City Council District Five Candidate Questionnaire: Linda Valdez

12 minute read

What is your background and how does it inform your decision to run for election?

I have spent decades working with people in my community. My service to our community includes helping to feed the unhoused, visiting and advocating for deported veterans, delivering provisions to refugees at the border and co-organizing a number of large-scale demonstrations and actions after the 2016 election. My commitment to my neighbors and community and my realization that there are no candidates running in the 5th district who share our progressive values led me to decide to enter the race because we need leaders willing to acknowledge and address the root causes of the housing, climate and health crises facing all of us. 

According to the city’s latest Housing Element, the City Council could take up the issue of creating a rent stabilization ordinance next year. What are your thoughts on a citywide rent stabilization ordinance in Long Beach?

We are in the midst of a housing crisis in Long Beach with an inadequate supply of affordable housing. This insufficient supply and the speculation for profit both drive up the cost of housing. Rent stabilization is currently in effect in LA and Santa Ana, and is a proven program which helps to keep housing within an affordable range for the working people in our communities. 

Would you support the creation of a citywide rental data registry that would require landlords to report lengths of tenancies, rent amounts collected, and whenever they begin, alter, or end a tenancy?

Yes. This data is potentially valuable in aiding our struggle to increase the availability of affordable housing and ensure that people are able to remain in their home once they have found one.

Tenants rights advocates across the country have called for a codified right to legal counsel for tenants facing eviction and have been successful in San Francisco and New York. Would you support a right to counsel ordinance in Long Beach?

Yes. Definitely. Too often tenants are at a disadvantage when they face eviction as they frequently don’t even know what options for defending their right to remain in their homes are available. A robust program that makes it clear to all tenants in risk that they do in fact have legal rights and recourse to legal assistance will help to ease the burden on tenants at risk.

Is housing a human right?

Yes. Definitely. Housing is a basic need and should be treated as such. As a city we need to build upon existing programs and create new ones which will ensure that affordable housing is available to everyone. These include programs like rent stabilization, a legal right to counsel, building more affordable housing and city programs to encourage home ownership.

Tell us about an approach, policy, or program that has been successfully implemented in another city to reduce homelessness that you would like to introduce in Long Beach.

One such program is Project Welcome Home launched in Santa Clara County in 2015. A study there found that 86% of participants received housing and most of them stayed housed through the duration of the study. The study showed that permanent supportive housing, which provides subsidized housing along with counseling, mental health, addiction and other services, helps in the county’s most difficult cases. The study’s results disproved the opinion that some homeless people are beyond help. As one author of the study pointed out, “It works. It improves people’s lives. It keeps people housed. It ends homelessness. Full stop.” 

As part of a plan for all new buildings to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, the Los Angeles City Council is considering a proposal to bar all new commercial and residential construction projects from including gas line hookups in favor of all-electric appliances. Would you support a similar undertaking in Long Beach? Editors’ Note: Since the asking of this question, the Los Angeles City Council voted in favor of banning most gas appliances in new construction. 

Yes. Recent studies have shown that gas stoves emit methane gas even when not in use. Methane is one of the worst gasses contributing to our climate crisis. Conversion to electric stoves and other appliances will help in our struggle to save life as we know it. Programs like barring new construction projects from including gas line hookups will aid greatly in this transition. The climate crisis is too serious not to take such actions.

A recently drafted city memo proposes to end oil drilling in Long Beach by 2035, when local oil fields will no longer be financially viable. Should the city end oil drilling operations before 2035?

Yes. To put it simply, oil field operations need to be ended as soon as possible. The climate crisis won’t allow us to wait until 2035 to end drilling. I am honestly concerned the city is so dependent on oil that it will not meet the deadline promised. Meanwhile, many of our neighbors are suffering from respiratory and other illnesses as a result of poisonous toxins in the air we breathe. I recently attended a ribbon cutting ceremony in Paramount for a refinery that is converting to produce Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Fuel that is being made from animal fat, safflower and soybean and will power planes flying out of LAX and LGB. We must look to and plan for a world without the damaging effects of oil.

Have you taken campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry and, if so, do you plan to continue taking contributions from that sector?

