Editorial:

The City of San Diego is going through the redistricting process – which it does after every census. This year, per voter mandate, a 9th district will be added. The political buzz that is getting a lot of attention is that the new 9th district should be a second “Latino” district.

   What, we don’t get it? We already have a second Latino district: it is called District 4. Others refer to it as the Black district because in recent years, black leaders have been elected.

   According to the 2010 census, the Hispanic population in District 4 is 70,573 (46.15%), the Asian population is 32,427 (21.20%), the Black population is 28,875 (18.8%), and the White-only population is 14,534 (9.50%). These numbers clearly show that for all intents and purposes this is a Hispanic district which conforms to the voting rights act.

   The problem is that the Hispanic community and/or its leaders have been unable to effectively register Hispanic voters and to get them out to vote. If they did, we could have had an elected Hispanic in District 4. In our opinion, the redistricting dilemma is not about creating a second Latino district, but about creating more favorable Gay/Lesbian and Black districts.

   The proposed 9th District links eastern neighborhoods of District 3, northern neighborhoods of District 8, and southeastern neighborhoods of District 4, including, but not limited to Talmadge, Kensington, City Heights, Golden Hill, Fairmont Park, Ridgeview, Mount Hope, Mountain View, and others. The Hispanic population would be about 57% in the new district. The proposed District 9 would be long, shaped like Italy, with lines that zig-zag around neighborhoods. If we can’t organize and register voters in a confined and distinct district like District 4, how will a long and convoluted District 9 lend itself to community organizing and voter registration?

   The Latino proposal presented to the redistricting committee notes that geography of the district is unrelated but shares the following characteristics: “very high numbers of young people, high rates of poverty, low rates of educational attainment (inadequate educational services), high numbers of immigrants, diverse populations of immigrants, high rates of a non-English language spoken at home, high rates of foreclosure among rental housing.” They failed to mention gang problems, drug problems, graffiti, prostitution, etc. The report glosses over the worst problems in the city! Not exactly a formula for an empowered Hispanic community.

   This is District 8 all over again, with no real power to create change. This is why we have seen every elected representative from District 8 serve less than one term, running for a different office soon after being sworn in as council-member. We have our fingers crossed that Councilman David Alvarez sticks to his campaign promise to his community to serve two terms.

   While we applaud the Hispanics for stepping up and working on the issue of redistricting, this plan is not about creating a second Latino district but about creating a more defined district for the Black community by divesting itself of the heavily populated Hispanic neighborhoods. And this plan is about creating a friendly Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (LBGT) district – District 3.

   If the Hispanic community wants empowerment then we should be fighting for the old District 8 boundaries which at one time included parts of downtown San Diego. Representing a part of centre city San Diego would then empower the district representatives with money, influence, and opportunity for change. As it stands now councilmember Alvarez has none of this.

   If we are going to fight for something, we should be fighting for a piece of the pie that represents real power, not another district that manifests the worst problems of the city.