As Richmond prepares to choose a new mayor Nov. 3, voters got their first look at how the two run-off candidates, Ahmad Anderson and Claudia Jimenez, performed one-on-one in the first mayoral debate of the election season.
Organized by the League of Women Voters of West Contra Costa County, the debate included a 10-person panel of representatives from local political and business organizations asking two questions a piece followed by five questions from the audience. Each candidate had an opportunity for a rebuttal.
The candidates sat on the dais in the chambers where the council meets three times a month. Some attendees dressed accordingly to show support for their preferred candidate, sporting T-shirts and swag like NFL fans at a Sunday morning tailgate.
The two, facing off in public for the first time since they qualified for the November run-off in Richmond’s first primary election, didn’t change course much on the platforms they presented earlier this year. And both delivered jabs in a sometimes pointed debate that delved into differing perspectives on political and professional accomplishments.
Anderson questioned the successes that Jimenez has touted about her six-year city council tenure while Jimenez criticized Anderson for seemingly changing course over time on some hot-button issues.
Police staffing, crime-fighting alternatives and the Flock question
Both candidates were asked how they would address Richmond police’s staff shortages and response times amid multiple reports calling for the city to hire more officers.
Also, the Richmond Police Officers Association (RPOA) has recently begun organizing a ballot measure that would establish minimum police officer staffing requirements, though no such measure qualified in time for the November election.
Jimenez commended Richmond police Chief Timothy Simmons, saying that he’s hired 24 officers but said that policing alternatives that fit in the city’s “holistic” approach to public safety, such as ROCK, should be relied upon to respond to non-violent, non-medical calls.
“This is so that the police actually have time to go and deliver when it comes to safety and violence,” she said. “What they are intended to do in our city.”
She also added that she believes the policing alternatives established in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder have been successful, pointing to last year’s historically low homicide rate.
“I’m not saying this is enough, we have more to do,” she said. “But also for me, if we put all the money in one department that means youth programs may not be funded and I believe many, many things make this city safer.”
Anderson, who is endorsed by the RPOA, said that the recent hirings are good but that setting a minimum staffing level would allow residents to “see and feel” protected and better ensure that victims of crimes receive justice.
“The impact (of crime) has not been felt around the city, per se, but has been felt in the areas that are harmed the most, the Black and Brown communities,” Anderson said.
Anderson agreed with Jimenez that there need to be alternatives to traditional public safety that delve into mental health resources and youth programs.
“It’s not just about the police staffing, it is about mental health. It is about youth programs as well,” Anderson said. “It’s about stepping up and stepping in and making a difference in the community. Not just about police staffing but community policing. Graffiti, garbage, blight and making sure folks are seen in the community.”
Later, the two were asked by an audience member about their positions on Flock automated license plate readers and the city’s impending plan to switch from Flock to a new provider, Axon.
Anderson, who stood with Flock proponents this spring when the city was weighing whether to restore the cameras after they were temporarily paused due to data-sharing vulnerabilities, has since changed his tone about the company.
“I’m looking at Flock in a way that it needs to be reviewed. And any camera technology as well,” Anderson said. “It needs not impact the civil liberties of the community.”
He went on to say that if the police had minimum staffing that he would deem the cameras unnecessary.
“If I found we had minimum staffing in public safety then we would move forward without Flock in this community,” Anderson said, adding that Jimenez was on the council when the contract with the surveillance company was originally unanimously approved in 2023.
Jimenez pointed out Anderson’s appearance supporting Flock and added that she believed Flock deceived the city council when that initial contract was presented by saying the data would be secure.
“He was at the press conference advocating for Flock, when we and I voted ‘no’ for Flock because I believe that was a company that lied to us,” Jimenez said, adding that she is co-sponsoring an item at Tuesday’s council meeting requesting data on the efficacy of Flock in solving crimes. “With that data, then we have more information for our decision not just because it is election time.”
Anderson understands why Flock has become an issue this election season but said that the council should have asked more questions about the surveillance company prior to approving it in 2023.
“Flock didn’t change. The perspective of the city council changed,” Anderson said. “No pilot was done. The questions weren’t asked ‘til after the fact. I agree. But leadership is about recognizing when you make mistakes and going back…this is what I know now.”
Balancing economic development, community health and the $550 million Chevron settlement
Across the courtyard at the Memorial Auditorium, Bay Area Air District officials discussed a health assessment an hour before the debate, explaining how they determined that Richmond residents living closest to the Chevron refinery over a long time period face a cancer risk of “37 in a million,” or 3.5 times the level that requires the refinery to take corrective action under air district rules.
That topic was addressed during the debate as both candidates were asked by the West Contra Costa Unified School District All Student Congress panelist and student Ashton Desmangles how they would attract investment and high paying jobs to the city while also protecting residents from environmental and health impacts associated with industrial development.
Anderson said that he has thought about this balance recently as data centers have also become a talked-about issue among community residents. Last Tuesday, the city became the second Bay Area city to pass a temporary moratorium on data centers.
He also said that the goal shouldn’t be to run Chevron out of town but to work with them to bring benefits to the community.
“I think that Chevron needs to be held accountable, not chase them away,” Anderson said. “Make sure that they do the things that not only provide community benefits to the city but take care of those asthmatics that they (the city council) talked about that they were going after Chevron for in the first place.”
Both candidates have said they have had personal experiences with the health impacts of living in a refinery town. Anderson said his mother and father, former Richmond mayors Booker T. Anderson and Irma Anderson, had cancer and that he has asthma. Jimenez is a cancer survivor who moved to the city in 2009.
Jimenez reiterated her position that the city reduce its reliance on Chevron and become a “green economy.” Currently, the oil corporation is the city’s largest employer whose taxes make up nearly a quarter of the city’s general fund.
“This is why we need to look at the port, to look at all the assets we have to really invest to create the conditions for an economy that is bringing electrification, bringing clean jobs,” Jimenez said.
She also said that the city has the opportunity to invest in cleaner industries with the $550 million Chevron settlement, which it receives in $50 million annual payments.
“We have the potential in these 10 years to have a community process that allows us to invest in the healthy economy we need because our planet and our community are telling us that this is the way that we need to go,” she said.
So far the city has received $100 million that hasn’t been officially earmarked for any particular expenditure aside from a $3 million Kids First Initiative.
In fact, the long-promised settlement community engagement process hasn’t begun yet while city staff warned the council last week that a large portion of the settlement money might have to be spent on general operating costs.
Anderson challenged Jimenez’s claims that she won the city the settlement, questioning why it has taken so long to decide how the city should spend the money, and said that the city should have already started the just transition process before accepting the settlement since refinery impacts on communities isn’t “new news.”
“What have we actually done here in the city of Richmond other than money? We keep talking about $550 million. So what? Now what?” Anderson said. “What is the plan? Other than listening to BAAQMD (now Bay Area Air District) tell us what we need to do. What has the city of Richmond done to bring economic development to move away from Chevron?”
Jimenez retorted that the Chevron settlement is important because it is making polluters pay for things that the community wants to see. She also said she believes she is the best candidate to make sure Chevron’s five-year cancer risk remediation plan addresses residents concerns.
Your reporter failed to mention that in Amhad’s closing statement he falsely claimed Cesar Zapeda was responsible for the Chevron settlement.