June 2nd - District 6 Candidate Forum

More Than 90 Seconds: 

My Answers on District 6, Safety, Energy, Resiliency, the Gas Plant, and Property Taxes

At the League of Women Voters Candidate Forum for District 6, each candidate had only a short time to answer questions that deserve much more than a short answer. Because of this short time, I focused on being personable. I focused on being the person you can talk to. I focused on projecting the image of the person you can relate to. That’s because I am. I am one of you.  I’m a resident of St. Pete, and I’ll work hard for you, so that you can continue to Live, Work, Play, and Visit the best city in the world.

I appreciated the opportunity to speak, but I also know that 90 seconds is not enough time to explain serious policy, especially on issues like hurricane resiliency, energy costs, traffic safety, the Gas Plant District, and property taxes. These issues affect people’s homes, businesses, families, neighborhoods, and futures.

So I want to take a little more time here to explain where I stand.

Representing All of District 6

One of the first questions was about the diversity of District 6 and how I would work on behalf of everyone if elected.

My answer at the forum focused on my life experience. I was born in Texas, lived in Little Rock, worked in Memphis, and have lived and worked around people from many different backgrounds, communities, and walks of life. That experience matters to me because it taught me that people often share many of the same hopes, but they do not always face the same barriers.

I also want to be clear: even though I am not originally from St. Petersburg, I love St. Pete and I call it home. I will never call another place home because this city is special and has something you just can’t quite explain. You have to experience it.

District 6 is not just one thing. That is part of what makes it special. It includes downtown, the EDGE District, the Innovation District, the Tropicana Field and Gas Plant area, parts of South St. Petersburg, coastal neighborhoods, business corridors, residential streets, cultural districts, and places where the history of the city is still visible. But it’s not just District 6. It’s all of St. Petersburg, and if elected, I will serve all of St. Petersburg and all of our people.

In St. Petersburg, you can walk from one part of the district to another and feel the city change around you. The energy of downtown is different from the EDGE. The history and culture of the Deuces is different from the waterfront. A small business corridor has a different feel and different needs than a residential street. A renter, a homeowner, a service worker, a business owner, a retiree, and a young family may all live in the same district, but they may experience the city very differently.

That does not divide us. It makes us stronger.

The job of a City Council member is not to represent only the loudest voice in the room. It is to listen to the whole district. That means showing up at neighborhood association meetings, business association meetings, community events, small business corridors, civic forums, and informal conversations. It means listening to people who agree with me and people who do not. It means remembering that every neighborhood has its own character, and the City should help protect that character while still allowing St. Pete to grow.

My goal is simple: every person in District 6 should feel welcome, heard, and respected in every part of this city.

Traffic Safety, Transit, E-Bikes, and Scooters

The forum also included a question about traffic safety and whether I would support safety measures even if they are unpopular.

I told a personal story about being pulled over for speeding when I first moved here. The officer told me that if I hit someone, it could change their life and mine forever. That stuck with me.

The truth is that people still speed. People still drive distracted. People still cross dangerous streets. People still bike, walk, ride scooters, and use e-bikes in areas that were not designed safely enough for all of those uses.

Traffic safety is not anti-car. It is pro-human.

Everyone is a pedestrian at some point. Everyone deserves to cross the street safely. Drivers deserve roads that are predictable. Cyclists and scooter riders deserve safe places to travel. Seniors, people with disabilities, parents with strollers, workers walking to a bus stop, and students going to school all deserve a city that takes safety seriously.

That means I support evidence-based safety measures, even when they are not immediately popular, as long as the City explains them clearly and measures whether they work. That may include better crosswalks, better lighting, safer intersections, traffic calming, protected bike and scooter lanes, improved sidewalks, clearer signage, better signal timing, and targeted enforcement in high-crash areas.

It also means we need better transportation options.

The SunRunner has shown that good transit can help people move through the city more efficiently. We should look seriously at where expanded transit, more frequent service, better routes, and neighborhood-based programs could reduce traffic pressure. Programs like UPASS are worth studying because they can help residents use transit without having to think about the cost of every individual trip.

We should also be honest about e-bikes and scooters. They can be unsafe when people ride recklessly, ignore traffic laws, or use sidewalks in ways that endanger pedestrians. But they also help people get to work, school, appointments, grocery stores, and bus stops. For some people, they are not toys. They are transportation. Not everyone has access to a personal automobile.

The answer should not be to eliminate options for people who need them. The answer should be safety, education, clear rules, better infrastructure, and fair enforcement.

Energy Costs and the Duke Energy Question

Rising energy costs are a real concern for residents. People are paying more for housing, insurance, food, utilities, and everyday life. Electric bills are part of that pressure.

