2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: California

[Tintrlvr]

4 was kind of confusing, I would like it if you got in more detail in regards to it.

I like where you're going with this. Re #4, my point is that this area:

[snipped]

naturally makes two districts and absolutely should be kept together. If possible, you should make 2 core SFV+1 Burbank/NoHo district (which you already have) and keep the Santa Monica/Beverly Hills and Santa Clarita districts out of the San Fernando Valley.

I think the central SFV district on this map is a Hispanic district, though. You're not going to be able to draw just two districts in the SFV while creating a Hispanic opportunity district unless you make the white district wind around and almost totally encircle the Hispanic district, which is not going to be acceptable to anyone. I think it's more likely that you get one Hispanic opportunity district entirely within the SFV and then a bunch of other districts nibble the edges of the SFV.

[Tintrlvr]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Edit: Here is what I would do with the six districts of Northern California on a 52-seat map:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/79e296df-a40b-404d-9e42-fdf67d0652fc

I don't love the Yolo-Butte district, but I tried Yolo-Placer and it just didn't work out properly population-wise. Yolo-Butte does have the advantage of combining the two main college towns of northern California and keeping the agricultural areas of the northern Central Valley mostly in that one seat. To the extent the commission is interested in competitiveness, that's a nice seat, too: just Clinton+4.

Edit II: Another alternative, this time with crossing of the Coast Range (not ideal either) and exchanging the competitive Yolo-based seat for a competitive Coast-based seat: https://davesredistricting.org/join/d41afb5f-7192-4f19-9b0f-e69538d3199b

Edit III: A third alternative: I don't think the commission would do this, but this creates two Likely-to-Safe R seats in northern California: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9aabce23-1ed5-4b4c-ae2a-505e28989e67

[Tintrlvr]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Doesn't that kind of cut weirdly across the terrain though? IIRC it does need a good bit of population, even if you have fairly generous allocations up north. (i.e. Trinity and Del Norte in the district)

See the map I just posted in my edit: It actually works out perfectly with Fairfield/Vacaville to leave Vallejo and the other Bay-adjacent parts of Solano available for an East Bay-based district.

Not totally ideal but Fairfield-Vacaville are pretty closely tied to Napa, which in turn is pretty closely tied to the Northern Coast. It's not totally ideal, but I think it's better than Marin with the Northern Coast, and there is no obvious alternative population-wise.

[Tintrlvr]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Doesn't that kind of cut weirdly across the terrain though? IIRC it does need a good bit of population, even if you have fairly generous allocations up north. (i.e. Trinity and Del Norte in the district)

See the map I just posted in my edit: It actually works out perfectly with Fairfield/Vacaville to leave Vallejo and the other Bay-adjacent parts of Solano available for an East Bay-based district.

Not totally ideal but Fairfield-Vacaville are pretty closely tied to Napa, which in turn is pretty closely tied to the Northern Coast. It's not totally ideal, but I think it's better than Marin with the Northern Coast, and there is no obvious alternative population-wise.

Considering there are other more vital COI's getting busted in your map (Sutter+Yuba, The Yolo bit of Sacramento and Sacramento City) it's probably better to keep CA02 going into Marin. even if the coastline COI is weak, it plus Wine County and the other two mentioned are better than the presented alternative.

West Sacramento is not going to go with Sacramento when you can draw two districts entirely within Sacramento County.

Sutter and Yuba are together on my primary proposal so not sure what you are talking about there. I did split them on the alternative that crosses the Coast Range, which is not a map I love anyway. It's not an essential split either way; just change where you cut in from Plumas to Tehama and then switch Yuba for parts of Placer.

[Tintrlvr]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Doesn't that kind of cut weirdly across the terrain though? IIRC it does need a good bit of population, even if you have fairly generous allocations up north. (i.e. Trinity and Del Norte in the district)

See the map I just posted in my edit: It actually works out perfectly with Fairfield/Vacaville to leave Vallejo and the other Bay-adjacent parts of Solano available for an East Bay-based district.

Not totally ideal but Fairfield-Vacaville are pretty closely tied to Napa, which in turn is pretty closely tied to the Northern Coast. It's not totally ideal, but I think it's better than Marin with the Northern Coast, and there is no obvious alternative population-wise.

Considering there are other more vital COI's getting busted in your map (Sutter+Yuba, The Yolo bit of Sacramento and Sacramento City) it's probably better to keep CA02 going into Marin. even if the coastline COI is weak, it plus Wine County and the other two mentioned are better than the presented alternative.

West Sacramento is not going to go with Sacramento when you can draw two districts entirely within Sacramento County.

