Stefan Elgstrand/Courtesy

After two years of planning, some students are raising concerns about the ASUC-sponsored Berkeley redistricting map because the proposed student district excludes Northside residences, including nine Berkeley student housing cooperatives and three residence halls.

Stefan Elgstrand, a UC Berkeley senior and an intern for Councilmember Kriss Worthington since June, has introduced the United Student District Amendment, a proposal that includes Northside residences.

While both the ASUC map and the USDA aim to create a student-majority district to help elect a student representative to Berkeley City Council, proponents of each disagree on how to best represent interests of students and city residents.

Currently, Elgstrand is rallying support for his amendment prior to the City Council meeting on Sept. 10, when the council will continue discussing redistricting.

The ASUC-sponsored Berkeley Student District Campaign map started as a campaign platform for 2011-12 ASUC external affairs vice president Joey Freeman, a Student Action candidate.

The BSDC map creates a student district that encompasses Southside housing, the Greek community and the residence halls, with a 90 percent student population. The map is detailed in ASUC Senate Bill 65, which passed unanimously in the spring of 2013.

“The fact that this (amendment) was introduced so late is really difficult to deal with,” said ASUC External Affairs Vice President Safeena Mecklai of the proposed amendment, which she said the ASUC team has not agreed to. “I wouldn’t be comfortable with it going forward unless the senate endorses it.”

After the BSDC map was submitted in mid-March, Worthington questioned its inclusivity and motivated Elgstrand to draft an amendment.

“The BSDC people mostly live in the fraternities and sororities, so there’s a bit of a bias in that,” Elgstrand said. “From my perspective, since I’m not connected to any of those groups, I can make it more inclusive.”

Proponents say the BSDC map has received support from the Greek community, Cal Berkeley Democrats, Berkeley College Republicans, all 20 ASUC 2012-13 senators and some leaders of the Berkeley Student Cooperative, including ASUC Senator Jorge Pacheco, who is endorsed by the co-ops.

Now, other leaders in the BSC are reconsidering their stances, saying that the BSDC map underrepresents Northside housing. They are giving preference to the USDA proposal, which Elgstrand says includes 87.4 percent of the cooperative population, while the BSDC map only includes 38.1 percent.

“If the intention is to create a unified student district, then not including Northside dorms and co-ops seems to leave out an important population of students,” said Michelle Nacouzi, the 2013-14 president of the BSC.

Nacouzi and other members of the BSC said they were told that it was not feasible to include Northside co-ops in a student-majority district.

Noah Efron, the ASUC redistricting director and local affairs deputy, said the BSDC made several efforts to include the input of student groups by inviting leaders from the BSC, the Greek community and the residence halls to participate in public forums about the plan.

Despite their differences, both Elgstrand and Mecklai said they would prefer to maintain a unified student voice in demanding a student district. However, the ASUC will continue to support the BSDC map without changes to include Northside residences, while Elgstrand plans to push forward his amended plan.

Contact Saachi Makkar at smakkar@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article stated that the district proposed by the ASUC represents 90 percent of the student population, defined as residents between ages 18 to 29. In fact, it represents 86 percent of the student population.

The post ASUC-sponsored redistricting map raises questions over Northside representation appeared first on The Daily Californian.

At its meeting July 2, the council supported the Berkeley Student District Campaign map, which creates a student-majority district south of the UC Berkeley campus and could increase the chance of a student being elected to the council. However, a new amendment that was unfairly rejected at the meeting seems to suggest that the ASUC map could leave out students who live in International House, nine student cooperatives, and three dormitories on Northside.

Though the final decision on which map to implement is not expected until September, the council should ensure that all student voices are represented in the newly drawn district by reconsidering the amendment in the fall.

The Berkeley Student Cooperative provides housing to about 1,250 UC Berkeley students, with most of those students living in the two largest Northside cooperatives, Casa Zimbabwe and Cloyne Court. International House is home to 600 students and campus affiliates. Together, campus dormitories Foothill, Stern and Bowles house 1,248 students. Though these students represent just 8 percent of the total student population, they still deserve to be represented in a student district with their peers. If they are mixed into a regular residential district, their opinions may not have enough of an impact when it comes time to make a vote.

