LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY: To submit a letter to the editor for possible inclusion in the paper, e-mail us at letters@danapointtimes.com or send it to 34932 Calle del Sol, Suite B, Capistrano Beach, CA 92624. Dana Point Times reserves the right to edit reader-submitted letters for length and is not responsible for the claims made or the information written by the writers.

ART SANCHEZ, Dana Point

It is unfortunate that our city has been put in this unenviable position regarding voting districts. This litigation action against our city is forcing us to implement voter districting in our city. But the stall tactics of a group from Capistrano Beach and a handful of misinformed residents may cost us the “safe harbor” that our council thus far has complied with under the guidelines of threatened litigation if Dana Point does not move forward swiftly on districting.
Many of my Hispanic friends in the city believe that one of the points that people have been missing is that by going with districting, you will encourage more people to participate in running for office because the cost and effort to run a campaign will come down significantly. It will also prevent multiple council members from coming from the same neighborhood as so happens in many cities. Districting will insure that all areas of Dana Point have fair and equal representation, and we do have two members of the Council currently who are within a couple of blocks of one another.

After reviewing the maps, I strongly recommend the “tan map” as the most equitable version of districting.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (3)

  • This is a very fair perspective. While I am not sure I can 100% agree, it really is the other side of the story.

    I have been very disappointed when any letter writer (or anyone who posts on nextdoor) makes the continues claims, “why rush to redistrict!”, “the three councilmen must be doing this for political gain!”, “we need to do 4 council members and a mayor!”, etc, etc.

    Nobody (and Debra Lewis agrees) has accurately applied risk / cost to any direction being suggested. I wish somebody would actually take the time to write up a fair argument which includes this criteria. BTW- this in my mind is the most important criteria.

    Try this:

    I believe we should do “X”, because it is better for the community in these ways, and the probability of legal costs (litigation/ due dilligence / settlement / etc) is this %, and the expected costs would be around this much….

    Instead people are too lazy and infer that councilmen are underhanded, or that the city has rushed to judgement.

    For example, if the probability of incurring costs was near 100% under any scenario other than redistricting, and those costs could be estimated at 500k- are we rushing to judgement? What if the estimated costs landed at 1 million?

    Just curious when all you self proclaimed fiscal conservatives would say, “yep- get to redistricting as fast as possible, its not worth it”

  • If it is 100% certain that under this insane liberal districting law that the city loses a valiant (but really only symbolic) court battle, and with that loss the plaintiff and the judge not only draw the district lines, but the City also pays the plaintiffs exorbitant legal bills – what is your recommendation Mr. Frost? Do you still recommend fighting the good fight?

    Question: If the city settles to avoid a court battle, what’s stopping any other attorney from suing the city?
    Answer: nothing.

  • Shawn,

    I had a chance to re-read your reply. Overall I agree with you. I probably should have said that in my response.

comments (3)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>