I agree on Sutter-Yuba but that's not an essential split; I did it because I prefer Placer with Davis.

Looking at it from a COI perspective, there isn't that strong a case to keep the various Sacramento County suburbs paired with each other instead of other suburban counties.

This would be the case if you could clearly draw three Sacramento-area districts, but because of the way Sutter County splits Yolo from Placer, this isn't really possible without extra county splits that would be frowned on. Even then I think Yolo-Placer + 2 Sacramento County districts would be the proper alignment. Your map is huge mess. Elk Grove out to South Lake Tahoe is not a COI, nor is Antioch-Galt. I'm sympathetic to putting northeastern Sacramento County with Placer, too, but it doesn't work with the rest of the map.

[Tintrlvr]

My preference on that alignment is to draw one district that is Marin and enough of Sonoma to reach a full district, then another district that is the Coast region, the rest of Sonoma, all of Napa and maybe extending to inland Solano (I don't recall exactly what is needed to reach full population). I think that respects communities of interest better than the current map, keeping one district that is wealthy SF suburbs and one district that is clearly rural/remote areas. That is, you start with drawing the Marin-Sonoma district and then you draw the Coast district around it.

I also think Siskiyou could plausibly be put into the Coast district without issue. It's mountainous and not agricultural at all (more of a logging/fishing/hunting/tourism-type area, like the Northern Coast), thus very different from Redding and points south and fits as well into the Northern Coast COI as it does into the Northern Central Valley COI.

Doesn't that kind of cut weirdly across the terrain though? IIRC it does need a good bit of population, even if you have fairly generous allocations up north. (i.e. Trinity and Del Norte in the district)

See the map I just posted in my edit: It actually works out perfectly with Fairfield/Vacaville to leave Vallejo and the other Bay-adjacent parts of Solano available for an East Bay-based district.

Not totally ideal but Fairfield-Vacaville are pretty closely tied to Napa, which in turn is pretty closely tied to the Northern Coast. It's not totally ideal, but I think it's better than Marin with the Northern Coast, and there is no obvious alternative population-wise.

Considering there are other more vital COI's getting busted in your map (Sutter+Yuba, The Yolo bit of Sacramento and Sacramento City) it's probably better to keep CA02 going into Marin. even if the coastline COI is weak, it plus Wine County and the other two mentioned are better than the presented alternative.

West Sacramento is not going to go with Sacramento when you can draw two districts entirely within Sacramento County.

I agree on Sutter-Yuba but that's not an essential split; I did it because I prefer Placer with Davis.

Looking at it from a COI perspective, there isn't that strong a case to keep the various Sacramento County suburbs paired with each other instead of other suburban counties.

This would be the case if you could clearly draw three Sacramento-area districts, but because of the way Sutter County splits Yolo from Placer, this isn't really possible without extra county splits that would be frowned on. Even then I think Yolo-Placer + 2 Sacramento County districts would be the proper alignment. Your map is huge mess. Elk Grove out to South Lake Tahoe is not a COI, nor is Antioch-Galt. I'm sympathetic to putting northeastern Sacramento County with Placer, too, but it doesn't work with the rest of the map.

I disagree. South Lake Tahoe's strongest link to the rest of the world is the US-50 corridor, so an Elk Grove+Folsom+South Lake Tahoe district makes a lot of sense. Similarly, Nevada+Placer+that bit of NE Sacramento County makes one district. That leaves the North Coast-Wine Country-Davis/Vacaville District and the 10 county far northern California district. Sure, there's nothing tying Galt to Antioch, but it's as tied to Lodi and Stockton as it is to Elk Grove and Sacramento so it's necessary for population adjustment.

To Folsom makes sense, but not to Elk Grove. South Lake Tahoe more properly belongs with the rest of Lake Tahoe and/or other mountain areas. Combining with Placer and NE Sacramento County is not crazy as a result (though I think this doesn't work for population with the rest of the areas north of Sacramento/Davis), but diving that far into Sacramento County is not reasonable.

[Tintrlvr]

I like this grouping, so I tried it out - and I ended up what a red district that was 69K underpopulated. I assume Glenn belongs with it, since that makes things work out for the other districts. However, that 69K is still a problem. So in essence, this map commits to a imperfect Solano cut (the perfect one would be a cut along borders between Vallejo, Benicia and the northeast of the county, but this overpopulates the north), yes?

