When it comes to county politics, Isla Vista has a hard time staying above the fray. That was clear 10 years ago when the Board of Supervisors was tasked with redrawing the lines of the five supervisorial districts, it was clear Tuesday when they began discussions to redraw the lines for the next 10 years, and it’s been clear with every election and discussion of splitting the county in between.
There’s no mistaking that the 3rd District (which contains Isla Vista and UCSB) is the swing district between two more conservative North County districts and the two South County districts, which are more left-leaning. Over the last 20 years, however, things have really picked up. The 1990 census showed a population increase creeping north and overall more evenly spread, and the board redrew the lines to reflect that shift, making the 3rd District a teeter-totter district. Since then, the seat has gone back and forth between candidates who have represented the more environmentally concerned, anti-growth South Coast, and North County candidates who were pro-business and pro-growth.
Santa Barbara County
The map most favored by the board keeps Isla Vista in the 3rd District and splits the city of Lompoc. The light shade of green shows where the districts will change.
In 2001, there was a push to move Isla Vista’s district line, but it remained in the 3rd District. Since that redistricting was done, there have been two supervisorial elections. In one election the conservative Brooks Firestone was elected, and liberal Doreen Farr took the seat in 2008.
But now, with a population shift even further to the North County, the push to move Isla Vista out of the 3rd District — where it’s been for 127 years — has become stronger than ever. Many residents of the Santa Ynez Valley came out, telling the supervisors Tuesday that they had nothing in common with Isla Vista, a small, coastal community filled with both college students and lower-class families. “The valley does not have a similar community of interest with UCSB and Isla Vista,” said former Solvang city councilmember Ed Skytt, who submitted a map of his own. One public commenter suggested that Isla Vista’s “per capita keg consumption” was too high for the valley. “Please avoid looking for the 85,000 people most likely to reelect you and look for the welfare of all of us,” said Olivia Flisher, a Santa Ynez Valley resident.
“Isla Vista residents are treated, in rhetoric at least, as if they have the plague,” said Santa Barbara resident Mickey Flacks.
Others, however, took offense to the way the small community was being spoken of. “Isla Vista residents are treated, in rhetoric at least, as if they have the plague,” said Santa Barbara resident Mickey Flacks. They said that moving Isla Vista into the 2nd District, which includes parts of Goleta and Santa Barbara, wouldn’t necessarily be a good fit either.
With the progressive board majority in control, the push to move Isla Vista is not going to happen. A motion by 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino, whose district has grown by 16,000 in the last 10 years, to split UCSB from Isla Vista failed. He pointed out that several cities — Santa Barbara, Goleta, Santa Maria, and Lompoc — were all divided and represented by two districts, and UCSB and I.V. could go in separate districts, as well.
The board majority, however, focused in on one of 16 maps turned in by members of the public, one submitted by George Relles, who named it “MVP Map” for Maximum Voter Protection. In his presentation to the board Tuesday, Relles — a heavy supporter of many progressive South Coast candidates over the years, including the board majority — said his proposal moves the smallest number of people. “Displacing members of our communities is of upmost importance to me,” said 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, echoing the sentiments of others. “Those maps impact the least amount of people.” Relles’s proposal adds more than 8,000 people to the 1st District and takes more than 16,000 away from the 5th. The greatest percent of change occurs in the 3rd and 4th Districts.
While there are a lot of permissive criteria — like using topography, geography, or contiguity when figuring out district lines — there are only two mandatory requirements: The lines must be drawn in accordance with the Federal Voting Rights Act and need to be equal in population, which, at current levels, is 84,779 per district.
Because of a ballot initiative, the statewide process of redistricting state and federal congressional seats was taken out of the hands of politicians and made public. A commission was formed to redraw the lines in a fair, balanced way that didn’t gerrymander districts to make them safe for the politicians who sat comfortably on one side or the other.
But locally, the Board of Supervisors is still in charge of redrawing the boundaries that outline the districts they represent. That might not be the case next time around, however. Not only did some boardmembers suggest that the public should be in control, but board agitator Andy Caldwell of COLAB suggested his group would create a ballot initiative to take the power away from the board once and for all.
