A Record of Getting Involved

I believe public service starts before Election Day. My involvement in East Bethel has focused on planning, transparency, and making sure major decisions reflect the long-term interests of residents.

Planning Commission

I served on the East Bethel Planning Commission during a period when significant development proposals were being considered. My record shows a consistent approach: support responsible growth, insist that major decisions follow the Comprehensive Plan, and make sure the public benefit is clear before the City grants flexibility or accepts long-term obligations.

On the Public Record

  • Growth should follow the Comprehensive Plan. I repeatedly stated that I was not opposed to development, but that density, land use, infrastructure and neighborhood impacts should be consistent with East Bethel’s adopted vision.
  • Mixed-use development should actually be mixed use. I argued that residential growth in mixed-use areas should include meaningful commercial opportunities and walkability rather than simply increasing housing density.
  • PUD flexibility should produce a public benefit. When a development asks the City to deviate from normal standards, I believe residents should receive something meaningful in return—better design, preserved open space, environmental protection, infrastructure improvements or another identifiable community benefit.
  • Major questions should be answered before approval. I pushed for traffic, engineering, fiscal and environmental issues to be resolved rather than assuming they would be fixed after preliminary approval.
  • Taxpayers should understand the long-term cost. I requested fiscal analysis of major development proposals and questioned whether future maintenance, infrastructure and service obligations were being weighed against projected revenue.
  • Existing neighborhoods and rural character matter. I raised concerns when development intensity, access, traffic or layout could shift costs or impacts onto established East Bethel residents.
  • Regulation should remain practical. I supported reasonable rules for storage containers, more flexible food-truck permitting, an appropriate septic variance, and the sale of unusable City property to an adjoining owner. Planning should protect the community without creating unnecessary restrictions.

Viking Meadows

Viking Meadows became the clearest example of how I approached development review. I repeatedly stated on the public record that I was not opposed to development, but I believed the proposal was overdeveloped and did not sufficiently align with the Comprehensive Plan or justify the flexibility being requested. I raised concerns about mixed-use balance, traffic and access, engineering, environmental impacts, long-term fiscal exposure and whether meaningful public benefits were being provided. When those issues remained unresolved, I was willing to cast dissenting votes rather than assume they would be fixed later. The final development changed from the original proposal, including a reduction in units and preservation of the existing MUSA boundary. That process is why I believe detailed review matters before a project becomes permanent.

Transparency & Accountability

I have consistently pushed for residents and elected officials to receive better information before major decisions are made. Whether the issue is development, law enforcement, or city spending, the standard should be the same: define the problem, provide the facts, compare the alternatives, and explain the decision.

The Standard I Would Bring to the Mayor’s Office

Good intentions are not enough. Major city decisions should be defensible, understandable, and tied to a clear public purpose.