How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[Sbane]

Well, it's close to 50%HCVAP. It doesn't matter if it's going to elect an Hispanic, but whether a candidate of their choice is elected. The commission did draw this map, and you would have to do the same to avoid a legal challenge. What the ultimate result of that legal challenge would be I cannot say. But it is clear that there is racially polarized voting in the Central Valley, most especially in the Bakersfield area, so if a district can be drawn that is 50%HCVAP or close to it, I would go ahead and do it.

Is there any evidence that Hispanics vote at a lower rate in the Central Valley, as opposed to just being more illegal or recent immigrants than the California average? It takes a 70% Hispanic district to get to 50%HCVAP here, whereas in most of Socal all you need is about 65-66%, and in the SGV just 62% suffices. That might be why you think Hispanics don't vote here. But if a 50%HCVAP district can be drawn, and being relatively compact like the one I have drawn, I see no reason not to draw it.

[Sbane]

Well, it's close to 50%HCVAP. It doesn't matter if it's going to elect an Hispanic, but whether a candidate of their choice is elected. The commission did draw this map, and you would have to do the same to avoid a legal challenge. What the ultimate result of that legal challenge would be I cannot say. But it is clear that there is racially polarized voting in the Central Valley, most especially in the Bakersfield area, so if a district can be drawn that is 50%HCVAP or close to it, I would go ahead and do it.

Is there any evidence that Hispanics vote at a lower rate in the Central Valley, as opposed to just being more illegal or recent immigrants than the California average? It takes a 70% Hispanic district to get to 50%HCVAP here, whereas in most of Socal all you need is about 65-66%, and in the SGV just 62% suffices. That might be why you think Hispanics don't vote here. But if a 50%HCVAP district can be drawn, and being relatively compact like the one I have drawn, I see no reason not to draw it.

It deserves study.  I doubt your Kern based Hispanic CD is anyway near 50% HCVAP, and yes, the turnout levels are lower I strongly suspect. Or is your Kern CD the one that is 65% Hispanic VAP?  Maybe Muon2 has an opinion of the degree of legal risk. If he makes a reasonable case on that that the legal risk is more than remote, then you have your Pub vote anyway, and I guess "our" commission will end up drawing something (although hopefully not as ugly as your map). 

Yes, the Kern CD is 65%HVAP and probably about 48% HCVAP. The commission map is 66%HVAP and 49%HCVAP. They contain roughly the same sort of areas, Bakersfield and rural areas but not Fresno proper. BTW, didn't Muon already draw something that is roughly similar to what I drew?

[Sbane]

Nah I drew it then I looked. And of course I look to see just how Hispanic a district needs to be made to get it up to 50%HCVAP. Again I really don't see why this is more erose than that U shaped monstrosity you drew in LA County. If my district was going all the way into Salinas, then you could say it is erose. A Hispanic district based in the southern Central Valley is not what I would consider to be erose. Considering the level of racially polarized voting in the area, I don't see how you can justify not drawing two Hispanic districts here.

[Sbane]

Central Valley Hispanics have a heavy farm worker (and thus illegal) component to them.

Indeed, which is why to get to a 50% HCVAP district, you need a 70%+ Hispanic district. In most of California it is closer to about 64-65%

[Sbane]

Here's my map for the north region. Due to performance issues with DRA, I'll just show one region at a time. Given that, it's a big help to me when the numbers are grouped by region.

Let me describe my numbering system, since I didn't try to match all the districts with existing ones. First the regions are oriented from north to south, and then subregions within each region, then the districts in each subregion. Numbering is based on the center of population for the area. Here are the number groups:

NORTH REGION
Upper Sacramento (CD 1-2)
Lower Sacramento (CD 3-6)
Central Valley (CD 7-8)

COAST REGION
North Coast (CD 9-11)
San Mateo (CD 12)
Central Coast (CD 13-22)

SOUTH REGION
Bakersfield (CD 23-24)
Los Angeles (CD 25-38)
Socal (CD 39-53)

This is the north region map using just the whole counties. CD 1 needs 2158 people and would add the two eastern block groups from Tehama. CD 7 needs 1019 people and would add one block group from Kings.