At the July 2 meeting, Mayor Tom Bates said he did not want to call the ASUC-sponsored district a student district, but rather that he wanted to call it a campus district. Bates and other councilmembers should recognize that although they may not want it to be a student district, the ASUC map that is supported by the council has created just that. It is only fair that students get the opportunity to have their voices heard on the council.

The council has long been considering redrawing voting districts. By passing the measure to redraw the district in the fall through Measure R, city residents voted to have the job done in a timely fashion. Thus, the decision that Northside student residences be included in this student district should be made immediately after the council returns from its summer recess and not go through another long, drawn-out process.

The post Drawing the lines appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Charlotte Passot/Staff

UC Berkeley students are on the verge of achieving a dream decades in the making. On May 7, Berkeley City Council chose to narrow the field of submitted redistricting proposals from seven to two — one of which was proposed by the Berkeley Student District Campaign. Established three years ago with the sole purpose of engaging students and the wider Berkeley community in an effort to secure a city council district for students, the campaign is now closer than ever to succeeding in institutionalizing the dialogue between the city and the student community.

The map that the campaign submitted takes District 7 and turns it into a student supermajority district complete with 12,000 students — or 86 percent of the district. Students from all walks of life and all types of living are included in the district, meaning that the diverse student voice will be heard on the council in all its complexity. We are confident that by uniting students into one district, any representative elected from this district will have to answer to student issues like safety, Telegraph development and affordable housing.

The map does not only benefit students, though. Previously divided neighborhoods such as Bateman, Monterey Market and Willard are reunited on our map. Additionally, each district is as close to equal population as possible, with each district deviating from the equal population target of 14,073 by less than 1 percent. Our map was only one of two to achieve that level of adherence to the concept of “one person, one vote.”
For those who attended the council meeting on May 7, the necessity of such enhanced dialogue could not have been more apparent. For example, City Councilmember Susan Wengraf suggested moving the second public hearing on redistricting, scheduled to take place on July 2, to a time when students will not be on summer break. This proposal, a seemingly common-sense idea aimed at having a more inclusive dialogue about redistricting, was met with skepticism by fellow council members who apparently did not see the irony in holding a hearing at a time when the only community actively engaged in this process since day one (50 attendees at the May 7 meeting were students) cannot attend.

While we are closer to achieving our goal than ever, we are by no means done. Our map being selected as part of the final two is a great success for students. Having said that, though, the other map selected, the supposed “Simplicity” map, is, in fact an affront to the notion of a student district, and the very fact that it was selected shows that there is still work to be done. While media outlets such as Berkeleyside and The Daily Californian have advertised this map as containing a student district, the map’s submitter, Eric Panzer, himself has conceded that he sacrificed the notion of protecting communities of interest in favor of drawing cleaner lines. Every single crucial student living community, such as Greek housing, residence halls, apartments and co-ops is callously divided in the Simplicity proposal. This type of incomplete, slap-dash student district will not ensure that student issues are addressed on the city level. Not only is the student community divided, however — more nonstudents are included in this district than in the Berkeley Student District Campaign’s proposal, a fact that calls into question the ability of supporters of this map to claim that it contains a student district. Given that the Simplicity map’s submitter has endorsed the Berkeley Student District Campaign’s plan, what constituency would the council be appeasing by adopting this map? The student community and those interested in preserving communities of interest have resoundingly and forcefully said no to the Simplicity map and yes to the Berkeley Student District Campaign’s proposal.
For the council to adopt the Simplicity map — namely, its vastly inferior District 7 — would be a tacit admission that it does not support the notion of a student district. By splitting up the student community, the council will be silencing us for another decade to come. That is far too long to wait. The time for a student district is now.

Noah Efron is the ASUC redistricting director.

The post Cal students need a voice appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Safeena Mecklai/Courtesy

The ASUC submitted proposed boundaries for a new student supermajority district to the city of Berkeley Wednesday.