Exactly. I intentionally left red underpopulated because at this point you have two choices: carve up Vallejo, Fairfield, or Vacaville; or take most of Sutter County (splitting Yuba City), and pushing blue and green south into Sacramento. They're both worth experimenting with and each have their drawbacks, but ultimately I think this has to be the starting point, given Marin/Sonoma, the Emerald Coast, Tahoe/Sac Exurbs, and the Northern Sacramento Valley are such obvious COIs.

One possibility here is moving American Canyon into the Vallejo district. American Canyon is a lot more connected to Vallejo than to Napa anyway. Then move Colusa into the Redding district. Together, that leaves enough room to get all of Vacaville into the Davis-Coast district. That's not perfect (Fairfield still ends up in a Bay-based district), but it's much better than splitting Vacaville or Yuba City.

(I also eliminated the split of Trinity County.)

[Tintrlvr]

I made my Modesto district with very few municipal splits and shored up the Democratic vote in CA-18 to make it more likely to perform. I wonder who's going call my map a gerrymander (as if I didn't already know)?

CA-17: Trump +0.6 (basically even)
CA-18: Clinton +20; 52.3% Hispanic CVAP
CA-19: Clinton +4; 44.9% plurality Hispanic CVAP
CA-20; Clinton +13; 54.9% Hispanic CVAP
CA-22
CA-40

I don't think there's a permanent road connection between San Benito County and the San Joaquin Valley.

Also, why the double county cut between CA-17 and CA-18?

[Tintrlvr]

-The North Coast-Sacramento Valley district is totally unacceptable.
-Inyo-Mono-Tahoe-Gold Country is not acceptable. Look at mountains and road connectivity, not just compactness.

I will keep this in mind for next time, thank you!

I'm just going to put in a counter-statement that your Inyo-Mono-mountains district is totally fine. There are roads there; not great roads, but there are no great roads in and out of Inyo and Mono. And Inyo and Mono don't really connect well with anywhere else in CA. Blairite and others will push for the San Bernardino alignment, and that isn't unacceptable either, but there's nothing more in common there, and the area between populated areas in Inyo and San Bernardino Counties is even wider than with points west of Mono (and you have to pass through Kern). Connecting through Yosemite is fine, and a mountains-straddling district is acceptable if everything in it is basically rural and remote mountains and foothills.

This is in contrast to the North Coast-Redding pairing, which is tougher because Redding and the North Coast are so culturally different, and also consist more of sizeable settlements and less of tiny rural towns.

[Tintrlvr]

-The North Coast-Sacramento Valley district is totally unacceptable.
-Inyo-Mono-Tahoe-Gold Country is not acceptable. Look at mountains and road connectivity, not just compactness.

I will keep this in mind for next time, thank you!

I'm just going to put in a counter-statement that your Inyo-Mono-mountains district is totally fine. There are roads there; not great roads, but there are no great roads in and out of Inyo and Mono. And Inyo and Mono don't really connect well with anywhere else in CA. Blairite and others will push for the San Bernardino alignment, and that isn't unacceptable either, but there's nothing more in common there, and the area between populated areas in Inyo and San Bernardino Counties is even wider than with points west of Mono (and you have to pass through Kern). Connecting through Yosemite is fine, and a mountains-straddling district is acceptable if everything in it is basically rural and remote mountains and foothills.

This is in contrast to the North Coast-Redding pairing, which is tougher because Redding and the North Coast are so culturally different, and also consist more of sizeable settlements and less of tiny rural towns.

"There are roads there" is true in a literal sense, I suppose, but there are no crossings of the Sierra Nevada that are open in winter between the Carson Pass in Alpine County and the Walker Pass in Kern County. Note that this means that connecting through Yosemite is not fine; the Tioga Pass, which connects the main portion of the park to the eastern entrance, is not open during the winter. Maybe you can make that connection in a sled, but you can't in a car.

By contrast, US 395, the main road through Inyo and Mono, is well-traveled all year and connects to points southward without having to go over mountains. This is why, for example, AAA assigns those two counties to its Southern California branch rather than its Northern California branch, despite their being geographically northern. This is also why Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in Mono County serves a clientele almost exclusively from Southern California, where it does almost all of its marketing; if you're coming from Northern California in the winter, you can't get there unless you fly. Mammoth Lakes has a Vons (Southern California) rather than a Safeway (Northern California). All the connections in the part of California east of the Sierra Nevada are to the south, and it's lazy to assert that the mere presence of roads that are sometimes open makes it acceptable to cross the mountains.

But the map he drew covers the Carson Pass, so you are making no argument whatsoever. There is as much of a connection at the northern end as at the southern end. It's true that you shouldn't directly connect Mammoth Lakes to Fresno without some other counties in the district (for example, for the State Assembly). But no one is proposing that. Instead, the choice is whether to connect the Inyo-Mono complex across the northern crossing or the southern crossing. And both are equally valid, and nothing you've said indicates otherwise.

