Question 1: Mayor Rocky Anderson has said the city needs to increase its police force by 90 officers by 2010. In order to do that he will need the City Council to allocate the funding needed for these new officers. Adding that many more officers will be wildly expensive for the city and may require tax increases. As a council member will you support adding so many more officers to the force? Would you support tax increases for more police officers?
Answer: The Mayor and the Police Department are not in total agreement as to how many officers are necessary to provide the level of public safety expected by City residents. I have heard that an additional 45 (including this year's additions) may be sufficient and not the 90 that the Mayor is proposing. I fully support the addition of more police officers - specifically patrol officers - to our police force in a number to be discussed strategically with the Police Department. No matter the number, there will be a need to significant expenditures to accomplish this goal and those expenditures should be considered methodically in relation to other City priorities. These officers do not need to be brought on at once - maybe phased in over a number of years. Should we raise taxes to bring on new officers? We were able to reprioritize the Mayor's proposed budget in order to identify funds sufficient to hire new officers without raising taxes this past year. However, I would not be opposed to reviewing other revenue sources, including raising taxes, if it would mean greater public safety in our neighborhoods. Raising taxes would never be my first choice, but I would be willing to consider it as an option.
Question 2: Downtown remains a concern for many residents. Do you feel the city is doing the right things to help revitalize downtown? What would you do as a council member to help downtown?
Answer: We have worked very hard to implement the City's Downtown Master Plan and, I believe, with the collaborative effort of the Council and the RDA, have made significant gains. Key to downtown revitalization is the expansion of downtown housing - with both market rate and affordable units. If we desire to have a robust downtown, we need to have a more consistent downtown population. This can be accomplished through greater numbers of both rental and ownership opportunities. The RDA is a great facilitator of such development and Council members, acting as Board members of the RDA, can accelerate and support such efforts.
The LDS Church (through its PRI subsidiary) and Taubman are making an incredible investment and commitment to the long term viability of Salt Lake City's downtown. The City Council needs to be an active and supportive partner in assuring that this development meets the expectations that both the City and the developer's have for this project.
Also, critical for members of the Council is support for ongoing development of light rail and commuter rail connections to our Intermodal Hub as well as development of a circulator bus system specifically design for ease of access in our downtown areas. Such ease of access will be a critical component of any successful downtown residential efforts.
Question 3: One of the biggest issues of late in District 3 has been people tearing down traditional homes and replacing them with monster homes. Some say new, bigger homes are needed to attract families to the city and maintain property values. Others feel these large homes are ugly and aren't compatible with the city's traditional neighborhoods. What's your opinion? How should city government handle this issue?
Answer: My feeling is that we retain the character of our unique neighborhoods be maintaining compatibility between newer housing and the design and size of existing housing. Neighborhoods will evolve as families grow and as the need for more space becomes a reality. The City should develop, as I have recommended for months, a set of area specific design guidelines that will allow families, architects and contractors to know exactly how they can remodel homes in a way to strengthen neighborhoods, not destroy the very fabric that makes such neighborhoods unique. These guidelines need to be carefully crafted with the help of City Planning, practicing architects and neighborhoods so that the greatest amount of collaborative input will have been found. We can allow our neighborhoods to retain their vibrancy and evolve at the same time.
Question 4: There has been much talk about developing the city's Northwest Quadrant, which lies west of the airport. Some see this area as a place where tens of thousands of residents could eventually live in master planned communities. However, there are some concerns. Some want the area preserved as natural open space. Others say it's too costly to put homes way out there. Police and fire services in the city are already stretched thin and putting houses five miles west of downtown would further strap public safety and other services like public utilities. Still, proponents maintain the city needs to add more residents so it remains Utah's largest city and keeps it's political clout in the face of other rapidly growing municipalities. What's your vision for the Northwest Quadrant? If you favor development how will the city pay for it?
Answer: I have strongly supported the development of a Northwest Quadrant Master Plan effort to discuss issues relating to public safety, public utilities, environmental concerns, public infrastructure and residential/commercial development. It is still too early to define a vision for the Northwest Quadrant or to identify funding sources for development. However, I believe that, given a successful Master Planning process that takes into account input from a broad spectrum of interested parties, there will be methods identified to fund development.
Question 5: Some people are saying City Hall is hard to work with because Mayor Anderson and the City Council don't get along. Is the push and pull between the council and mayor a problem? Explain why or why not. Is the rift more the fault of the council or the mayor? As a council person will you seek friendly relations with the mayor or do you think city government works better if there is some tension between the two houses of government?
Answer: In my opinion, it is always important to seek friendly relationships between the legislative and the administrative branches of government. However, there may arise disagreements as to policy development or implementation of policy which tend to unsettle those relationships. There have been many instances in which the Mayor and the City Council have disagreed over a policy or an action, but, at the end of the day, after the back and forth of discussion, the policy or ordinance finally approved by the Council was actually better than what had originally been proposed.
I don't think the "rift" between the Council and the Mayor is the fault of any one group or individual. Friendly relations ought to be the rule and, in most cases, discussions are amicable and constructive. I, personally, do not agree with the Mayor's style of leadership and, in some cases, feel that his proposals are not in the best interests of my constituents. In such cases, I feel it necessary to oppose him and/or find other solutions. However, when the Mayor's proposals are right for my constituents, I will always be supportive. I believe city residents anticipate that their elected officials will have differences of opinion - as I said, such differences often lead to better legislation - but, that such differences AND the individuals who hold those different opinions will always be treated with respect by those of opposing opinion.