You Asked, I'll Answer

Where do you stand on Propositions 39, 4, and 5?

I’ve now reviewed them, and here’s where I stand:

No on Prop 39: I want secure elections, but I don’t support adding ID requirements that could keep eligible voters from casting a ballot.

Yes on Prop 4: This would let state and local governments create public campaign funding programs, with spending limits and other safeguards. I support giving communities that option, so candidates have a way to run without relying so heavily on personal wealth, wealthy donors and PACs.

Yes on Prop 5: I support keeping voters’ right to recall state officials while changing how their replacements are chosen. This would remove the replacement contest from the recall ballot and use succession, appointment, or a separate election, depending on the office and timing.

What does the future of Alta Bates mean for Albany?

I brought this up because it deserves more attention. Everyone in Albany should have reliable hospital care as close to home as possible. Sutter plans to close Alta Bates’ hospital, and the proposed replacement in Emeryville still faces significant hurdles. We cannot take future access for granted.

If elected, I will make this a priority: working with neighboring cities, county officials and healthcare providers, asking for clear commitments to avoid gaps in care, and making sure Albany’s needs are represented.

Being relentlessly focused on Albany doesn’t mean stopping at the city limits. Our residents’ healthcare needs certainly don’t.

What does “look under every rock” actually mean?

This is a really good question, and exactly the kind of conversation I think we should be having.

When I talk about “looking under every rock,” I mean looking at both sides of the equation. If a city is facing a budget gap, there are ultimately two basic choices: find additional revenue or make difficult decisions about spending. Usually, the answer is some combination of the two.

On the revenue side, I want to understand what state, county and regional funding we’ve pursued, what opportunities we may have missed, how we can strengthen our business districts and grow our economic base, and what opportunities the future of Golden Gate Fields might create. Some of this I’ve already proposed, like a one-stop concierge at City Hall so new businesses can open faster and vacant storefronts start producing again, and making sure Albany aggressively competes for every state, county and regional dollar available to us.

But I also want to understand the other side. What efficiencies have been considered? Are our fees appropriately covering the cost of services? Are there services or equipment we could share with neighboring cities? What spending choices or tradeoffs have been discussed? What would we have to do differently if additional taxes weren’t an option?

I know our city staff and Council have done significant work on the budget and may very well have explored many of these questions. What I haven’t seen is a broad public conversation that puts all of it together: here’s the problem, here are the options we considered, here are the difficult choices, and here’s why we ultimately believe additional taxes are necessary.

And that gets to something I hear repeatedly in the many conversations I’ve had with Albany residents: we can do better at communication and accessibility. I’ve spent my career in communications, and that’s an area where I know I can contribute. Throughout this campaign, I’ve tried to model that. If someone emails me, messages me on social media or wants to sit down and talk, I make myself available, and that’s the standard I’d bring to City Hall.

To me, “look under every rock” means doing the work, considering the tough choices, showing the work, and exploring new and creative ways to bring the community into the conversation before asking anyone to pay more.

Where do you stand on the Flock cameras?

Public safety is extremely important. So are privacy, civil liberties, and public trust.

In 2024, the Albany City Council approved the use of Flock automated license plate reader cameras. I believe that was a mistake. I support ending Albany's use of Flock and not renewing its contract.

The warning signs were there before Albany signed up. The ACLU had raised serious concerns about Flock as early as 2022, including the creation of a nationwide surveillance network, the collection and sharing of location data, and the lack of adequate safeguards. Since then, Flock has given communities even more reason for doubt. Reporting over the past year has shown Flock data being searched on behalf of federal immigration agencies, including in ways California law restricts, and cities around the Bay Area and across the country have been canceling their contracts.

New technology can play an important role in public safety. But it needs careful research, real public input, strong safeguards, and transparency before it gets adopted, not after. This is about Flock, and about how the decision was made.

As a councilmember, I will insist on a more thoughtful and open process for decisions involving technology, privacy, and public safety. Albany residents should understand what technology their city is using, why it is being used, what information is being collected, who has access to it, and how that information is protected.