District 5 election forum topics: Dangerous streets, police funding, Zeneca site

What will you do to address speeding on Carlson? What’s your stance on public safety? And what about the proposed housing development at the toxic Zeneca site? 

Voters gathered to ask candidates running for Richmond City Council District 5 those questions and more Tuesday during a meet-the-candidates night co-hosted by Richmondside, UC Berkeley’s Richmond Confidential, Contra Costa Pulse and El Tímpano. It was the third and final event in a series of council candidate forums in each district. The two previous events were held in district 1 and district 6.

About 50 residents attended Tuesday’s forum at Easter Hill United Methodist Church, while another 25 tuned in on Zoom to hear from the candidates, Ahmad Anderson and Sue Wilson. (Watch a full recording of the town hall on our YouTube channel.)

District 5 is comprised of various neighborhoods along the city’s southern portion including Marina Bay, the Richmond Annex, Eastshore, Cortez/Stege, the Panhandle Annex, Parkview, Laurel Park and Southwest Annex.

Earlier this summer, the incumbent District 5 council member and former mayor Gayle McLaughlin announced that she would not be seeking reelection, while endorsing fellow Richmond Progressive Alliance member Wilson for her seat.

Wilson, who was born and raised in Detroit, moved to the Bay Area in the late ‘90s while working on her doctorate at UC Berkeley and bought a home in the late 2000s in the Richmond Annex neighborhood. She joined the RPA in the early 2010s and has worked on various campaigns related to labor unions, affordable rent and environment protections.

Anderson, a lifelong Richmond resident whose parents both served terms as mayor, is making his third run for office and second to win a seat on the council. He ran for District 5 in 2020 but lost to McLaughlin, and ran for a spot on the BART board.

Each candidate was given two minutes to introduce themselves before moderator Kari Hulac, Richmondside’s editor-in-chief, presented questions submitted by Richmond residents and compiled by journalists from each co-hosting publication.

During his introduction, Anderson spoke about his ties to local Richmond organizations and his experience working on the city’s Economic Development Commission.

“Living here all my life is one thing, but I’ve proven and demonstrated my leadership by being involved not just in District 5, but throughout the city,” he said.

Wilson pointed to her endorsements, most notably including all of the current RPA-endorsed council members, Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia, and unions and local nonprofits dedicated to affordable housing and the environment.

“They trust me… on the issues that matter to Richmond most,” she said.

Different views on public safety and budget priorities

In the weeks leading up to the town hall, Richmondside interviewed D5 residents who said that safer streets and crime were two of their main issues, so several of the questions asked centered on those themes.

When asked if she would pledge support for police, Wilson answered that her view on reducing crime is “holistic” and that police, though part of the solution, aren’t the only answer.

“What I pledge is that I’m going to put my attention and city resources into pursuing more and varied plans to reduce crime and increase public safety. Just to reassure people, the police are part of that. Right now, the city’s police take between 35 to 40% of our budget every year, and it’s expensive,” she said. “We need to supplement their activities with other sorts of city workers who are focused on making the city a safer place for everyone.”

She pushed back on the notion that the Richmond police were defunded in 2021, adding that the $3 million reallocated from unfilled police department positions to fund the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations was miniscule compared to the entire police budget.

“A $3 million cut on a $65 million budget is not defunding,” she added. “It’s prudent financial budget balancing –  activities that happen to every department and city every year, police shouldn’t be an exception to that oversight.”

Wilson said the city’s recent $550 million settlement with Chevron can begin to address some of the lacking services that residents have historically experienced — whether code enforcement, illegal dumping or increasing the number of street cameras to monitor and aid in sideshow investigations.

“The city in the past has been pretty tragically underfunded in these departments, (so) that we don’t have enough people going out to enforce and investigate and make sure that these problems are taken care of,” she said. “Part of that tax money needs to go to improving city services, including code enforcement.” (During the forum Wilson on several occasions referred to the Chevron settlement money as a “tax,” which it is not.)

Responding to a question about sideshows, Anderson said the reduced number of police officers is one reason why they’ve increased in recent years after the pandemic. 

