1. How
would you allocate the $550 million Chevron settlement funds?
I would not treat those dollars like a one-time spending spree. I would allocate them with discipline, transparency, and a clear public return. First, I would stabilize Richmond’s core
services—public safety, road repair, parks, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanliness. Second, I would invest in long-term economic development, including small business corridors, workforce development, and infrastructure that creates jobs. Third, I
would dedicate a meaningful share to housing stability, anti-blight work, and neighborhood improvements in communities that have too often been overlooked. Finally, I would create strong public reporting so residents can see where every dollar is going and
what results it is producing. My view is simple: this settlement must strengthen Richmond for the next generation, not just patch holes for the next budget cycle. That approach is consistent with my campaign’s emphasis on responsible city finances, timely
delivery of improvements, clean streets, safe neighborhoods, and opportunity in every part of Richmond.
2. Do you support increasing the number of sworn police officers?
Yes—if it is part of a broader, more accountable public safety strategy. Public safety cannot be
reduced to one number, but Richmond does need enough sworn staffing to respond to violent crime, protect neighborhoods, and rebuild public confidence. At the same time, hiring more officers alone is not a complete solution. I support a comprehensive approach
that includes prevention, intervention, youth opportunity, mental health response, transparency, and accountability across agencies and departments. That is exactly how I have framed public safety throughout this campaign. Richmond residents deserve to feel
safe, and they also deserve to know their city is investing smartly, measuring outcomes, and not relying on a one-dimensional answer to complex problems.
3. Do you support continuing the City’s Community Crisis Response Program or using the Contra Costa County program instead?
I support the model that delivers the
best response, fastest service, strongest accountability, and clearest connection to Richmond residents. My instinct is to preserve and strengthen a local response if it is working, because local control matters and Richmond’s needs are unique. But I
am also practical. If the County program can provide stronger coverage, better coordination, and better outcomes for people in crisis, then that option deserves serious consideration. My standard would be results, not politics. A crisis response program should
reduce unnecessary law enforcement involvement in behavioral health situations, connect people to services, and operate with transparency. Richmond needs a system that is humane, responsive, and measurable. That is consistent with my broader view that public
safety must include mental health and real intervention, not just enforcement.
4. What is your vision for the future of the Port of Richmond Point Potrero Marine Terminal?
My vision is for the Port and Point Potrero Marine Terminal to become a stronger economic engine for Richmond while respecting environmental standards and community impact. We should
be thinking in terms of good-paying jobs, logistics innovation, maritime and trade opportunity, and responsible industrial growth that benefits Richmond residents directly. That means local hire, workforce pipelines, small business participation, and environmental
accountability must all be part of the equation. Richmond has assets many cities would love to have. The question is whether we are going to lead with vision and discipline. I would. My campaign is focused on activating underutilized assets, attracting quality
jobs, and managing city growth in a way that is both accountable and forward-looking.
5. What is your vision for the future of the Riggers Loft?
The Riggers Loft should be part of a broader waterfront strategy that brings people, commerce, culture, and community life together. I want Richmond’s waterfront to be active, welcoming,
and economically productive—not underused or disconnected from the rest of the city. Spaces like Riggers Loft should help showcase Richmond as a place for gathering, small business activity, arts, events, and responsible destination-based economic development.
We should support uses that create energy, attract visitors, and still serve residents. My approach is about unlocking the value of city assets in a way that builds pride and prosperity.
6. Do you support moving the Red Oak Victory out of Historic Shipyard 3?
No—not unless there is a compelling public benefit and a clear preservation plan that is better than keeping it where it is.
The Red Oak Victory is part of Richmond’s story, and historic assets matter. My default position is to preserve and elevate Richmond’s heritage, not displace it casually. If a future proposal were brought forward, it would need to answer three questions: Does
it strengthen preservation? Does it improve public access and educational value? Does it respect Richmond’s identity and history? Without that, I would not support moving it. Richmond’s history is an asset, and it should be treated that way.