Here is the detail for Sacramento county. Two whole districts are within the county and municipalities are preserved to the extent block groups permit.



CD 7 is identical to the view I previously showed for the Merced/Madera/Fresno with 62.0% HVAP. I kept Merced together consistent with minimizing county splits.

Eh, really don't like the San Joaquin to Yolo district. If we can't have the San Joaquin district going into Contra Costa, then it should go into Sacramento County. This does create problems of course since either Sacramento is going to be split, or the 3rd is going to have to take in Yolo using the area just to north of Sacramento to connect the two areas. In return the San Joaquin district takes in the southern part of Sacramento County. If you insist on sticking with these subregions, that is probably the best option as I see it.

[Sbane]

I don't particularly like how Torie has drawn the 33rd either. I don't know if it's necessary to make the district so Latino or whether you can create a more compact district that would still have a high Hispanic population with a black influence. If the 33rd doesn't legally need to be drawn like that, it should not. I am fine with the SD map though, since a 50%+ hcvap district can be drawn, though it does lead to some city splits. I don't know if Torie has imperial beach in that Hispanic district. If he does he could try switching it out and putting in the rest of Chula Vista. But I don't think it's such a big deal.

[Sbane]

Eh, really don't like the San Joaquin to Yolo district. If we can't have the San Joaquin district going into Contra Costa, then it should go into Sacramento County. This does create problems of course since either Sacramento is going to be split, or the 3rd is going to have to take in Yolo using the area just to north of Sacramento to connect the two areas. In return the San Joaquin district takes in the southern part of Sacramento County. If you insist on sticking with these subregions, that is probably the best option as I see it.

I'd like to stick to subregions, replacing them if only they clearly violate other rules. OTOH I could modify my rule to place as many whole districts within a county with one that prefers compactness once at least one district is entirely within the county. I can still require no more than two county fragments, and then I would get this map.

That is much better, and Sacramento isn't split like I feared it would be with a map like that.

[Sbane]

I don't particularly like how Torie has drawn the 33rd either. I don't know if it's necessary to make the district so Latino or whether you can create a more compact district that would still have a high Hispanic population with a black influence. If the 33rd doesn't legally need to be drawn like that, it should not. I am fine with the SD map though, since a 50%+ hcvap district can be drawn, though it does lead to some city splits. I don't know if Torie has imperial beach in that Hispanic district. If he does he could try switching it out and putting in the rest of Chula Vista. But I don't think it's such a big deal.

Imperial Beach is in the Hispanic CD, just like it is in the Commission's map. If you switch it out, for the rest of Chula Vista, the Hispanic % goes down.

If a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside needs to be drawn, than a 61.9% HVAP CA-33 needs to be drawn. If you play with Carson, the Hispanic percentage goes down, as well as the black percentage in CA-35. So no, that makes no sense. You could chop Carson, but the map will still be ugly, and still dilute, with CA-33 also getting more Anglos. Oh, the horror, the horror! We could substantially play with the map, and get a more contiguous Hispanic CD, with a materially lower percentage, but that would shove the Beach Cities CD into a more competitive status. Do you want to go there?  

You mess with me anymore, and I will sic Maldef on you!

Are we done now?

Never mind on the Imperial Beach thing. It should be put in the Hispanic district and I have done that as well. As for CA-33 (which is CA-35 in my map), I drew a district that is about 54%HVAP and 21%BVAP. And the 33rd I drew is about 38.9%BVAP, which may be enough to get to 50%BCVAP, as most of the rest of the people in that district are latino. And I ended up with a much nicer looking map. Take a look.

[Sbane]

You are going to cut an "Hispanic" CD down from 61.9% HVAP (close to if not at 50.0% HCVAP) to 54% HVAP? And cut the black CD to 38.9% BVAP down from 44.6% BVAP (percentages destined as to the blacks to continue to decline over time)? I don't think so. And get a bodyguard sbane, because Maxine Waters will be looking for you.

But hey, I can preserve the black CD at my percentages, and draw a more contiguous CD off to the west with a materially higher HVAP than your anemic number, while making the Beach CD materially more Pubbie. Interested? Pity that the legal risk seems rather high.