The hyperbole on where to put Inyo and Mono is completely unwarranted. They don't fit well geographically or culturally with anywhere that isn't Nevada, so you just have to choose a road connection and put them somewhere.

[Tintrlvr]

"There are roads there" is true in a literal sense, I suppose, but there are no crossings of the Sierra Nevada that are open in winter between the Carson Pass in Alpine County and the Walker Pass in Kern County. Note that this means that connecting through Yosemite is not fine; the Tioga Pass, which connects the main portion of the park to the eastern entrance, is not open during the winter. Maybe you can make that connection in a sled, but you can't in a car.

By contrast, US 395, the main road through Inyo and Mono, is well-traveled all year and connects to points southward without having to go over mountains. This is why, for example, AAA assigns those two counties to its Southern California branch rather than its Northern California branch, despite their being geographically northern. This is also why Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in Mono County serves a clientele almost exclusively from Southern California, where it does almost all of its marketing; if you're coming from Northern California in the winter, you can't get there unless you fly. Mammoth Lakes has a Vons (Southern California) rather than a Safeway (Northern California). All the connections in the part of California east of the Sierra Nevada are to the south, and it's lazy to assert that the mere presence of roads that are sometimes open makes it acceptable to cross the mountains.

But the map he drew covers the Carson Pass, so you are making no argument whatsoever. There is as much of a connection at the northern end as at the southern end. It's true that you shouldn't directly connect Mammoth Lakes to Fresno without some other counties in the district (for example, for the State Assembly). But no one is proposing that. Instead, the choice is whether to connect the Inyo-Mono complex across the northern crossing or the southern crossing. And both are equally valid, and nothing you've said indicates otherwise.

The hyperbole on where to put Inyo and Mono is completely unwarranted. They don't fit well geographically or culturally with anywhere that isn't Nevada, so you just have to choose a road connection and put them somewhere.

No, it actually doesn't mean that those two options are equally valid. Highway 88, which crosses the Carson Pass, is a winding mountain road with minimal human settlement around it aside from one ski resort. That lack of human settlement might have to do with its crossing an 8500-foot pass, which is not something that people tend to do on a regular basis. By contrast, Highway 395 is the main thoroughfare for the movement of goods and people east of the Sierras, as you would notice from the volume of truck traffic if you were to travel that route. The idea that those two connections are the same is obviously silly.

Now, you could claim that road connectivity doesn't matter at all in California. Some evidence here would be that the state senate district that contains Mono and Inyo does not contain any part of either Alpine or Kern, meaning that there are no road connections at all between that part of the district and the Central Valley portion. That's an argument that I wouldn't be able to refute, because it's self-evidently correct, but it's not the argument you're making.

Well, you refute your own point again because the map goes up to US-50, which is just as much of a major highway as US-395. Also, US-395 doesn't connect to San Bernardino directly, and most maps that connect Inyo to San Bernardino don't cut into Kern, so if you're making a road connectivity argument (note that you started that argument by talking about mountain passes, not me), there is more connectivity across Alpine to El Dorado than Inyo to San Bernardino. Finally, I'm not sure how you can argue with a straight face that the open desert in places like, I don't know, right here or around here, are more covered by "human settlement" than mountain crossings.

A great vista of human settlement, for reference.

[Tintrlvr]

California could singlehandedly solve the Republican reign of terror by gerrymandering. 

Is that what we're expecting or does CA have some type of independent commission as well?

It has a commission.  The commissioners were chosen on the basis of bios/essays they submitted, which are now public.  In addition to all of the D's, enough of the I and R commissioners to pass a map under the CA rules wrote explicitly woke personal statements.  While there are limits on what they can draw, expect a very Dem leaning map.

Not to mention the registered Republican NRDC, NARAL and Planned Parenthood donor living in BERKELEY. Who happened to write about how important California's diversity is.

That doesn't necessarily bode well for Democrats; this resume screams that this person is the type of feel-good Warren Democrat who would actually try to draw a fair/proportionality-inclined map. Not a positive in CA.

Yeah. People assume that this map will be a Democratic gerrymander, but that's the sort of thing that politicians do, not good government activists.

It won't be a partisan map, but there will be a lot of "in order to maximize minority representation" decisions that ultimately favor the Democrats.