7. What is your vision for the future of the Whirley Crane?
The Whirley Crane should be preserved and incorporated into a larger vision for Richmond’s historic shoreline and industrial legacy. I do not see our history as a burden; I see it as
part of our identity and economic potential. Preserving historic structures like the Whirley Crane can support education, tourism, civic pride, and partnership with groups that care deeply about Richmond’s story. I want Richmond to be a city that honors its
past while building its future. That means using history as an anchor for community connection and smart place-based development.
8. What is your vision for the future cooperation between the City of Richmond and Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Historical Park?
I support a much stronger partnership. Richmond should be working hand in hand with Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Historical Park to expand educational programming, increase
tourism, celebrate labor and civil rights history, and elevate Richmond’s national profile. That partnership should not be just symbolic; it should produce real benefits for local students, local businesses, and neighborhood identity. We should be connecting
our history to workforce education, civic pride, and economic opportunity. Richmond has a story the nation cares about. We should act like it.
9. Do you support Flock cameras?
Yes, with guardrails. Technology can be a useful tool in solving crimes and improving public safety,
but it must come with strong privacy protections, public oversight, clear use policies, and transparency around effectiveness. I do not support surveillance without accountability. If Richmond uses tools like Flock cameras, residents deserve to know how they
are being used, how data is handled, what safeguards are in place, and whether the system is actually helping reduce crime. My public safety approach is comprehensive and accountable. That same standard applies here.
10. What is your vision for the future of the Craneway?
The Craneway should be part of a broader strategy for waterfront vitality, cultural activity, and economic opportunity. It is a shame that agreements made by previous City leaders allowed
the Craneway to be taken away from residents, and we have temporarily lost a lively community asset. I would like to see it thrive as a destination that reflects Richmond’s character while creating value for residents—through events, hospitality, local business
opportunity, arts, and community use. The right future for the Craneway is one that balances activation with access, and economic return with community benefit. Richmond should be thinking bigger about its waterfront, and the Craneway is a key part of that
picture.
11. Do you support the appointment of all authorized representatives to the Design Review Board?
Yes, if the appointments are qualified, timely, and aligned with the public interest. Boards and
commissions matter. They shape how development, design, and neighborhood quality are experienced on the ground. I believe authorized representatives should be appointed so city bodies can function as intended, but I also believe appointments should reflect
competence, fairness, and a commitment to Richmond’s long-term quality of life. My approach to governance is to make government work—responsibly, transparently, and without unnecessary dysfunction.
12. How would you deal with sideshows?
Sideshows require a serious, coordinated response because they threaten safety, disrupt neighborhoods, and damage public confidence. I would approach this through enforcement, prevention,
and consequences. That means coordinated action between police, traffic enforcement, regional partners, and city departments; better use of data and hot-spot response; and consequences for organizers and repeat offenders. But it also means giving young people
more structured outlets, more opportunity, and more reason to choose a different path. Richmond residents should not have to accept disorder as normal. Public safety and neighborhood peace matter. My campaign has been clear that residents deserve to feel safe
and respected in every neighborhood.
13. How would you deal with illegal fireworks?
Illegal fireworks are a public safety issue, a fire risk, and a quality-of-life issue. I support a coordinated enforcement strategy before, during, and after the peak season, including
stronger public education, targeted enforcement, better reporting mechanisms, and follow-through on penalties where appropriate. But I also believe the city has to communicate early and clearly so residents understand both the risks and the consequences. This
is another area where Richmond must show that rules are real and neighborhoods matter.
14. How would you deal with vehicle parking blocking sidewalks?
This is a basic accessibility and quality-of-life issue. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, seniors, parents with strollers, and residents with disabilities. Blocking them is unacceptable.
I would support stronger enforcement, clear public communication, and attention to repeat problem areas. Sometimes residents need education, but when behavior continues, enforcement has to follow. A city that works is a city that handles the basics, and protecting
safe sidewalk access is absolutely one of those basics.
