The Signal Tribune emailed 10 identical questions to the six District 1 candidates — Deb Kahookele, Lori Logan, Mary Zendejas, Brock Goleman, Tamika Wagner-Osio and Anthony Bryson — and gave them one week to respond. We only received responses from Bryson and Goleman at the time of publication.
Voting closes on Tuesday, June 2 at 8 p.m. All Vote Centers will be open from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. through June 1. On Election Day, Tuesday, June 2, all Vote Centers will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Vote by Mail ballots may be returned at any Ballot Drop Box, Vote Center or by mail. No postage is necessary. Voters returning their ballot by mail must place the ballot inside the official return envelope and sign the back of the envelope. All Vote by Mail ballots must be postmarked by June 2.
The California Secretary of State recommends that voters mailing their ballot do so at least five days before Election Day. Voters who mail their ballot on Election Day are advised to obtain a manual postmark from a postal employee inside a United States Post Office.
All voters may track their ballots at https://california.ballottrax.net/voter/.
For more information, including a current list of all LA County Vote Centers, to check registration information or to request a ballot in a different language, visit lavote.gov.
These responses are copied verbatim from candidate Bryson.
1. What issues do you think are most important in your district, and how do you plan to address those issues?
I believe the most important issues in district 1 are homelessness, parking, vacant storefronts and environmental pollution.
District 1 is facing three interconnected crises: housing, parking & transportation, and a public safety model that isn’t keeping us safe.
On housing, rents are skyrocketing while landlords sit on empty units. I’ll push to lower the rent increase cap from 8% to 3%, close the “renovation eviction” loophole, and impose vacancy penalties on speculators holding properties empty while neighbors sleep on sidewalks. On safety, we need to stop funding what doesn’t work and invest in what does: mental health response teams, youth programs, and violence prevention. Addressing the causes of violence before it even happens. We put too much of our resources into reactive-based strategies.
On transportation, District 1 residents deserve free transit, protected bike infrastructure, and Safe Parking. City Hall has been answering to developers and donors for too long. District 1 needs a representative who comes from the community.
2. Would you rezone any areas of your district? If so, in what way?
Yes, with each community leading that conversation, not developers. Rezoning decisions in Long Beach have historically served real estate interests, the people most affected are the last ones consulted.
I support rezoning in a targeted, equity-centered way, particularly along transit corridors, to allow for more affordable, multi-family housing. But any rezoning must be paired with strong anti-displacement protections so new units serve the people who live here now, not just wealthier newcomers. Rezoning without tenant protections is just a gift to developers. Creating right-to-return tenant priorities at the same prices as when they were displaced. Increasing the requirement on low income housing and closing the loopholes that allow developers and landlords to have more median income over low income.
I support converting underutilized commercial corridors and vacant lots into mixed use spaces combining affordable housing, small businesses, and community uses. We must create more free spaces for people to gather in community with each other. Our ghost-town storefronts are an opportunity, we can utilize those spaces with real community input and community benefit.
Want more local news?
Sign up for the Signal Tribune’s daily newsletter
3. Do you feel councilmembers in District 1 have historically done a sufficient job in listening and responding to concerns from its residents? If not, what would you do differently?
No, I think most District 1 residents would say the same. When residents are being displaced at record rates, when commercial corridors are hollowing out, and when the city’s response to homelessness is sweeps and fences rather than real services, it tells you the decision-makers aren’t listening to those most affected. The decision-makers aren’t listening to the community.
What I would do differently starts before the vote. I commit to regular town halls across District 1, not just downtown, but in Westside, Cambodia Town, and the harbor district. I’ll hold office hours in community spaces, maintain a real constituent services operation, and respond in the languages residents speak.
I support participatory budgeting, giving residents a direct say in how district funds are spent. Our communities need to be built to benefit those within those communities. Solutions that work for downtown may not be what other communities want or need.
4. What do you think the City should be doing to make residents feel safe with the increased aggression of ICE agents?
ICE agents terrorizing our communities is a human rights crisis, not a law enforcement issue, and Long Beach needs to treat it that way.
The city must proactively enforce California sanctuary law, requiring LBPD to demand identification and warrants when they witness detentions, along with full enforcement of SB 627, which requires visible badges and prohibits face masks on law enforcement.
We need real-time, multilingual community alerts about ICE activity so residents can protect themselves and their neighbors. The city should create official mechanisms to document every instance of a Long Beach resident being detained, deported, or disappeared, so families can locate their loved ones.
Further, we need community updates on the status of these individuals to keep community engagement and helping them reconnect to their family, neighbors, and broader community. We can’t keep this cycle of “Breaking News” the moment someone is taken and then we hear nothing else.
5. Do you support the recent implementation of the nearly $800,000 fence around the Billie Jean King Library? Additionally, what measures should the City be taking to care for homeless residents downtown while ensuring the safety of residents at parks and libraries?