I have not and will never accept campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry. Our campaign does not and will not take any money from lobbyists or corporations because the government should not be driven by special interests.

The Long Beach Police Department currently employs approximately 800 sworn police officers. Do you think the current number of sworn police officers should:

Decrease. Many of the services currently provided by police officers can be better provided by trained professionals in specific fields. Responses to domestic abuse calls should be dealt with by professionals trained to de-escalate such situations. Responses to calls about rape must be done by health professionals with both physical and mental health training and experience. Many so-called nuisance crimes can be dealt with by professionals trained to deal specifically with issues such as people who are unhoused. Relieving police of these duties will

free their time so that they can deal with more dangerous crimes.

A city-hired consultant recently recommended changes to the Citizen Police Complaint Commission that would create an inspector general position to investigate the LBPD. However, the inspector general could only investigate police shootings, in-custody deaths, and complaints against command staff with the approval of the City Manager. Past commissioners and community members have argued that the CPCC’s current subordination to the City Manager has rendered it toothless. Would you be in favor of an Inspector General position with the unfettered authority to investigate officer misconduct and use-of-force?

Yes. The Citizen Police Complaint Commission has been largely toothless and hobbled in its work. The creation of an inspector general and the independence of the CPCC from control by the City Manager will enable the CPCC and inspector general to work with more flexibility and independence to get their jobs done. Of course this also needs to be free of oversight by the LBPD.

Please explain what changes, if any, you would like to see implemented to better hold LBPD officers accountable for misconduct and/or excessive force?

The strengthening of the CPCC and creation of an inspector general will go far to see that this happens. We need to end qualified immunity as a step to making police more accountable to our community. 

Long Beach has been working to implement an alternate crisis response (ACR) program that dispatches mental health professionals instead of police officers to calls for service related to mental health crises. Would you support expanding the criteria for the ACR to divert calls away from LBPD beyond mental health crises? If so, which types of calls for service?

There are a number of services currently provided by police officers which can be performed by personnel trained specifically for such duties, such as responses to rape, domestic violence and other calls. ACR, in conjunction with Restorative Engagement to Achieve Collective Health (REACH) would provide much needed relief to peace officers.

The city’s Technology and Innovation Commission recently issued a full-throated recommendation to put a citywide moratorium on the use of Facial Recognition Technology until privacy and civil rights safeguards are put in place. Do you agree with this recommendation?

Yes. Definitely. Study after study have shown that facial recognition software is inaccurate in a number of ways to say nothing of its attack on human rights such as the right to privacy. While I agree strongly that Facial Recognition Technology should not be used at all until privacy and civil rights safeguards are put in place I don’t even see how these safeguards could ever be sufficient and that the dangers to our human rights far outweigh any benefits from such technology.

Have you taken campaign donations from the Long Beach Police Officers Association and, if so, do you plan to continue taking their contributions? 

No, I haven’t.

According to county data, accidental overdose deaths have spiked over the pandemic, especially in Long Beach. Harm reduction has become a key public health intervention in preventing overdose deaths and cities like New York and San Francisco have opened safe consumption sites to address the problem. Should Long Beach open a safe consumption site?

Yes. Drug abuse and addiction is a health issue above all. Cities like New York and San Francisco and numerous others have proven that safe consumption sites reduce the risks involved both for those using the drugs and for the community as a whole.

Several cities have decriminalized psilocybin mushrooms, otherwise known as ‘magic mushrooms,’ including Detroit, Santa Cruz, and Oakland. What are your thoughts on decriminalizing magic mushrooms in Long Beach?

In Oakland, city money will not be used “to assist in the enforcement of laws imposing criminal penalties for the use and possession of Entheogenic Plants by adults.” The ordinance says that investigating people for growing, buying, distributing or possessing the substances “shall be amongst the lowest law enforcement priority for the City of Oakland.” There is growing pressure in multiple states to facilitate access to substances such as the psilocybin mushrooms for their possible therapeutic benefits. The decriminalization of magic mushrooms would release our officers from pursuing those who are in possession, thereby allowing them to focus on violent crimes.