According to Richmond Police Department dispatch report data analyzed by Richmondside, sideshow incidents within the city have dropped nearly 50% in recent years — from 129 in 2022 to 65 in 2023.

He pointed to a July 2023 council meeting where he said a discussion on sideshow enforcement was tabled.

“What we did that July was the mayor abstained from voting and stated that there are probably more senior citizens that drive faster on the street than the sideshows,” he said. While technology could help police track sideshow participants, he added, the police don’t currently have the bandwidth for follow-ups or investigations.

Anderson emphasized economic development throughout the evening and said public safety is intertwined with issues such as blight and homelessness.

“You need to show folks that you’re willing to support the small businesses, that you’re willing to help folks move from the unhoused areas to jobs, and be able to show that police are available who will mind your streets and be able to look after them,” he said.

Anderson commended the $550 million Chevron settlement but said it’s not a sustainable way for the city to address its budget problems.

“Economic development is the engine to providing tax revenue and staffing,” he said. “That staffing cannot just hope and wish that what we now receive from Chevron will be the end all. There needs to be implementation, administration and clarity as to where that money will go.”

Carlson Boulevard ‘death trap’ a major concern

One Zoom viewer asked the candidates how they would handle traffic safety issues on Carlson Boulevard, which includes several of 18 dangerous intersections identified by the city as being a high priority.

At a June 4 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved creating a new two-person Traffic Calming division of the Department of Public Works to help address pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns around the city.

But both candidates agreed that more needs to be done in District 5 — especially on Carlson.

“I don’t think that the orange flags are working. They haven’t been working,” Anderson said about the flags installed by residents to help pedestrians make themselves more visible to drivers. “We tried to collaborate with the city of El Cerrito to cut back on the trees there in that area, because you can’t see, and so you’re actually edging out onto the streets there.”

Anderson, however, critiqued the city’s slow approach to the issue, saying that residents have been raising it for a number of years.

“This has been a discussion in 2020 and still nothing is done,” he said, adding that reports of accidents in the area are frequent. “There needs to probably be another light between Central (Avenue) and right at the freeway there up to the offramp. There needs to be a slowdown.”

Wilson said that as a resident of Richmond Annex not far from Carlson, she has heard of three car-related deaths in the last year.

“It’s a death trap,” she said, adding that it is the top issue residents have voiced to her. “We need to do better.”

Engineering options that the city could possibly look at for Carlson, she said, include making it a one-lane road and installing a bike lane.

“San Pablo is not terrifying” by comparison, she said. “Carlson, just the design of it, it’s a highway.”

Anderson asked about stance on toxic Zeneca site

A mildly contentious portion of the event happened after Richmond resident Joe Puleo asked Anderson why he supported a developer’s 2020 plan to build housing on the Zeneca site.

The area, which contains vast quantities of contaminated soil, laced with arsenic, uranium, mercury, DDT and many other chemicals, is a result of more than a century of manufacturing, first by Stauffer Chemical and later Zeneca (today AstraZeneca), the pharmaceutical giant. 

“Why did you support putting 10,000 people on a toxic waste site?” Puleo asked.

“As an economic development commissioner, I did not support that,” Anderson replied. “In fact, I used to play on that site when they actually did the testing of agricultural products. I’m asthmatic today. I lived in that community where most of the folks I know grew up. I would not support that. I’ve never supported building on that site, in that area, on toxic waste.”

During her reply, Wilson referenced two public comments made by Anderson in 2020 voicing his support for the development plan, which had a $22 million community benefits agreement attached that would provide the city and many nonprofits with funds.

“On the other hand, I have consistently since 2020 opposed the plan to cap and build on the AstraZeneca site,” she said. “As a city council, we need to revisit that plan and really push for a full cleanup of that site. We also have to ask serious questions about, even once it’s clean, whether we should be building thousands of units of new housing that close to the water, given sea level rise.”

Anderson then clarified that while he did voice support for the development with the community benefits plan included, it was under the condition that the site would be fully cleaned.

“I spoke at length about it in 2020, absolutely,” Anderson said. “But today, I would not (support it). I want to be very clear, that was part of the statement, but not the entire statement.”