No. An $800,000 fence is not a safety solution. It’s a tactic trying to normalize the use of prison-style infrastructure that could easily be used to further control a population. The city leaders would rather pay nearly a million dollars to further criminalize a result of a problem rather than use that same money towards solving the problem itself. That money could have funded months of real shelter expansion, mental health services, or outreach workers
I believe in keeping parks and libraries open and welcoming for everyone, including our unhoused neighbors, who deserve dignity, not displacement. That means consistently funding outreach; lowering the barriers to access shelters by expanding hours, increasing addiction services so that shelters aren’t turning people away who have active addiction, and making shelters equipped to keep families together and welcome pets.
6. What should the City do about the steady rise of traffic injuries, both for drivers and pedestrians?
Common sense community safety is brighter streets and traffic lights and stop signs and pedestrian traffic lights at high impacted areas. Increased traffic control from lbpd and encourage faster traffic related response times for emergency service vehicles
This is a safety and infrastructure justice issue. District 1 has some of the city’s most dangerous intersections, and too many neighbors, especially pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders, are being killed or injured on streets designed primarily for fast-moving cars.
Traffic calming works. We need more stop signs, speed humps, raised crosswalks, and turn restrictions at our worst intersections. We also need better lighting, because dark corridors discourage walking and compound public safety problems.
We need protected infrastructure for people outside of cars: protected bike lanes, wider sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and better-timed signal phases. And we need free transit. When more people can ride the bus without cost being a barrier, we reduce vehicle trips, road congestion, and ultimately save lives.
We designed our streets to prioritize speed over safety. It’s time to redesign them for the people who actually live here.
7. With the World Cup and Olympics approaching, what measures should the City take to ensure District 1 doesn’t see a rapid spike in short-term rentals that would ultimately result in less long-term housing?
This is a real and serious threat, and we need to get ahead of it now, not after units are already converted.
Major events like the World Cup and Olympics create enormous pressure for landlords to pull units off the long-term rental market. In District 1, where renters already face severe affordability pressure, even a small shift can be catastrophic.
I support strict short-term rental caps tied to primary residence requirements. You can rent your home while traveling, but investment properties cannot operate as de facto hotels. Any long-term housing unit should require community review before converting.
I also want an event surcharge on short-term rental revenue during major event windows, with proceeds dedicated to affordable housing funds, and proactive enforcement through a real-time permit database. The World Cup and Olympics should benefit Long Beach, not displace the people who live here.
8 What responsibility should long-term vacant property owners have to actively maintain buildings that repeatedly impact surrounding residents, businesses and public safety?
Property with emphasis on commercial property owners who allow buildings to sit blighted and vacant are making an active choice that harms neighbors, degrades the community, and in some cases creates genuine safety hazards. That choice should have consequences.
I support a progressive vacancy penalty: the longer a property sits unused and neglected, the higher the fee, with revenue flowing directly into local affordable housing initiatives and neighborhood reinvestment funds, ringfenced from the general budget. I also want to close the tax loopholes that make sitting on empty property financially attractive and flip those incentives so investment in community use (affordable housing, local businesses, co-ops) becomes financially advantageous.
For buildings posing active safety hazards, the city should have authority to remediate and place a lien on the property. Property rights come with responsibilities, and in District 1, those responsibilities will be enforced.
9 Downtown Long Beach has several distinct neighborhoods with a strong local identity. What would you do to revitalize Downtown while still preserving the character of places like the East Village, Pine Avenue and surrounding historic
I am passionate in developing a thriving Dristrict 1. Authentic revitalization means investing in what makes Downtown Long Beach actually distinctive: its people, its culture, its history, and its independent character, rather than replacing it with the chain-restaurant, luxury-condo formula that has hollowed out neighborhoods across the country.
In the East Village, on Pine Avenue, and along the historic corridors of District 1, I want to prioritize local businesses, artist spaces, and community uses over large corporate developments. That means vacancy penalties with real teeth, incentives for local entrepreneurs and co-ops to fill empty storefronts, and protection of affordable commercial rents.
And it means listening first. No revitalization plan developed at City Hall without deep community input will reflect what residents actually want. I’ll hold neighborhood-specific forums in the East Village, on Pine Avenue, and in Cambodia Town, and build from the ground up, not from the top down.
10. The Equity and Human Rights Commission has recommended the City adopt a Civil and Human Rights Investment Screening Policy (https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/city-manager/media-library/documents/memos-to-the-mayor-tabbed-file-list-folders/2025/november-21–2025—equity-and-human-relations-commission-recommendation-to-establish-a-civil-and-human-rights-investment-screening-policy). Do you support the adoption and implementation of this policy?
Yes. I participated in presenting this policy to the Commission. The principle is straightforward: public money is a statement of public values, and Long Beach should not be investing in corporations complicit in genocide, apartheid, forced labor, or systematic human rights violations. It is a moral baseline.
I take seriously the fiscal concerns raised by the Financial Management department, and I believe they deserve honest engagement, not as a reason to abandon the principle, but as a guide for refining implementation. Clearer screening criteria, a workable compliance process, and responsible phasing can address those concerns.
Other cities have built ethical investment frameworks successfully. Long Beach has always positioned itself as a leader on equity and human rights, and adopting a well-scoped version of this policy is consistent with that identity. Our job as elected officials is to find a way to make our money reflect our