Regardless, it’s too late this time around, and the process will continue to move forward. The Board of Supervisors has until the end of October to finalize the lines.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Some news flashes for some people:
1. Isla Vista is not a city, although many residents there would like it to be incorporated.
2. Elections have consequences.
3. If some people do not like that, they should form their own county.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2011 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The plan adopted with minor changes was created by a "citizen" (Relles) who is actually a mouthpiece for the liberal/progressive/socialist movement in SB county. His naming his plan "Maximum Voter Protection" is a typical example of lefty propaganda disguising the real intent of the plan, which is to put more power in the hands of his sponsors, as opposed to redistricting in the spirit of the recently enacted anti-gerrymandering law which unfortunately only applies at the state level.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So glad to see the will of the people where stepped on so IV & UCSB could stay within the third district.
Let me get this straight "Five" communities and cities where carved up so IV & UCSB could stay intact... Priceless...
Can you say gerrymandering too stay in power?????
Priceless (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So why would any person be surprised by this outcome? Why would the South Coast progressives hand over political power to the North County conservatives? I know we liberals have a reputation for "bleeding heart" niceness, but we aren't stupid. The North County and South Coast share different political, social, and economic values. It is only natural that the side in power would use that power to solidify its position. It's called politics folks. There is nothing to be shocked or appalled about. If the North County folks had had three votes they would have carved up the roast beast to their favor. Yawn. Same old story.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So explain again how moving around the fewest people into a new supervisorial district is "gerrymandering" and a "carve up".
And explain again why Lompoc should not be represented by two Supervisors to cover their interests, instead of only one of the five Supervisors, just like the other largest cities in the county: Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Santa Maria.
And how about explaining why "the will of the people" does not mean the people in Goleta and Isla Vista. Are they not people too with a will?
Really, your attempt at arguments is pathetic and you "conservatives" are such whiners. Need some honey for all those sour grapes?
Elections still have consequences.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Because, John_Adams, the chosen solution just happened to strengthen the liberal/progressive/socialist hold over the county while diluting the relatively conservative voting bloc in Lompoc. And those 900 voters that Wolfe wanted moved into her districts. All Republicans, I'm sure. Ya think that's a coincidence? Duh. Do you actually know what gerrymandering means - or is it OK if it's your team?
Of course elections have consequences. That is why the state anti-gerrymandering law was such a win for everyone. Should have it here too.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Whiners" = John_Adams,
So 60's of you. How pathetic and embarrassing to read such garbage. How does IV & UCSB compare to "US" conservatives in the north county?? Please explain your simple minded theory.
If we went with your theory IV & UCSB would be in the second district wouldn't it?? Aren't they more in line with "Me first" and "Progressives" like yourself??
We make wine from grapes not cradle to grave constituents who can't think for themselves or if they get stuck on an escalator they call for help.
Priceless (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look Priceless, there is no need to insult people just because they hold different values than you do. I do not accuse conservatives of being stupid. They just have different values than I do. And yes, I would imagine that the majority of the conservative folks in North County have very little in common with the progressives in the University Community. But the reality of the situation is that the 3rd District must be split about 50/50 between North and South. Why would the progressive majority of the Board of Sups make the split in a way that would relinquish power? That would have been political suicide. The 3rd District has been a hard fought race for at least 35 years, since back when I was a scruffy I.V. voter. For at least another 10 years, it will continue to be a hard fought race. Who knows? You conservatives may elect a candidate to the 3rd District slot once or twice in the next 10 years. I pledge not to insult you as selfish, stingy, intolerant, and ignorant facists if you do.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW!!
I fail to see where the insults are. But then again I guess that is why Liberalism is a mental disease. Ooops, I'm sorry mentally challenged....
Priceless (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow!
So '50s of you to not see the insults, "Priceless." How pathetic and embarrassing to read such garbage.Please explain your simple minded theory.
"Whinger" = "Priceless
You make [barelly literate insults] from [your strained relationship with civility]; I hope your constituent disagreeable personalities will think for themselves or if they get stuck on an escalator they call for help.
But then again you may have a mental disease. Oooos, I'm sorry mentally challenged...
binky (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ironically, the real John Adams was adamantly against the idea of the two party system, believing that it would lead to energy misspent in inter-party rivalry instead of good governance. This article, the reason for the article, and most of the commentary in response to the article, along with most of the postings in both this and other local news outlets, demonstrate the wisdom of his views. Our local John_Adams should only hope to achieve such wisdom, maybe by reading some of the real John Adams' writings.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny to read the Ann Coulter dittoheads posting here.