[Tintrlvr]

So... here's the two republican map



The North is exaxtly the same as my previous post. This is really closer to a 49-2-1, but hey that's better.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ac39ba52-77a8-4c90-b5b6-0a93267ea798

If I gave it another pass I could probably make it neater/safer

I'd probably be inclined to concede a third R seat in the Orange/Riverside area in order to ensure that all of the other seats in the area are safe, especially from accidental R-R runoffs, as you're relying on Hispanic Democrats to turn out in the primary and not splinter in a bunch of those seats; I think this map still risks three or four Rs being elected in that zone.  But maybe that's too conservative and you'd just end up with a Chicago suburbs situation by 2030 anyway.

Otherwise this is very impressively done.

[Tintrlvr]

Ami Bera in trouble?

https://twitter.com/spamalaanderzon/status/1448420877486333953

Calling Folsom "conservative" is misleading; it was Biden+7. Sure it's historically Republican but that's neither here nor there. Roseville and Rocklin are also fast trending D, with Roseville only Trump+1 and Rocklin Trump+5. This is a very trends-are-real type of district that would have been unwinnable for the Democrats 10 years ago and will be unwinnable for the Republicans 10 years from now; Bera just has to hold on for a cycle.

[Tintrlvr]

Starting to think the commission were actually geniuses. There's so much potential in this map.

Reworked the norcal bits a little to take advantage of the northern inland district careening left in the proposal, and with a little elbow grease LaMalfa goes from Trump+15 in the current map to Trump+6 in the "visualization" and Biden+7.5 in this map.


All of this, without even touching the core population centers of SF and LA! Literally just left those alone and reworked the SB-Riverside-OC borders and the Sac/Fresno/Modesto suburbs, and got this beautiful map out of it.

I mean I know you are gerrymandering here, but everyone should bear in mind that the initial 2010 visualizations were the best map ever made that cycle for the GOP, the various drafts and impact of minority concerns led to the maps getting better and better for the Dems.

Oh, I have no doubt that the commission will pay special attention to the various minority concerns and COIs in a way that leads up to a beautiful and FAIR map! My mind is just blown by the sheer potential inherent within this first map.

If you do it this way, surely better to put Sutter County into a Republican seat and liberate Truckee and South Lake Tahoe?

Edit: On this map, both CA-1 and CA-2 are Biden+17. CA-4 is Trump+16 and would, once the rest of the map is drawn, be the only winnable district in NorCal for the Republicans.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/f35c60eb-6e6c-4374-b315-8bad626677d2

Edit2: If you click through, I swapped Lake County for the rest of Santa Rosa in CA-1 so it is now Biden+22.

[Tintrlvr]

This is interesting. They kept LGBT communities united in districts wherever possible.

https://www.eqca.org/big-wins-lgbtq-redistricting/

If LGBT qualifies as a COI, you can create a COI for literally any reason, thereby negating the practical power of the term.

If LGBT people don't fit your definition of a COI, I'd love to hear what does.

I'm saying if it fits as a community of interest geographically, what does not? I could create a rugby player COI in NorCal to maximize the number of rugby players inside one district and therefore maximize their influence. I can make a legitimate claim to it's a real COI because rugby players in my 14 years in the sport in this country are a cult of the brethren, and in NorCal would have high crossover with the Pacific Islander minority. Now I think everyone would think such a claim would be absurd and ridiculous because rugby players don't have a geographic base, but neither does the LGBT community. COI's in my opinion should be limited to political subdivisions - counties, cities, towns, wards - because those cannot be defined as partisan. If the LGBT community happens to be in higher numbers in a handful of wards that make up a district, so be it. But to not maximize the LGBT community in a few districts is no worse than not maximizing the Libertarian or Green Party vote in a few districts.

As with all things redistricting, people need to understand ulterior motives. So what's the ulterior motive for having a LGBT COI since it does not only affect the district with that COI but every other district that surrounds it?

I guess you're not going to be convinced if you think it's reasonable to compare LGBT identity to status as a rugby player or for that matter to membership in a political party (whether a fringe party or a major one).

But, for the record, it's basically the same reasons that LGBT identities are (or are sought to be, in some cases) protected under various anti-discrimination laws and regulations and status as a rugby player, or even political views, are not. Being a small minority that could never actually form a majority in or control the vote of a congressional district isn't relevant to the discussion.

For what it's worth, hopefully the Commission does avoid splitting up Pacific Islander communities where possible, even though they are an even smaller and maybe more dispersed minority in California that likewise could never control a district. That said, I doubt there is much in the way of concentration outside of perhaps a couple of precincts adjacent to one another here or there that are somewhat above average; certainly much less so than LGBT-heavy areas in San Francisco, West Hollywood and surrounds, etc.