The commission drew two districts that were about 25% BVAP. I draw one which is more than that, thus protecting a Black district better than what the commission did, and one that is a bit less. And it looks just so nice and perfect, doesn't it? The real question is whether we need another Hispanic district or whether we need one that is a Black and Hispanic influence district. I am not pretending that my 35th is a bonafide Hispanic district. It is a district where they will have a lot of influence and so will Blacks. And to top it all off it won't look absolutely ridiculous like your district. I would only sign off on a ridiculous looking district if I knew there was legal risk in not drawing that. And even if we did draw that, Black groups would complain. You have it all wrong, Blacks would love my map and hate yours. Of course this does not have any partisan implications but that district is just damn ugly and reduces the number of districts Blacks have influence over.

[Sbane]

Mike, the class warfare concept seems to have got lost in the Silicon Valley in your map (although erosity certainly has not been eschewed ). Yes I know, you didn't list $$$$$ as part of your list of parameters, I understand.

You didn't do some ugly chop in Sonoma County did you? Or did you avoid a muni chop, but not a metro chop in Santa Rosa? Or are you trying to hide what you did there, since you didn't do a zoom, after which upon my beady little eyes feasting upon it,  I could say, hey, you see how well these little mechanistic rules are working out for you? 

Yes, I know, lawyers are aholes - almost all of them. Hey, that's why we're lawyers!

You are correct. I followed Santa Rosa's lines, but neighboring towns were separated. My map is an open book, and reasonable suggestions are welcome.



And see, here's Ventura as a bonus.

Your Ventura County is nicer than I feared looking at the earlier map you posted. Good job not splitting Santa Rosa as well. It would have been nice if you could have kept Windsor with Santa Rosa though, but it's not possible with your constraints.

[Sbane]

What is the HVAP number for that 40th district? I think putting Yucaipa into that district really lowers the Hispanic %, but I could be wrong. I think splitting the SBD-Riverside line in the exurban areas is probably a better idea than in the desert. That way you can avoid chopping into LA county and deliver two 50% HVAP districts in SBD and Riverside in addition to the 65% HVAP. Might be worth playing with. I of course hold that the choice I made in including Pomona in the really Hispanic district is the correct one, but not feasible with your algorithm.

[Sbane]

The 50% HVAP CD in Riverside is dead in my map, unless you think I missed something Mike. The Romero 9th circuit decision is still the governing law, interpreting Gingles, without dilution. Sure drawing a 50% HVAP CD would be legal, but given that it violates other redistricting principles, e.g. going down to Perris, and f's the Pubbies, it needs to be vetoed. Why on earth would the Pubs vote for it? And doesn't it violate your own good redistricting principles, which are while more mechanistic than mine, similar to mine, which is that you do erosity and chops to and only to the extent the VRA demands it? And surely it is not appropriate to alter the shape of CD's on the assumption that  Romero will be reversed (highly unlikely it appears from Kennedy's Bartlett prose) is it?

My map in Riverside is actually what we drew earlier. When did you decide to change it and go towards the commission's version? I drew two districts in the IE which were 50% Hispanic for the total population and of course the VRA district. And both those were with minimal muni chops, and the Riverside district just looked so perfect. I think what I have drawn in the IE (and what you drew before as well) is the right way to go.

[Sbane]

Here is my LA County fix. It's sad that my home turf of Silverlake had "Baja Silverlake" (yes, that is what it is called south of Sunset) severed from it along with its SE corner, but such is life. It could not be helped after CA-30 had to recede a bit to take indirectly some of the territory lost to my old CA-33 on the Westside, and sadly the Asians around Koreatown, got chopped too (but at least it was between rich and poor mostly, despite my best efforts), but yes, it is a better map. Hey, San Pedro is totally united now - isn't that grand? I will revisit Merced, and see if I can unite it, by having the Hispanic CD lose more of Fresno, and then I think I am close to done (well after looking at San Diego one more time, and seeing what the implications are of getting rid of the Chula Vista chop - and no I am not going to chop inner city San Diego to bits either - that is not an option). Oh, and I need to restore my Riverside CD to its former compact metro Riverside "wholeness." Thanks guys. Cheers.