Long Beach’s minimum wage is currently $14 an hour for businesses with 25 or fewer employees and $15 an hour for all other businesses. Los Angeles’s minimum wage, which increases annually based on the Consumer Price Index, will rise to $16.04 in July. Should Long Beach adopt an annual minimum wage increase to keep pace with cost of living?

Yes. The minimum wage situation in the United States is appalling. While 50 years ago the minimum wage provided some level of security, the fact that it has long ceased to keep up with the rising costs of living has now meant that the minimum wage at this time is a travesty. Studies have shown that if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation since the 1970s it would now be about $24 an hour. Increasing the minimum wage annually based on the CPI would be an important step in ending this injustice.

Fare collections accounted for 12-15% of Long Beach Transit’s operating revenue pre-pandemic, totaling roughly $14.8 million. Should Long Beach consider investing more funds into LBT in order to transition it to a fare-free transit system?

Yes. One of the most important things we can do to fight the climate crisis is to lessen the use of private, gas-burning vehicles. The best way to do this is by growing our mass transit system. Making mass transit free will be a big step in increasing its use. We owe this to our planet and ourselves. Decreasing the use of private vehicles will also decrease traffic which will save time and by doing so decrease the consumption of fuel.

Seeing as councilmembers are only employed part time, what would be your other area(s) of employment if (re)elected?

I currently work as an independent sales contractor for a gardening seed company. I will continue to do this work.

Contact The Author

[1] Militarily demobilized. Since WWII—which was both the death knell of European colonial empires as well as the starting shot of the American neocolonial era—Europe has had notoriously scant standing armies, and has been able to consistently slash government military spending domestically and as a percentage of their contributions to international diplomatic bodies such as the UN. This is because nowadays European nations very rarely find themselves in situations where they need to independently send their militaries abroad in order to secure trade routes, foreign resources, or privileges within markets overseas; the U.S. has been fulfilling that hard-power obligation for them for over half a century. The social results of Western Europe’s decreased militarization are striking, especially when contrasted with the U.S.: there is not a single country in Western Europe without universal healthcare, labor rights and welfare systems are strong, value is placed on corporate and financial regulation, environmental policy is lightyears ahead, and, not least of all, there is a robust governmental approach to curbing digital surveillance and reining in tech monopolies. Japan enjoys a similar arrangement with the U.S. in which it, too, is militarily demobilized yet is given full access to, and prominence in, the global economy. In the last decade there has been a reversing trend of remilitarization in some of these nations. That trend was hastened during the last four years as a result of Trump’s ultranationalist politics, but is likely to continue even after his departure in large part due to the growing bipolar geopolitical climate of competition between superpowers.

The “owner” bit of home-“owner” appears in scare quotes throughout the text for reasons that will shortly become apparent.

Nothing signals trouble quite like consensus.

More on them later.

And, anyways, what exactly remains “obvious” in an era “post-truth”?

I take as my starting position that even the “obvious” must be won.

It’s like Lenin said, you know…

Whether directly, or through a chain of investments, or through the wider speculative market in real estate.

I use “banks” in this piece as a stand-in for several sources of income that derive partly through the mortgaging of property and/or investment in institutions that have the power to mortgage property.

That is just its “ideology.”

The Ricardian “law of rent” explains that any location with an advantage over another location, can accrue an economic value, called “rent,” to the owner.

This happens without the owner needing to pitch in to create the advantage.

If the owner does pitch in, then the value accrued from that advantage cannot be called “rent.”

“Rent,” in economic terms, is only, precisely, the value accrued from that portion of the advantage for which the owner is not responsible. That is what we mean when we say, “Rent is theft.”

This does not mean places with lower property taxes ipso facto have higher property prices—and that is because the property tax is only one of the contributing factors. You could have zero taxes on land in Antarctica, for instance, and it would still sell for $0. This is why the introduction to the analogy controls for such variables.

This is the logical conclusion of believing two premises:

(1) All humans have an equal right to the Earth.
(2) Vaginal birth is a lottery system

Prop 13 is rent control for home-“owners.” You can learn more about its history and impact here.

“Hamlet” by William Shakespeare. Act 4, Scene 5

This is why the lobbyists who spend the most money to support the mortgage interest deduction are bankers, mortgagers, and realtors.

Term

Definition