It really is a combination of both, Citizens do provide opinions and perspectives, after they are considered I trust my judgment on making those decisions. It is a republic form of government.

This is a challenging question. I believe to get elected you have to show people who you are and what your vision is which would lead more toward A. But no one knows everything and you must always keep an open mind.

I would just say that it isn’t about my perspective, it’s about the community, without a doubt it get sprinkled with my take on things but that is a distant second compared to community input.

Good decision making is based on doing complete research. Not seeking out alternative perspectives is irresponsible.

Again, the question presupposes you can't do both depending on where in the city we are talking, the plan is to slow down or move traffic off of George Washington way to encourage the downtown to blend with the riverfront, I support this and is why we needed to build the Dupertail bridge.

Speeds that make motorists, pedestrians and bikers safer do not appreciably slow traffic.

Apart from making Richland more attractive to younger people, it makes to invest in making Richland less reliant on cars now. It's cheaper to get out ahead of issues before now instead of reverse engineering solutions after it's too late.

I’m a big fan of new urbanism, I understand that we can just snap out fingers and have big changes take place but RIchland is growing and we should think about how we interact with our neighbors

Revitalizing our urban core has been a high priority item for me ever since I got elected. I would love for Richland to have a true downtown area. A thriving bustling area that would have something for everyone. And we are on our way to that! This would involve reducing a portion of G-Way to a 2 lane road to increase access to the riverfront.

The city needs involve itself in solving the affordable housing crisis. Did you know rent for a studio in Richland is comparable to rent in some parts of NYC? The market has been left to its own device and our housing crunch continues to get worse.

Developing property in the areas that already have infrastructure will increase the tax base and reduce city expenses and the need for additional taxes.

Cities have a terrible track record of getting involved in regulating housing via rent control etc. being flexible on zoning and regulation encourages the private sector to build more affordable housing. When combined with low utility rates the cost for disadvantaged becomes more bearable.

While the market will mostly control this there are a few things we can do. Keep taxes and fees to a minimum as much as we can. Which includes property taxes. Keep our city affordable while not sacrificing safety or maintenance on our infrastructure.

Cities efforts to fund attractions that encourage cultural events have failed under the Public facility district plan, It is easy to build infrastructure and pay for capitol costs but far tougher to pay the maintenance and operation costs that require proceeds from events held.

If it is viable and sustainable the private sector will jump on it. The wording in this question states "major capital projects" which I would be hesitant to endorse. If an investment made with the peoples money fails, it could become a major burden to our future growth. I don't gamble with my own money and won't with yours.

The city must decide what projects will benefit the most people and how they will impact the budget.

RICHLAND has a opportunity to seek out public private partnerships to get cornerstone projects off the ground

The city doesn't necessarily have to fund these projects but the city needs to help make promoting culture a priority. This area is ripe for private/public partnership. Culture is something which will help keep the younger generations from leaving, attract younger people and just improve quality of life for everybody.

We aren't big enough or spread out enough to just have each city re-invent the wheel. It's going to take a lot of education to break this cycle of voters not being willing to help fund a project that isn't in their community but that doesn't mean it can't work.

The cities have a lot of overlap that collaboration could possibly streamline

Each city has it's own needs and desires and I do not believe it will happen at this time. Revisit in the future. For now, Richland has many opportunities and dreams to chase on their own!

Look at GW Way. We have two strip malls going in before they even have all of their tenants lines out while there is a half empty shopping area across from old city hall. This "If you build it, they will come." is not working.

Controlling sprawl does not necessarily affect short-term economic growth if the growth is directed to where infrastructure and services already exist.

This ties back to my desire to enhance our downtown business district. But it is easier said than done. While I never want to put up a sign saying we are full and have no room for anyone else, where do they go if not out to our edges? One solution is to build up in our downtown area. We have a few projects happening now that is making that a reality. Building up is not usually a popular thing with the citizens as some want our city to stay small and not disrupt views of the river.

Again, it isn't a yes or no question depends on the area and the impact of the proposed development.

My hold up with this issue is the fact that it is still illegal at the federal level. Many of our citizens are employed by the federal government which means that they are not allowed to use these services. While it is unfair to restrict the use to some I believe it should be legal for ALL before it is in their community. Change it at the federal level and I am in.

Frankly, the people in Richland didn't get to decide on the moratorium. Council did that and then scuttled the efforts of Legalize Richland. So let's put the moratorium on the ballot and see what residents actually have to say.

Now that it has been 7 years since Washington legalized marijuana, I think the issue of allowing cannabis businesses in the city deserves a vote in Richland.

This is a slight lean to B. I believe that either direction on this involves a certain level of possible government intrusion into a persons individual choices and liberty. I would rather focus on B and then hold all to applicable laws equally.

Kinda of a silly question, I don't think cities can control homelessness through code enforcement and I don't think Cities have ever been successful on reducing homelessness by addressing its systematic roots. It is pretty debatable about what causes homelessness, poverty drug usage or nomadic lifestyle.

Homelessness is a multi-faceted problem -- poverty, loss of job, addiction, mental illness. Services must be provided to not only assist the homeless but to assist people struggling with these issues BEFORE they become homeless.

Since city government hasn't been able to do anything to reign in housing costs you make the case the council has contributed to problem. As such we need to be part of the solution.

During my time on council I feel that the city has been very transparent. I know I have tried my best to be. Everything outside of potential litigation is shared with the public. Our council meeting packets are always available online and have all the information in it.

I challenge you to try and find a listing of land the city wants to surplus and what the appraised value of each parcel is. Clean up the website. Have meeting agendas posted at least one week before the meeting so people can read them. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The City needs to 1)televise the pre-meeting 2)provide ACCURATE meeting times, agendas and minutes 3) create office hours for council members 4) begin walking town halls in the neighborhoods.

Depends on what you mean by control, if richland has to pickup the costs of the infrastructure and their maintenance estimated around a million a year, it may not be worth it. Its balancing.

This is a tough one, pretty sure that the liability and maintenance cost would be steep, but for the city to have ownership and control of the shorelines destiny would be a positive

Not sure if I want the city to have control of this. Staying with the Corps will keep it the way it is. Having the city control might turn out bad. Not now but what about in the future? This one concerns me a bit.

I don't trust the city as it currently operates to develop that land. They missed the chance develop the shoreline when the allowed for most of the Riverfront south of Howard Amon the be turned into condos and hotels.

I don't trust the current city council to maintain public access to the riverfront.

I’m having a hard time thinking of why anyone would disagree with that statement

Of the 28 members of city councils -- Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, West Richland -- 3 are women. In Richland some committees have only one woman on it.

You have to lead by example. If City Council refuses to play a role in setting the tone for a welcoming and equitable community, then people will have the excuse that we don't think it's important.

We as a council can only do so much without mandating certain behaviors. I believe that these goals are what every city should aspire to be. But it is up to all the people to build this culture.