That looks so much better! What is the Black and Latino VAP for the 33rd? You did the right thing putting all of San Pedro into the 33rd and getting it out of the 36th. You also didn't Santa Monica or Culver City. Gardena (I think it's Gardena?) seems to be split but that is probably due to racial reasons.

[Sbane]

Here's my revision for the IE. CD 42 has dropped to 51.2% HVAP, but all the chops are gone except a small part of Riverside city by Woodcrest (at least as far as block groups permit). Torie may note that Laguna Niguel is now apart from Irvine.

I see you  chopped the BIG city of San Bernadino in half Mike. Nice Pub gerry! 

Yes, I much prefer our version of the IE (once you fix your Riverside district back to it's original glory). It makes for two Hispanic influence districts in the IE, and the Riverside district becomes more logical.

[Sbane]

I always figured Morgan Hill was named after the prominent hill next to the town, but apparently that's called El Toro, not Morgan Hill. Now I know.

Morgan Hill certainly can't be in a Santa Cruz district; there's no usable road through the mountains there, and to get from Morgan Hill or Gilroy to Santa Cruz you need to go through either Watsonville or San Jose.

Cupertino has more in common with Los Altos or Saratoga than it does with San Jose, whereas Campbell would fit better with the San Jose district than with the richer areas to its south. Demographically, Cupertino now has a large Asian majority, but income is probably a better indicator of communities of interest in the South Bay than race would be. It would be nice to simply switch Campbell with Cupertino (and the districts would look cleaner, too), but unfortunately Cupertino is significantly larger.

 

Do you like this version of CA-15 better, Xahar, with its chop of Cupertino?  Yes, you are right, Cupertino has twice the median income of Campbell (140K versus 70K).  But it does not help the Asian "cause," because CA-15 is more Asian than CA-14 of course. The Asian VAP percentages with this chop are 17% for CA-14, 29.5% for CA-15 (down from 32% with my version), and 42.7% for CA-16. But in addition to furthering along the class warfare metric, the Cupertino chop also makes the map less erose. I am inclined to accept Xahar's suggestion, unless someone changes my mind. When it comes to the Bay area, I do listen more than when it comes to my neck of the woods in Socal (where I think I know next to everything).

I am fine with this map. Lowers the Asian % even more though, but that's not hugely important. Mike Honda would easily get through a primary here. And this creates a middle class district in the Silicon Valley. Then again the other district contains Mountain View, which has a similar income to Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. If we drop the pretense of having a high Asian % district, you can just add Mountain view to the 15th, and get rid of the chop in Cupertino, add the parts of SJ adjacent to Cupertino (similar incomes I think) to the 14th as well as the Almaden Valley. That would create a better middle of the road district though the 14th would still have all of Santa Cruz so it can't be a wholly upper class district in any case. The map you drew might just be a compromise of all these variables.

Ideally a chop of Cupertino wouldn't be necessary, but if it is, that's where it should be. I like sbane's idea of putting Mountain View in with the 15th in exchange for Cupertino and Almaden. That knob in the westernmost part of San Jose that juts out south of Cupertino and north of Saratoga is where I live; if all of Cupertino and Saratoga are to be in one district, that part of San Jose should be there also.

It's interesting that sbane's suggestion would essentially make one district running along 280 and 85 and another more generally aligned with 101. I think that makes sense.

Sorry I'm coming late to this thread (and this post)..but since I live in the same general area as Xahar, I thought I'd respond.

If I were redistricting this particular area, I'd try to get as much of northern Mountain View and Sunnyvale running along 101 with Santa Clara as possible, but would include Downtown and much of East San Jose in that district, too. Then, I would connect Evergreen in the East with much of South San Jose (similar demographics) and Los Gatos, maybe some of West San Jose and Campbell in there too. Finally, I would put Saratoga, Cupertino, and the southern half of Sunnyvale in the same district as Los Altos and southern Mountain View.

Those are my (very rough) thoughts right now, feel free to comment.