At the forum, I said I support a study of whether St. Petersburg should explore a city-run electric utility. I still support studying it.

But supporting a study is not the same thing as supporting a blank check.

Before the City makes any major decision about replacing Duke Energy, residents deserve clear answers to basic questions:

Who would repair the system after a hurricane?

How would the City get enough trained workers?

Would the City have access to the same type of mutual-aid crews that larger utilities can bring in from other areas?

What would it cost to acquire the system?

Would litigation be likely?

How would the City buy or produce power?

Would rates actually go down, and for whom?

How would the City protect low-income residents?

Could the City improve reliability and storm response?

Would this help us move toward cleaner energy, or would it just shift responsibility from one entity to another?

There are places where public power has worked well. Winter Park is often discussed as an example because it purchased its electric utility and has invested heavily in undergrounding power lines. But St. Petersburg is larger, coastal, storm-vulnerable, and more complex. We should learn from Winter Park, Clearwater, and other cities, but we should not copy anyone blindly.

In the meantime, we should also work with the existing utility provider on practical improvements: undergrounding lines where it makes sense, hardening the grid, improving storm response, expanding solar options, improving energy efficiency, supporting insulation and weatherization, and helping residents understand how to reduce energy costs where possible.

The goal should not be ideological. The goal should be reliable, affordable, resilient energy for the people of St. Petersburg.

Hurricane Resiliency, Flooding, Development, and Rebuilding

Hurricane resiliency is personal for many of us. My significant other, Brayanna Pettit, was displaced by a hurricane. Many families in St. Petersburg have lived through the fear, damage, paperwork, delays, and uncertainty that follow a major storm.

This is not theoretical. It is happening now.

The City is considering major resiliency investments, including a proposed bond that could help fund stormwater, wastewater, drainage, pump stations, flood protection, and other infrastructure. I support taking that discussion seriously. Residents deserve a plain-English explanation of what the bond would fund, what it would cost, what happens if we do it, and what happens if we do not.

Resiliency is not just one project. It is a citywide approach.

We need stronger stormwater systems. We need better drainage. We need wastewater systems that can keep functioning during storms. We need roads that remain passable. We need public buildings and critical facilities that can operate when the power is out. We need neighborhoods that can recover faster.

We also need development that respects water.

One concern I hear from residents is that more land is being covered by buildings, pavement, and hard surfaces, leaving fewer places for water to go. That concern is real in the sense that impervious surfaces can increase runoff. The answer is not to stop all development. The answer is to build smarter.

That means working with developers, engineers, architects, residents, and environmental experts to use better tools: green space, tree canopy, rain gardens, bioswales, permeable pavement, green roofs, rooftop detention, cisterns, retention areas, floodable open space, elevated mechanical systems, and site designs that move water safely instead of pushing the problem onto neighboring properties.

Whether someone uses the words climate change or not, we can all see the practical reality: storms are serious, flooding is expensive, the Gulf gets warm, and St. Petersburg has to be ready.

Solar power and battery storage should also be part of the conversation, especially for critical facilities, affordable housing, community resilience hubs, and new construction where it makes sense. Solar panels alone do not solve every outage, but solar paired with storage can help keep essential power available when the grid is down.

Undergrounding power lines may also help in some places, but it is not simple or cheap. It should be studied strategically, especially in areas with repeated outages, while recognizing that underground systems in flood-prone areas also require careful design.

We also need to help people stay in their homes.

The FEMA substantial-damage rules and local floodplain requirements can leave homeowners feeling trapped. If repairs exceed a certain percentage of the home’s value, the owner may be required to elevate or rebuild to current standards. In theory, that makes homes safer. In practice, it can be financially devastating for working families, seniors, and longtime residents.

If we want real resiliency, we cannot create a system where only wealthy people can afford to rebuild.

The City should help residents find grants, low-interest loans, state and federal programs, elevation assistance, mitigation funding, and clear guidance. We should have a permitting process that is fast, transparent, and accountable after storms. People should be able to track where their permit is, what is missing, and who can help fix the problem.

Resiliency is not just about concrete and pipes. It is about keeping people in their homes and keeping communities together.

The Gas Plant District

The Gas Plant District may be one of the most important decisions St. Petersburg makes in a generation. It is our time and our turn to make that decision, and I want it to be the best decision for the next generation.

This land has history. Before Tropicana Field, the Gas Plant neighborhood was home to a primarily Black community with homes, churches, businesses, and families. People were displaced with promises that redevelopment would bring opportunity. Many of those promises were not fulfilled.

That history matters.

I believe everyone involved in this conversation should watch Razed. Not because one documentary answers every policy question, but because it reminds us that land-use decisions are not just lines on a map. They affect people, families, culture, wealth, and trust.

