By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Candidates for Grand Junction City Council recently gathered at a forum hosted by Mesa County Republican Women, addressing the city’s pressing issues ahead of the April 8th municipal election.
Homelessness, housing affordability, impact fees and the 4th/5th Street project were central themes as candidates laid out their priorities.
Government vs. nonprofits: Who should take charge on homelessness?
Views diverged on whether the city or nonprofits should lead homelessness efforts.
Alexis Hitzeroth (District A), a veteran, called for more advocacy and outreach. “I know that the city can do better when it comes to our unhoused population. I think we need to get more advocates out there within the city and speak to the homeless population and see what they think is best for them,” she said.
Cody Kennedy (District A, incumbent) emphasized the need for firsthand engagement. “It’s not just about trusting advocates to go out there and do that, but doing the work ourselves.” He added, “I’ve recently spoken with Mona Highline, Joseph Senter, Sister Karen at Catholic Outreach, Bill Wade at Homeward Bound and Faith Rodriguez at United Way. I spend time with these people so that I really have good, practical solutions.”
Kenneth Scissors (at-large) pointed to economic struggles as the root cause. “We’ve always had a homeless problem. But in the last few or several years, we’ve had a huge spike. And that huge spike is not due to an outbreak of mental illness or drug use. It’s due to economic hardship.”
Ben Van Dyke (at-large), whose business operates across from a homeless resource center, argued that nonprofits, not city government, should take the lead. “We don’t know best. These are people who have never dealt with this population. They’re not service providers. So why aren’t we meeting with the service providers and asking them what we can do to best facilitate what they’re trying to do?”
Laura Houston (at-large), a resource center volunteer, stressed the need for nonprofits and providers to collaborate, ensuring basic needs are met. “Working together cohesively to provide basic human needs so that these people can be housed, be safe, rest. Then they can enter the workforce and be functioning and contributing to society.”
Laurel Cole (District D) emphasized the importance of collaboration. “Listening to those stakeholders who have more information and knowledge is where we need to be,” she said.
Robert Ballard (District E) emphasized that fighting homelessness requires stopping drug dealers from trapping people in addiction. “We need to hold the drug dealers accountable that are victimizing these homeless people, keeping them addicted to drugs and preventing them from accessing resources that would require sobriety,” he said.
He also stressed the need to address mental health, calling it a complex, “circular issue.” “Focus on that, get that handled and then we can start focusing on the harder issue,” he said.
Ballard referenced resident concerns about public spaces being overtaken by homelessness. “They don’t want to go downtown and see a park full of homeless people. They want to see these people housed and back in our community as functioning members of society.”
Randall Reitz (District E, incumbent) emphasized understanding [homelessness] struggles and focusing on economic solutions. “The most important thing we can do, quite honestly, is to grow our economy.” He added, “I don’t want the city to be running these types of nonprofits. We have enviable, wonderful nonprofits in town. And we should be supporting them.”
4th/5th Street pilot project: fix or flop?
There was no consensus among candidates over the 4th/5th Street project. Some called for a rollback while others defended it as a necessity.
Kennedy pointed to strong community opposition. “One of the reasons that I have been pounding on this, and it’s not because it’s unsafe — I think it is. And it’s not because it’s hard to park — I agree with this. It’s not because it’s driving down the business revenue for our downtown businesses, which I think it is. It’s because we need to be listening to our community.”
Ballard dismissed the project as unwanted by residents. “That was not something that the people wanted. It didn’t support any new infrastructure.”
Reitz defended the initiative, pointing to positive data. “Yes, it’s been a flawed rollout, but the data has been very positive. There’s been no drop in taxes. There’s been no increase in accidents. It’s been an overall positive thing.”
Cole criticized infrastructure priorities, saying other parts of the city were being neglected. “Over in District D, you have to avoid the potholes all the way up 29 Road. You stop and think, when is this part of town going to have some attention?”
Affordable housing, impact fees and city growth
When the conversation shifted to housing affordability, candidates linked the challenge to impact fees, zoning laws and financial transparency.
Cole, who has worked on affordable housing projects, highlighted the importance of clear spending practices. “Transparency is so important, and I think that’s the biggest thing that’s been lost over the years. People don’t feel like they’re getting the truth from the city.”
Kennedy took issue with the city prioritizing maximum supportable impact fees, arguing that it drove up housing costs. “Yes, impact fees have an impact on affordable housing. Actually, all housing. And I’m not completely opposed to doing a bit of a tiered structure so that we can build more at the lower end and encourage that type of building.”
Van Dyke cautioned against unnecessary spending. “We can have grand dreams of the Taj Mahal that we want to build as our park, but in reality, the income level of Grand Junction doesn’t support that.” He added, “Instead of looking at our budget and wondering where we can cut to actually make it work for Grand Junction, instead of asking the voters for a tax increase, we’re going to impose fees on our voters without ever even asking them.”
He added that restoring trust in government is key before introducing any new taxes or fees. “The tax money is there, but when [taxpayers] trust that you have their best interests at heart, they’re going to be more receptive to these increases. But right now, that trust is broken, and we need to restore that trust before we increase tax or fees on anybody in our valley.” He pointed to what he called special interest projects that don’t align with residents’ priorities.
Scissors emphasized a balanced approach to impact fees, stating, “Growth has to be paid for, and it has to be shared throughout the community, and the impact fees are a portion of that. But they shouldn’t carry the whole thing.”
Ballard suggested that simplifying development rules could increase housing availability. “Make it easier. We’ve got a ton of vacant land that’s in between all these high-density suburbs. We need to make it easier to build in the city limits.”
Reitz asserted that city development is ongoing. “The reality is, only 41 percent of people in the county live in Grand Junction, but almost two-thirds of our real permits happen in Grand Junction because people are choosing to build here.”
Election Information
Grand Junction’s municipal election for City Council takes place on Tuesday, April 8.
For more information on the candidates, including campaign websites and contact details, visit the Grand Junction City Council candidate webpage.