I think that would lead to too many municipal splits. I understand why you want to split the cities, but it probably won't fly with a fair map unless there are VRA requirements. I would keep Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara together, and instead of going into East San Jose (lower income than these areas) I would go pick up Milpitas and the parts of Fremont as required. Not sure if that would create a whole district. Evergreen does get stuck in a East San Jose district, where it doesn't belong, but trying to connect it to another CD might make the map too erose, and force the East San Jose district to pick up neighborhoods with similar incomes to Evergreen which defeats the whole purpose of excluding Evergreen. Worth drawing and seeing how it works out.

[Sbane]

Do we like this version of a Silicon Valley cut better?  It is the white/Asian v. Hispanic chop.

Interesting. What I would have done is got rid of the Hispanic parts of the 15th basically east of CA-87 in exchange for the areas of the 16th northwest of Campbell, Campbell itself, and the areas to the east of it as much is needed. I think that would create a nice east side district.

[Sbane]

Here is how I would draw it. First of all I kept the chops in Fremont and Gilroy as Torie has it. Then I kept Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara together and traveled down CA-237 to pick up Milpitas and the Fremont chop. I kept all of the east side of SJ together in CA-16. And CA-15 goes down to pick up Campbell and the areas to the east of it. I kept all of the parts of San Jose near Cupertino in the 14th west of Saratoga Avenue.

This is a class map, with no regard for racial stats. In fact for the total population, each of the districts ends up about 33% Asian. And I am fine with that unless you can show me evidence of racially polarized voting in the Silicon Valley. Did the commission find that? You have the 14th as the upper class district hugging the hills, the 15th picking up the middle of the road places in the valley and the 16th picking up the more working class east side. And yes, Asians here are working class as well with the exception of the Evergreen area. I guess I could have picked that area up with the 15th but it would have made the map more erose and it would have ended up being swapped for similar income areas in any case. BTW can anyone tell me how the area east of Campbell is? It's not a high income area is it? I have a feeling it's middle class but I don't know that area too well.

[Sbane]

Looks OK to me sbane (no sorry, Mike I don't like your map), but you chop the Hispanics in SJ - and the Asians north of SJ, from those to the south. I am looking for some consensus here, pretending we are all commissioners negotiating. There is no right or wrong answer here.

All I know about the area east of Campbell in SJ is that it is lily white. I would assume it is middle class too. I have absolutely no reason to believe it has much of a upper middle class component, but like you, I have zero idea as to the "truth."

No, I made sure to pick up most of the Hispanic areas in SJ and put it in the 16th. Which area are you talking about specifically? As for Asians, I do split Milpitas and Fremont from east SJ Asians. Like I said only the evergreen area really goes with the middle class theme. The Vietnamese areas, which kind of overlap with the Hispanic areas, are not that high income. It is possible to substitute Evergreen for the areas east of Campbell and that will make the 15th more Asian and erose, but is it really necessary? Do Asians vote differently than other groups? Is there group voting in primaries? The commission found evidence of racially polarized voting in many parts of California, but was the Silicon Valley one of those areas?

[Sbane]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

[Sbane]

Here's another option. I picked up the Asian areas right adjacent to Milpitas for the 15th. I can go down and pick up Evergreen too and get rid of Campbell and areas adjacent to it..... It's up to 40% AVAP BTW.

This maps "unites" bourgeoisie whites/Asians, with dirt poor Hispanics it looks like in CA-16. Where or where shall the SJ Hispanics go?

Would not it be better to "dump" them into CA-15, and have CA-16 pick up some more middle class white areas in the Campbell and farther east areas, at least to the extent necessary, with Campbell going either way?

The south and southeast parts where there is a high Asian population isn't really that bourgeoisie. That would be Cupertino and adjacent parts of SJ. I guess they are middle class though, but with some working class elements for sure, especially south of I-680 and along US-101. You wouldn't say Garden Grove is bourgeoisie, would you? I think it would be best to keep the east side together, which is why I like my first map, rather than this second one which is a bit of a compromise trying to up the Asian % in the 15th.

[Sbane]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.