Again, no one is answering these questions:
How is moving around the fewest people into a new supervisorial district is "gerrymandering" and a "carve up"?
What is so gerrymandered about keeping as many people as possible in their existing supervisorial districts, except for some that is not the true gerrymander to skew the voting patterns in favor of other flavors of politicians?
Why does "the will of the people" not mean the people in Goleta and Isla Vista. Are they not people too with a will?
And, by the way, "only 30% of the vote in the Santa Ynez Valley" and conversely 70% of that number of voters there still ain't too many voters when compared with the rest of the 3rd District population. But go ahead and argue again that Isla Vista voters should be disenfranchised because you cannot win honestly.
Instead of manipulating the districts or voting systems, why cannot "conservatives" simply have better ideas and better candidates to prevail in a competitive election? Look within.
If some people in Santa Ynez Valley want a different county supervisor, then go ahead and secede with Cuyama and form your own county. And then when your environment and economy collapse under casino expansions, groundwater depletion, urban sprawl,and faux-boutique wineries on every corner, don't say you were not warned.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To spell it out to you Priceless, it is insulting to acuse people of "not thinking for themselves" and being mentally ill just because we hold progressive and liberal ideas. Liberalism has a long and serious intellectural history and is based on the highest moral humanist priciples. To dismiss us with invective without addressing the core tenents of our ideology is not only unfair but also ignorant. The only core conservative beliefs that I can discern are the worship of good old number one, number one's property, and number one's money. Get over yourself and perhaps your heart will open to the love and charity that we liberals get to enjoy.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Manipulating the districts"??? Who is it that's doing that again? Talk about blind party adherence.....
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2011 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Meagher has never hidden the fact that his loyalties are tilted to the south county progressives. I'm a moderate democrat, but Santa Barbara County unfortunately is a bastion of gerrymandering. In a recent article, Mr. Meagher referred to Lois Capps district called "The Ribbon of Shame" and I quote, because it's predominately democratic. Not true. It was referred to that becaused it's heavily gerrymandered. That folks is a fact. A ballot initiative for an independent commission to draw the districts seems good to me. What can be the harm of letting us decide what the lines should be? We do still live in a democracy.
Too bad the days of reason of Tom Rogers and to a lesser extent, Brooks are behind us. Wether some like it or not, Brooks wasn't always wed to the ways of the north, unlike Doreen.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2011 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeachFan,
I've never hidden my loyalties? I'd be interested to hear more about this, if you think my reporting has not been fair.
I'd also like to see where you found this so-called quote from a previous story of mine. I think many people are aware that there are gerrymandered districts throughout the country favor both sides of the aisle, and I don't think I've insinuated anything much different in any story I've written.
But maybe that's just my loyalties coming out again.
Thanks for commenting.
Chris (Chris Meagher)
July 19, 2011 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I found some words Chris Meagher has used to describe the 23rd district:
"The 23rd would embody much of the same area as that of the 22nd (which Capps represented before the 2001 round of redistricting), mainly San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, along with some of inland Ventura County. The 23rd as it currently sits is widely known as the “Ribbon of Shame,” an example used around the country of a gerrymandered district designed to keep political strongholds, well, strong.
“'I would bet it was the most gerrymandered district in the country,' said former lieutenant governor Abel Maldonado, who has set his sights on running against Capps in 2012. The district snakes along California’s central coastline from Oxnard all the way up to the Monterey County border, and is extremely narrow in some parts. As far as numbers go, the district would shift from having a Democratic advantage of 12 percentage points to 4 percentage points.
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/...
webadmin (webadmin)
July 19, 2011 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I stand corrected in re-reading your article from Feb. 11. However, I stand by my opinion..
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"And yes, I would imagine that the majority of the conservative folks in North County have very little in common with the progressives in the University Community."
Very, very little. For example; The conservatives of the North County don't do the following:
Disturb the peace until the wee hours of the morning.
Burn furniture in the middle of the street.
Leave their apartments in total ruin when they leave after only 3 or 4 years.
Get so drunk they don't even remember that they're in Isla Vista.
Get so drunk they keep falling off the bluffs.
Urinate and vomit wherever they see fit.
Constantly tie up law enforcement resources, especially at Halloween.
Yes. Conservative folks in North County have very little in common with the progressives in the University Community.
waz (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2011 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)