HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/9/2021 Item 4b, Lichtig
Delgado, Adriana
From:Katie Lichtig <ktln455@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Johnson, Derek; Dietrick, Christine
Subject:4-B Agenda Correspondance - Katie Lichtig
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Katie Lichtig
KTLN455@Gmail.com
November 8, 2021
Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
RE: November 9, 2021 Agenda Item 4-B
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I was honored to serve as City of San Luis Obispo City Manager from January 2010 until October 2017. Since
leaving my position with the City of SLO, I have purposely stayed out of issues and policy debates regarding
the City. I believe it is right and just to honor and respect the role of your current City Manager and staff in
providing the Mayor, Council and community the information and professional recommendations without input
from the former “boss”. That being said, I have decided that the issue of redistricting is too important to stay on
the sidelines. I am driven to share my experience and perspective, especially since I was city manager ten
years ago when the last process was undertaken. As you may know I have moved back to the Central Coast
but I no longer reside in SLO.
I have three main observations to share with you. First, while this process is very similar to the process used in
2010-11, I believe time has changed the nature of the debate and motives in redrawing the supervisorial
districts. The political discourse has devolved into a "winner take all" mentality and the goal is to solidify the
majority’s advantage. Ten years ago the majority of supervisors were Republicans but there was a sense of
common purpose and a spirit of compromise that negated the partisan policy divides. I long for those days
where the greatest good for democratic ideals and good government is the driving force behind important
policy decisions, like redistricting. I hope one of the principles the City Council considers as part of the agenda
item incorporates these concepts.
Second, if my memory serves me correctly, there was not a proposal to consolidate the City of San Luis
Obispo into a single district during the process ten years ago. The reason is clear why this was not considered
then and should not be considered now. This proposal simply doesn’t meet a straight face test of meeting the
criteria for establishing a defensible redistricting map. Yesterday I listened to the webinar hosted by the
League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County about the redistricting process and learned about the
concept of creating a “sink district”. This is the practice of “dumping” everyone of a particular group that
politicians want to marginalize into one district. As a result of creating a “sink district” political leadership can
ignore the one district because they simply don’t need the representative (in this case a Supervisor) of the
1
“sink district” to get anything done. According to the expert on the webinar (Professor Michael Lattner), this
practice was used to suppress people of color in the South for many years. I encourage the City Council to
vigorously oppose a single district for the City of SLO.
Third is the issue of Cal Poly on campus housing being placed in one district. Since the last redistricting, more
on campus housing has become a reality (a good outcome). Yet that new housing is immediately adjacent to
the City of San Luis Obispo. If Cal Poly were in two supervisorial districts there is more knowledge on the
Board of Supervisors about “Town-Gown” issues and policies impacting the County, City and Cal Poly. These
could and/or have included on-campus events, multi-agency responses to holidays/party occasions or in the
terrible event of an emergency response to a major incident on campus. I believe these are good justifications
to keep two supervisors representing Cal Poly. Moveover, I believe there are considerations of geography and
community of interest that make having on- campus Cal Poly housing in two districts justified.
The staff report mentions the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) as a consideration. I am not familiar with the
current issues regarding the CVRA and impacts on the City. As a result, I don’t know how this law would
impact the City’s advocacy of a particular map. Nonetheless, I believe the City Council must take a strong
position on redistricting, appoint an ad-hoc committee to represent the residents to the Board of Supervisors so
there is parity in the elected official interacting with the elected Board, and adopt strong principles that sends
the message that the City of SLO wants to be respected in this process.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective and for grappling with this tricky issue.
I hope to run into you sometime soon and catch up on how you each are doing (non-city related of course)!
Sincerely,
Katie Lichtig
2