The plans propose a student district encompassing not only the entire UC Berkeley campus but also popular student cooperatives, apartments and fraternity and sorority houses.

“We tried to pack as many substudent groups into the district as possible, including the Greek organizations, campus dorms and off-campus housing,” said Noah Efron, the ASUC’s redistricting director.

A student has not been elected to the City Council since Nancy Skinner was a member of it from 1984 to 1992.

“Our goal is not to exactly have a student on the City Council but an elected official who responds to student issues,” Efron said. “Also, graduate students who stay here longer can feasibly serve on the council for an entire term.”

This proposal is possible because Measure R, which passed last November, amended the existing city charter to eliminate the 1986 boundary lines and adjusted the district boundaries to reflect the city’s updated population.

According to ASUC External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi, this district is overdue for the students who constitute 25 percent of the city’s population.

“Voters clearly understand the importance of students to the city and its economic development,” Abbasi said. ”Students have a voice on many of the issues that the city government must address, from lighting to affordable housing to safety to tenants’ rights.”

Some members of the city government said they are also in agreement on the importance of student representation in policy discussions.

“Students are vital to the city, as they are the economic drivers of today, the innovators and job creators of tomorrow,” said Mayor Tom Bates. “(Students) are instrumental to the city’s economic and cultural life.”

Councilmember Jesse Arreguin felt similarly, emphasizing the council’s need for a younger perspective.

“I’m the only person under 50 on the council,” Arreguin said. “We absolutely need students, who have traditionally been at the forefront of pushing changes to the city government, to bring unique, innovative ideas.”

Arreguin also expressed support for the ASUC’s planned district boundaries.

“I think it’s a very smart map — it doesn’t divide any student neighborhoods and respects the existing district boundaries that have been there for 25 years,” he said.

The City Council is not required to select any single proposal but may create a hybrid version that combines multiple plans. The proposals will then be presented to the council for discussion at two public hearings, currently set for May 7 and July 2.

Contact Jason Liu at jliu@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC submits plans to city for student supermajority district appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The passage of Measure R — which will amend the existing city charter to eliminate the 1986 boundary lines and adjust the district boundaries to reflect the city’s updated population — may result in substantial changes to district lines, including the possibility of forming a student supermajority district.

“By updating the outdated redistricting rules, Berkeley voters sent a clear message that districts should represent communities of interest, including students,” said former ASUC external affairs vice president Joey Freeman. “We certainly plan on submitting a new map that will establish a student supermajority district.”

Despite student efforts to create such a district in the past, the current — and controversial — boundaries divide the city in such a way that it has not been possible to create a supermajority district of UC Berkeley students since the redistricting rules were established in 1986.

Community members have until March 15 of next year to complete and submit their proposals to the city.  The proposals will then be presented to the council for discussion at two public hearings, currently set for May 7 and July 2.

According to Jacquelyn McCormick, a city resident and former mayoral candidate, there are no guarantees that the council will follow through with the proposed communities of interest boundary lines.

“The problem with the process is that while the public will produce maps for the council to either accept or modify, (the council is) going to have full discretion in drawing those lines,” she said. “The students want a district, (but) there’s no guarantee that that’s what they’re going to get.”

Once the council chooses a proposal, it will adopt the new boundaries after two readings of the ordinance on Sept. 10 and Sept. 17, 2013, respectively.

According to Councilmember Kriss Worthington, if the public is not in favor of the district lines, residents can initiate a referendum after the first and second reading of the selected map, which could prevent the council from adopting the district lines in time for the next election.

As of the current timeline, the redistricting process is set to be completed by Dec. 31, 2013, and will be in effect by the 2014 election.

Daphne Chen covers city government. Contact her at daphnechen@dailycal.org.

The post City Council sets timeline for Berkeley redistricting appeared first on The Daily Californian.

During its last Tuesday meeting, the council voted unanimously for city staff to draft a resolution finding a local medical cannabis operation a public nuisance after holding a public hearing. The collective has been found in violation of several Berkeley zoning ordinances by the Zoning Adjustments Board.

