn't Prop 13 inflated home prices in the Bay Area (among other areas), since it gives people who bought houses ages ago a major incentive to stay in their homes, and a disincentive to sell, in a place where supply is already low, and demand is already high?

That is a factor, although mitigated by the housing price decline, which pushed more homes towards an assessment valuation that matched their real value. In some counties, you can sell one home and buy another, and carry over your prop 13 cap. We live in a crazy world.

Indeed. Of course, Prop 13 is toxic to me, for am I a young CA resident. ie I don't have much sympathy for the long-established businesses and older homeowners that Prop 13 subsidizes, at the expense of younger generations, renters, and the state's revenue.

[muon2]

I see the two white plurality precincts you wanted to grab Mike in west downtown SJ, wading through some lightly populated Hispanic precincts to get them.  It is a reminder to look at precinct size. Anyway, I decided to just go for the whole hog. In for a penny, in for a pound.  Sorry boys, I just can't do Newark. It is just so wrong. I could not sleep at night having crossed that bridge too far. You don't want that do you?

Are we done with SJ now?  By the way, that county airport precinct east of Mountain View is not an American dream precinct. It is tiny 75K condos wedged between the freeway and the airport!  (Maybe those are pied a terre's, where the pilots "do" the stews, except that I suspect it is not the SJ commercial airport. I wonder what airport that is.) But the adjacent precinct already took a bite out it, the airport creates a natural barrier, so let the deed be done.  There is only one precinct CA-14 can lose in return, and only one, there on the east edge of the now famous west SJ jut of which we have spoken, and speculated so much, and it is too large. So that precinct will need to be chopped in half. In the meantime, CA-15 has 1,400 folks too many, and CA-14 1,400 residents too few.

Thanks guys, and particularly Mike for all your hard work on this. I appreciate it very much, and yes, it made the map better.

A much better product, but I get 706,024 for the district when I draw one to match. Is there a block somewhere in yours which is actually assigned to another district? It would be 1695 in pop if that's the cause. Unfortunately that pushes it even higher and you may have to shed some off the SE corner.

I don't know if we're done, however.

I think you need to work with my map, and the CA-14, 15 and 16 merry-go-round Mike, or we will be talking past one another. I am not going to trash my entire NoCal map design. Given the outer perimeters of those three districts as drawn, how do you divvy up the spoils? That is the question with my map. But yes, that aside, we are getting closer.

I will happy to do the same working with your map design, although given your very tight metrics, there really aren't many choices out there, are there? The computer drives your map, with mere humans having relatively few choices. Am I wrong about that?

Your challenge is fair and I accept. I'll do analysis of your map to see if there are a reasonable set of options to choose among.

I had my original design with 52% AVAP.



And my recent modification with 49.3% AVAP, and that should still have over 50% ACVAP.



My initial parameters require a bigger chunk in Fremont/Newark, and I insist on a northern Asian tiger. There should be some options available, and I welcome advice.

[Torie]

Yes, well you are going for a max AVAP CD, within your little universe of constraints, and the rest of us are doing a balancing test. I suspect my CA-15, diluted as it may be for you, is 50% ACVAP, and even more likely, 50% AVPA (actually voted percentage Asian), since the Hispanics here hardly seem to vote at all. The turnout rates are just amazingly low in the Hispanic precincts. So on that one, we are on a parallel path.

As to CA-15, my numbers are my numbers (I switched the colors of my CA-34 lime CD just to see if some rogue precinct popped up in CA-15, which has a similar color, and none did). I will send you my data base.

I assume in your Asian purple tiger that if you chop south into SJ from Santa Clara, and lose the Evergreen jut, that that gets your Asian percentage down below your goals. The SV American dream CD (my CA-14), can pick up that upper middle class valley we agreed upon in south SJ to make up the population - to wit, twist the clock counterclockwise. You already have your tiger cutting into SJ anyway, and would even if you lost the Evergreen neighborhood. That Evergreen jut in east SJ is just not popular around here, and you made it butt ugly to boot.

In the meantime, here is the CA-20 cf which unites Merced. It's pretty awful. I notice the Commission's version has only a 53% HVAP in theirs (40.73% HCVAP). Did they assume that Madeira is not a community of interest with either Fresno or Merced, so there is no 50% HCVAP COI to draw?  I wonder what the legal risk is? If it is remote, I am inclined to go the way of the Commission.  The CD sucks.





And here is a remap of the San Diego area which I assume will receive universal acclaim. If I had not just followed the Commission's Chula Vista chop, it is what I think I would have drawn in the first instance actually (even though it casts some Pub partisan shadows upon CA-50 potentially, but that is the nature of this exercise). 91,000 folks were involved in the Chula Vista chop. Surprising. It is a big town!

[Sbane]

And my recent modification with 49.3% AVAP, and that should still have over 50% ACVAP.



My initial parameters require a bigger chunk in Fremont/Newark, and I insist on a northern Asian tiger. There should be some options available, and I welcome advice.

I like it except for the Evergreen grab, especially when Mountain View is just sitting there, waiting to be picked up. There is no way I can accept that. Get rid of the Evergreen jut and pick up Mountain View, and then see how much population you either need to add or lose.

Torie, I don't really like you putting the Hispanic areas with the middle class district. Keep the east side together, except for the areas right south of Milpitas. You cut the working class community in East San Jose in half since the Vietnamese areas are in the 16th. And while Muon picks up the middle class neighborhood of Evergreen, he also proceeds to go and pick up the working class Asian neighborhoods. Especially in Muon's map with Newark in the mix, you can lose Evergreen and the erosity, and add Mountain View and not drastically drop the AVAP. I'm guessing it will be around 38-40%. There is really no need to get it anything above that.

I really like you SD map BTW. It seems you split Escondido a bit, maybe a precinct or two. Maybe lose a precinct or two in the mountains and pick all of it up? The 49th can pick that up and the 50th can pick up some more population in Carlsbad since it's already split. If the numbers work out without having to split any other city, I would do it. Otherwise it's not that big a deal.