O P I N I O N

THE SOAPBOX

Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.

We’re in the final days of this year’s municipal election cycle, and at Tuesday night’s mayoral debate, Mayor Ruais made several claims about his record that caught my attention. Most were technically true, but as an Alderman with a front-row seat at City Hall, I know much of what he touts is loaded with nuance. When glossed over in 30-second debate responses or simplified for headlines, his claims become misleading.

The Mayor lists several wins that include housing 69 homeless individuals through the Beech Street Engagement Center; over 1,000 apartment units in the pipeline; the Zoning Ordinance rewrite; the Employee Compensation study; increased funding for the school district and public works; two budgets below the tax cap; and a strong record of bipartisan leadership. This is impressive on the surface, but let’s take a closer look.

On homelessness, the progress at Beech Street has come at a cost of over $3M—not to mention two highly qualified Directors of Homelessness Initiatives. To his credit, the Mayor has worked hard to keep the Engagement Center & Shelter open and funded, but he’s had to deploy some smoke and mirrors to get his Republican colleagues to play along.

He started by dissolving the Department of Homelessness Initiatives, consolidating oversight under his office. This has significantly reduced visibility by the Aldermen—no more monthly discussions with the Director wherein we could ask questions, review data, and ultimately, drive accountability. Now we’re just cc’d on selective press releases sent out to the media to generate positive coverage.

He also broke the shelter’s full cost into a series of short-term funding requests, making the price tag easier to swallow for the Republican Aldermen. They begrudgingly agreed in exchange for a vague verbal commitment to “get the city out of the shelter business ASAP.” Democrats, meanwhile, felt cornered. Closing the shelter on a month’s notice wouldn’t be good for anyone—especially the people who’d get put back out on the street. 

This is not what effective management looks like. Yes, 69 people are off the streets, but how many replaced them? Have we actually made any progress? Our $3M investment should have funded a strategic plan instead of stopgaps. This isn’t meaningfully addressing the issue and it’s not what he promised two years ago.

On housing and development, much of the 1,000+ units he highlights stem from Joyce Craig’s administration. Since Mayor Ruais took office, development has slowed by 55% compared to the prior two years. And the Zoning re-write (along with the Ten-Year Master Plan that called for it)? also initiated under Mayor Craig. This also applies to the massive Employee Compensation Study…Mayor Craig. He’s right to celebrate these reforms and the sustained impact they’ll have on our city for years to come. They’re meaningful wins—but they aren’t his.

Under Mayor Ruais, forward-looking, durable progress has been deprioritized in favor of optics. The gains on his bail reform work are negligible. The ban on camping in our parks grabbed headlines but didn’t house a single person. Opioid overdoses have declined for years, but his allies are now pushing punitive needle exchange policies that undermine this hard-fought progress. Mayor Ruais has consistently favored headlines that make him look good, over serious—and yes, sometimes very difficult—choices that yield measurable change over time. This is why he must continuously reference his predecessor’s record.

Speaking of, during the debate, he inflated his usual claim that as Mayor, the School District received a record spending increase of $11M, increasing to $47M. But if you were listening closely, the amount increased because he included funding from Mayor Craig’s 2023 budget. Perhaps he’s starting to notice that his choice to underfund our schools by $17M worth of tax-cap compliant revenue isn’t sitting well with the majority of his constituents. Call it a cut if you want…call it something else if you prefer. Either way, the state’s largest school district will end Mayor Ruais’ first term $17M behind.

Public Works faces similar math. He boasts a $7M increase to the Highway Department but omits that they requested $12M just to keep roadway conditions from falling further behind. But he keeps bragging about staying under the tax cap. That might sound fiscally prudent, but unrealized revenue means roads go unpaved, sidewalks deteriorate, and the city’s core services are compromised. The equivalent decay can be seen in our schools. If everyone got a refund check, I could see how this trade-off might be tempting, but it doesn’t work like that—it just leaves money on the table. Our Charter allows revenue up to the tax cap. Choosing not to collect and re-invest it in our city is a deliberate divestment.

I offer him credit for congenial demeanor and his fortitude in the face of constant Republican resistance. He frames this as bi-partisan leadership, however, I can assure you it’s anything but. Progress has been made possible by the Democratic half of the board, which favored getting work done over grandstanding. His attempt to gaslight voters into believing otherwise is simply disingenuous.

The downward spiral of the BMA’s conduct over the past two years is the most stark example of Mayor Ruais’ lack of true leadership. The number of “lack of decorum” questions posed by the public at the debate demonstrates that people are feeling worn down and they want things to be different. It’s clear they expect more from their Mayor.

As we head to the polls, I urge you to listen beyond the one-liners and to dig below the headlines. Think honestly about whether we’re better off than we were two years ago. His record simply does not bear out his claims, and we cannot afford another two years of chaos and divestment under Mayor Ruais.

Christine Fajardo is a two-term member of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, representing Ward 4. She’s also an ardent supporter of Jess Spillers, Democratic candidate for Mayor.

Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment below using our DISQUS app. Got issues of your own? Send to publisher@inklink.news, subject line: The Soapbox, or DIY it here.