Mark, I agree that combining Tahoe Park and Oak Park in the same district is a logical choice. Sure, there are some demographic differences, but far fewer than compared to Curtis Park. Both Oak Park and Tahoe Park were added to Sacramento in the 1911 annexation, and experienced a housing boom of blue collar, GI Bill bungalows after World War II. Both were hurt when the state fairgrounds moved and Highway 99 directed traffic away from Stockton Boulevard; that's why both support revitalization of Stockton, Broadway, and the fairgrounds area, and it's why both neighborhoods have a keen interest in the growth & development of the Med Center campus. And both communities share concerns related to POP officer funding, local access to fresh food grocery stores, etc. However, two other similarities might constitute a good reason for keeping the two neighborhoods in separate districts. Both neighborhoods are large and politically involved, assets that shouldn't be underutilized. As they say, two heads (or voices on the city council) are better than one. While Oak Park and Tahoe Park may not share the exact same views on *everything*, we have a lot more in common than we have differences, and we can leverage that to ensure that our neighborhoods' needs are addressed at city hall. About your comment about my reference to the "mid-section" of the city, I was trying to refer to the west-to-east "belt" of Sacramento that made up the old 1911 city limits: north to the American River, south to Sutterville Road & 14th Avenue, east to Elvas Avenue & 65th Street, and west to the Sacramento River. That's the Grid, East Sac, Land Park, Curtis Park, Oak Park, Elmhurst, and Tahoe Park.