15. Are you for more or fewer bicycle lanes?
I am for
smart, connected, and safe bicycle infrastructure—not ideology for or against bike lanes in the abstract. Where bike lanes improve safety, connectivity, and access, I support them. Where a proposal is poorly designed or creates more problems than it
solves, it should be reconsidered. My test is practical: Does it make Richmond safer, more accessible, and better connected for residents? Transportation planning should serve the whole city and reflect real neighborhood needs.
16. Do you support more staffing for code enforcement?
Yes. If Richmond is serious about blight, illegal dumping, nuisance properties, sidewalk obstruction,
and problem businesses, then code enforcement has to be adequately staffed and empowered. Residents lose faith in government when they report problems and nothing happens. I support more staffing tied to performance expectations, responsiveness, and visible
results. My campaign priorities explicitly call for reducing blight, improving streets, and getting city government back to the basics.
17. How would you reduce blight, including dumping on public streets and sidewalks?
I would treat blight reduction as both a neighborhood quality issue and a core city performance issue. That means more consistent street cleaning, stronger illegal dumping enforcement,
better coordination across departments, faster response times, and targeted attention to chronic hot spots. It also means making it easier for residents to report problems and see follow-up. My campaign has been very clear: Richmond deserves clean streets,
less graffiti, better-maintained public spaces, and a city government that executes. Blight is not just cosmetic; it affects safety, dignity, property values, and trust in local government.
18. How would you enforce regulations on smoke shops?
Richmond should enforce its laws consistently and without favoritism. If smoke shops are violating licensing rules, zoning rules, health standards, or youth access protections, there
must be meaningful enforcement. That means inspections, coordination between departments, clear penalties, and follow-through. I believe in fair rules and real accountability. Businesses that operate responsibly should be able to succeed; businesses that ignore
the law should not expect a pass. This is part of restoring confidence that the city government can actually enforce its own standards.
19. Richmond got a $14.5 million grant to convert a former Motel 6 to 48 homeless housing units. That’s over $302,000 per unit for a studio apartment. Do you think that is a good deal
for Richmond?
The right question is not just the per-unit number. The right question is: What problem are we solving, what are we getting for that investment, and what would the alternative cost Richmond
if we do nothing? I support moving people from homelessness into permanent housing, but I also believe every public dollar must be examined carefully. If a project delivers lasting housing, supportive services, neighborhood stabilization, and a better outcome
than continued crisis spending, then it may be justified. But the city should be transparent about costs, timelines, services, and performance. My position is that compassion and accountability must go together. Richmond needs both. My campaign supports helping
unhoused residents transition into permanent housing, while also insisting on responsible budgeting and measurable results.
20. Do you think Richmond is doing enough to encourage new housing development?
No. Richmond needs to do more to encourage the right kind of housing development—housing that is
affordable across income levels, responsive to neighborhood realities, and paired with infrastructure and services. We should be reducing unnecessary barriers, improving predictability in the process, and being clearer about where and how we want growth. At
the same time, development must come with accountability and community benefit. My campaign has called for investment in homes affordable at all income levels and for policies that help working families, seniors, and young people stay in Richmond.
21. Do you support Marina Point and the Quarry Residential Project?
My position is that any major housing proposal should be evaluated through a clear public-interest lens. Does it add meaningful housing supply? Does it include affordability? Does it
fit the surrounding area? Does it address traffic, infrastructure, environment, and quality of life? Does it create community benefit, not just private gain? I support responsible housing growth, and I also believe large projects must earn public trust through
transparency and strong standards. Richmond needs more housing, but we also need development done well.
Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM delivered to your email address?
Click here to sign-up to receive the E-Forum. Tom Butt is the former mayor of Richmond, CA, having served 27+ years until January of 2023, eight of those as elected mayor. Tom Butt is an architect and founder of the 50-year
old Richmond architecture-engineering firm Interactive Resources. He serves on the board of two Richmond nonprofits,
Rosie the Riveter Trust and
East Brother Light Station, Inc. Visit the
Tom
Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt’s activities and a digest of past E-FORUMS going back to 2000,
http://www.tombutt.com. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by selecting “unsubscribe from
this list” at the bottom of this email. This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|