The City is now reviewing finalist proposals for the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant site. The question is often framed as city control versus developer control, but I think the real question is this:

What public benefits are guaranteed, enforceable, and actually delivered?

We need a plan that includes real housing, not just promises. We need affordable and workforce housing. We need local jobs and small business opportunity. We need public space. We need cultural recognition of the Gas Plant history. We need stormwater and resilience planning. We need transportation connections. We need transparency. We need timelines. We need accountability.

And we need to move forward.

With baseball or without baseball, the City cannot spend another 20 years talking about this land while it remains underused. St. Petersburg deserves a plan that honors the past, serves the present, and builds something meaningful for the future.

I am not interested in rushing into a bad deal. But I am also not interested in endless delay. The people deserve a clear process, enforceable commitments, and progress.

Property Taxes, Homestead Exemptions, and the City Budget

The property tax question at the forum was difficult because there was a lot to explain in a very short time. I regrettably didn’t explain myself well when I said it’s currently 50, then will go to 150, and 250.  I was trying to speak fast to get in as much information as I could in a short amount of time, and didn’t explain a complicated mechanism effectively. Again, that’s why I’m choosing to give you better answers here, that 90 seconds simply wouldn’t allow.

What I was trying to explain is that the proposal being discussed in Tallahassee would increase the homestead exemption from $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027, and then to $250,000 in 2028. It would not apply to school taxes in the same way, but it would have a major effect on local government revenue.

I understand why this sounds appealing.

People are tired. Property insurance is high. Rent is high. Groceries are high. Utilities are high. Many homeowners feel like they are paying more every year and getting less. Many renters also feel the pressure because costs get passed through the housing market.

So yes, we should be sympathetic to people who want relief. But we also have to be honest about what property taxes fund.

City services are not imaginary. Police, fire, roads, stormwater, parks, libraries, sanitation, permitting, code enforcement, housing programs, sidewalks, neighborhood services, and hurricane resiliency all cost money. If local revenue is cut dramatically, something has to give.

That is why I do not support this proposal as written.

I am concerned it could create a major hole in local budgets, shift costs in other ways, increase pressure on fees, affect renters and businesses, and make it harder to fund the very resiliency projects we need after hurricanes.

That does not mean I ignore the cost of living. It means we need real education and real solutions.

One thing I talked about at the forum is the need for tax seminars and public education. Many people do not fully understand homestead exemptions, Save Our Homes, millage rates, school versus non-school taxes, assessment caps, portability, senior exemptions, disabled veteran exemptions, disaster-related relief, and how local budgets actually work.

If voters are going to be asked to make a decision this big, they deserve to understand it before they vote.

If the proposal passes, City Council will have to respond responsibly. I do not believe the answer would be to name one program or one budget line item and cut it entirely. A responsible budget response would have to look across departments and ask hard questions.

First, I would look for creative revenue and economic growth strategies before cutting essential services. That includes supporting commercial corridors, helping small businesses grow, strengthening Main Street districts, using grants aggressively, pursuing state and federal funding, encouraging appropriate commercial development, improving vacant and underused properties, and expanding the tax base without pushing out the people who built this city.

Second, I would look at efficiency. That means reviewing contracts, vacant positions, procurement, administrative costs, technology, energy savings, and whether programs are producing measurable results.

Third, if cuts became unavoidable, I would try to spread the impact carefully instead of putting the entire burden on one vulnerable program or one neighborhood.

The goal should be to protect core services, protect hurricane resiliency, protect public safety, and protect the people who are already struggling to afford life in St. Petersburg.

Why the Small Things Matter

In my closing at the forum, I made a statement about fixing the potholes. It was partly a joke, but the point behind it was serious.

The small things matter.

A pothole matters if it damages your car or makes you spill your coke on yourself ruining your dress. A broken sidewalk matters if you use a wheelchair, push a stroller, or walk to the bus. A dark streetlight matters if you feel unsafe walking home. A delayed permit matters if you are trying to get back into your house after a storm. A missed trash pickup matters if it is on your street. A dangerous intersection matters if your child crosses there.

Good government is not only about the biggest projects. It is also about whether residents feel heard when they report everyday problems.

I believe that if we care enough to fix the small things, we will be more prepared to handle the big things. Big change usually happens because many smaller things start working together: residents sharing ideas, neighborhoods organizing, businesses investing, city staff responding, and elected officials listening.

That is the kind of City Council member I want to be.

I want to listen. I want to learn. I want to ask questions. I want to help solve problems. And I want every person in District 6 and the City of St. Pete to know that their street, their home, their business, their family, and their future matter. I want people to love when they Live, Work, Play, and Visit St. Petersburg, Florida.