Following the passing of Measure R — which allows for the amendment of the existing city charter to eliminate the 1986 district boundary lines and to use major traffic arteries, natural geography and communities of interest as boundaries instead — the City Council will also discuss setting a timeline for procedures to begin the redistricting process.

Other discussion items include contract amendments to the CalPERS retirement plan and updates for the five-year street-paving plan.

Read the full annotated agenda below:

Daphne Chen covers city government. Contact her at daphnechen@dailycal.org.

The post Annotated agenda for Nov. 27 Berkeley City Council meeting appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Twenty-six years ago, a deal was struck to systematically and categorically deny UC Berkeley students a voice in city politics. The city of Berkeley adopted district-based council elections and left in the wake of this decision the most regressive and outdated redistricting process in the country. Instead of using redistricting as a tool to protect communities of interest, whether they are historically organized neighborhoods, socio-economic, ethnic and racial or by student-status, some Berkeley residents decided to protect their narrow political interests by enshrining in the charter the original districts that were drawn way back in 1986. While other cities can decennially redistrict to better represent their citizens, Berkeley can only make minimal changes to our 26-year-old districts.

The effect of the 1986 district lines is that students are split among four different City Council districts. We have been permanently gerrymandered out of having any real say in a city in which we make up a quarter of the population. Housing, development, crime, traffic, homelessness — these are all very real issues that affect us and our city every day, but we have been divided and silenced.

The 1986 lines are not only unfair to students — Berkeley as a whole suffers from them. It should be noted that two-thirds of current Berkeley residents were either unborn or too young to have voted for the adoption of these districts 26 years ago. We are simply not the same city as we were in 1986 — communities that were united when districts were adopted now find themselves divided as they move and grow.

Our opponents seek to distort this as a council power grab. But in reality, nobody has any power with the current lines. Both citizens making proposals and the council are currently hamstrung by the requirement to maintain the 1986 lines, and as such, nobody can draw districts that reflect and protect the communities that make up the Berkeley population. The other side additionally claims that by removing the 1986 lines, Measure R grants councilmembers the ability to gerrymander districts in their favor. However, they neglect to mention that the status quo lines are currently gerrymandered to silence students. Furthermore, the council will still be legally obligated to engage in a public process in which everyday citizens, not politicians, propose new district lines.

Measure R will change Berkeley’s charter, striking from it the rules requiring new maps to mimic nearly identically the district map from 1986 and amending it to add a requirement that districts be drawn to protect Berkeley’s communities of interest. This is a good-government measure that will protect all of Berkeley’s residents. Who’s to say what the composition of the Berkeley population will be in 50 years? Who’s to say if the population’s interests will be protected by the shape of our current districts? Who’s to say those silenced by these political machinations 26 years ago will ever get their voice back without Measure R? One thing is for sure: By splitting communities of interest into multiple districts, we diminish the voice of those who need access to our city’s political process more than most.

The ultimate promise of Measure R is a student majority district. We are a quarter of the city’s population, and yet we have not been represented on the council for more than two decades. This injustice has left key issues, such as student safety, housing and development, untouched for far too long. Measure R can change that. Its adoption will finally make a student district possible and allow us to realize the dream of having a voice at the table.

What can you do to get a student voice on the City Council? Register to vote in Berkeley at californiastudentvote.org before Oct. 22. Tell your friends about how local politics affect them. And, above all, vote yes on Measure R on Nov. 6.

Shahryar Abbasi is the ASUC external affairs vice president. Noah Efron and Michael Manset are UC Berkeley students who have worked on the redistricting issue with Abbasi.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org.

The post Students will finally have a voice appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Several items involve issues that have been ongoing as of late, such as pensions and redistricting. The council will also discuss amending the city charter, contribution limits and infrastructure are topics that will likely appear on the ballot come November.

The charter amendment will allow the restrictions for redistricting in Berkeley to be changed, opening up the possibility for the creation of a student majority district later this year or early next. The second community survey for what tax initiatives residents would like to see on the ballot will also be discussed. Contribution limits for developers doing business with the city is another proposed action item.

The appointment of Interim City Manager Christine Daniel will also be confirmed by the council at Tuesday’s meeting. Daniel took over in November after former City Manager Phil Kamlarz retired after serving in the position for eight years.

