Question and Answer
It's important that the discussion be framed in two new ways.
First, we should normalize the concept that people who have made poor choices and are at high risk of committing more violence - they don't just deserve an equal chance - they need extra support. Far from needing to be barred from jobs, housing, or education - they need extra support in gaining access to these lifelines.
Second, we must normalize the assumption that these investments in alternatives to violence are money-saving investments that will cost us less than the cycle of punishment and exclusion would cost.
We can use data like the tools referenced above to identify the areas with the highest need, which will be the historically underinvested communities of the city. If we focus new green spaces and increased transit service to the quantifiably underinvested areas it will go to the people who need it most.
Similarly, relief for climate-related financial burdens (such as assistance for weatherizing homes) can be targeted to areas where the data indicate the investments are most needed. And better regulation of utility rates can reduce energy costs that particularly burden the budgets of our lowest income residents.
Supporting priority growth nodes consistent with the Richmond 300 Master Plan will create targeted dense multi-use areas that can provide homes, jobs, and culture without contributing to carbon-dependent sprawl.
Supporting "missing middle" options across a wide area can also create a gentle increase in smaller, lower-cost homes across the city without relying on massive development projects that might disrupt some neighborhoods.
Investing in staff and training to streamline permits; Updating zoning when it doesn't match existing buildings, so that builders can build homes by-right that are consistent with the neighborhood; Legalizing "missing middle" residential that allows for smaller, lower-cost homes instead of the Tear-Downs-to-McMansions cycle we see today.
I do plan to work to find ways to incentivize adherence to architecture & design standards in areas with historic character. I hope that by standardizing these expectations we can get beautiful new buildings that complement our city's charm, without spending years negotiating SUPs.
Much of our CVTA funds go to pay for car-based items like road-paving. We ought to direct more of those funds to GRTC and transit-related projects such as sidewalks bus shelters, bike shares, and benches.
An ordinance worth considering is whether all road work and repaving should be accompanied by the implementation of the city's plans regarding new bus & bike lanes and pedestrian improvements on that stretch. Otherwise, we waste time and money working on a street twice, and waiting too long to get the redesigned streets that public engagement and planning have already approved.
Fare free continues to be a great investment, increasing ridership that earns us more state funding. Let's identify more partners to support fare free GRTC. Let's continue to fund the construction of the North/South Pulse Line, which will create more reliable transit trips from neighborhoods that have been underinvested.
We need to invest in sidewalks and bus shelters and benches and increased transit service where the data shows these things currently don't exist. These investments will create better access to transportation for people who need it most.
Funding resources and interventions for those who are most at-risk to commit violence will reduce incidents of violence in our community. Reducing segregation in housing would also create more exposure to model positive pathways for the next generation.
Working to elect a governor in 2025 who won't veto commonsense gun safety laws will be a priority of mine as well.