than urbane, affluent Potrero Hill and gritty, ghetto Bayview. It makes little sense to have them together. Potrero Hill logically and demographically fits better with SOMA or the hipper parts of the NE Mission.

Bayview is a "further out burb" and probably sits well with Portola.

If we have to have district elections at all, then let's at least make the districts homogenuous.

Have you ever been to the Bayview. I have spent almost 20 years as a Visiting Nurse all over this city, much of it in BVHP. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

TR's statement about the "dawn of district elections in the 70s" is misleading. In the early 80s I lived on Potrero Hill and electoral districts had been dropped...it was "at large" again. Whatever the labels, PH was a truly "open-minded" creature of the Herb Caen Baghdad by the Bay.

However, there was this sprawling police district called "Potrero" comprising PH, 3rd, waterfront (think Prohibition), Bayview. Because of the high crime Bayview area, Potrero Hill had an unsavory reputation although crime on the hill was very low, even considering the projects on the SE face.

It seems time that Potrero Hill be divorced from Bayview....in ALL ways. Unfortunately, the Interstate system and freeways of the 50s had a tendency to isolate communities in all cities and PH seemed and still seems to be THE most isolated community of all in San Francsco (101 west, 280 east). There's no major retail there (we adapted, I regularly patronized Goat Hill, went to Cala in the Mission for groceries, 24th St for banking, barber; I even liked the Mariposa area where the failing BG is ensconced).

I agree with Guest above though the railroad yards separate PH from SOMA and 101 separates PH from the NE Mission. What, oh what, do we do with the wonderful, old, rural Potrero Hill with the most fabulous views of the City...Twin Peaks, eat your heart out. You can't see us but we can see you.

So, the implication is that the Portola is more conservative than Potrero Hill, even though it, like the Bayview, is more working class?

But as you wrote here, http://www.sfbg.com/2012/01/31/district-lines-community-alternative, D6's population has grown. Doesn't it make the most sense to slice off the northern part and add it to D3?

I don't know why one current Supervisor's opinion should affect the Redistricting for the entire City at all. South of Market needs to be kept together .... not even this slice of Mission Street east of 3rd Street should be pushed up to District 3. The reason is that the SFPD Southern Station, the SFFD station No. (?? - the one on Bluxome near Caltrain), and the transportation setup that endangers pedestrians and creates massive traffic congestion/air pollution are the big city service-related issues that affect SoMa (all of SoMa, regardless of if you live in a $650,000 high-rise condo in Rincon Hill or in an alley in West SoMa). Why would a Supervisor develop a good relationship with another police station or fire station that serves a sliver of his/her District? Why would there be concentration on getting a SW to NE bus line so that folks on the east side of SoMa can reach the grocery stores on the west side of SoMa without getting into their cars if, again, it would only benefit a small slice of their District?

To break up SoMa would be yet another offense to a part of town that provides a great economically and gets harmed the most by City Hall's indifference to its residents'.

The Portola District has been divided into two districts for as long as I remember and is partly the reason it has never had any political clout. D10 reflects the hard working middle blue color ethics of the Portola. D9 invests all its energy in the Mission and Bernal Heights thus leaving the Portola once again without a voice. Supervisor Cohen is right. Its just a natural fit to swap the two districts. Protrero Hill belongs with SOMA. Its a natural fit!