Read the full annotated agenda for the meeting below:

Adelyn Baxter is the news editor.

The post Annotated agenda for May 29 Berkeley City Council meeting appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In April, the council asked city staff to create a ballot measure that would amend the city’s redistricting charter, which could be renewed every 10 years. The measure, which the council will have to vote on to put on the November election ballot, is estimated to cost $26,000.

The proposed charter amendment would eliminate the 1986 boundary lines and use major traffic arteries and natural geography as boundaries, keep communities of interest that might include minority voters intact and not place two incumbents in the same district, according to the recommendation.

According to city spokesperson Mary Kay Clunies-Ross, the city’s districts are adjusted every 10 years depending on variations in census data, and the current charter requires equal representation of populations while still following the original 1986 boundary lines. However, if the council wants to change the charter, it would have to put a measure on the November ballot.

The council originally voted in January to defer the general redistricting decision until after the November election, but the proposed charter amendment to the redistricting process could eventually result in a student supermajority district.

“The ballot measure provides needed reform for the redistricting process,” said Councilmember Jesse Arreguin. “We are changing the rules permanently with the charter amendment, so it provides a guarantee that students will be considered as community of interest going forward.”

Currently, city voters are divided into eight council districts that comply with the 1986 district lines, which could prevent the possibility of a student supermajority district.

If the council does not take the city’s minority voters, including students, into account, the city charter may be in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 — which provides protection for voters who require assistance in voting due to race, color or membership in a language minority group.

“There is a lack of effective representation and the root of the cause is the 1986 charter that gerrymanders students out of districts,” said incoming ASUC External Affairs Vice President Shahyar Abassi in an email. “Students are a vital part of the city. For too long has the city ignored us. We want students to finally have a voice in city politics.”

According to Councilmember Kriss Worthington, the redistricting process will likely begin after the November election based on what voters decide, and he said the process could take months depending on how many redistricting proposals are submitted.

Worthington also said in an email that it was important to adjust the 1986 boundaries in order “to give greater flexibility, to get straighter lines, and update the populations,” of the city.

The post Redistricting measure could appear on November ballot appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill endorsed the idea of altering the city charter to eliminate its current restrictions against a student supermajority district and allow a student or student representative to be elected to the Berkeley City Council.

The bill was authored by Student Action Senator Shahryar Abbasi, External Affairs Vice President Joey Freeman and External Affairs Vice President Redistricting Director Noah Efron.

The city is currently divided into eight council districts, and each district is represented by an elected city council member. The city council already plans to place a charter amendment on the November ballot. If passed, the amendment would change the 1986 city district boundaries many say were put in place to disenfranchise the student vote in Berkeley by preventing the creation of a student supermajority district.

Debate at the senate meeting centered around the impact a student representative could have on the City Council.

Senior John Nguyen said he felt that a supermajority district would place students at a higher priority than other Berkeley communities and that a student council member would have a “very minimal voice.”

“What I’m afraid of is other council members not listening,” he said.

Cooperative Movement Senator Elliot Goldstein said the supermajority idea puts a lot of weight on one individual’s ability to represent students and added that there are already council members supportive of students.

However, Freeman said that creating the supermajority district would allow students to have at least one powerful voice on the council.

A draft of the bill pointed out that one in three students are Asian, but only one Asian city council member has ever been elected.

However, CalSERVE Senator Sydney Fang said at the meeting that the information should be taken out of the bill, because “given that (the supermajority district) is not a true Asian district, taking it in that direction is tokenizing to that community.”

Senators present approved the bill without the information on Asian students with only two abstaining votes from Goldstein and CalSERVE Senator Anthony Galace.

Freeman said the student council member position could turn into a race between student political parties like CalSERVE and Student Action.

“(I hope) Student Action and CalSERVE enter into an agreement that they endorse the same candidate, much like they do with student advocate,” Freeman said.

Chloe Hunt is the lead student government reporter.

The post ASUC Senate passes bill supporting student supermajority district appeared first on The Daily Californian.