David Kertes

Yes. I support additional market-rate housing and would not deny a project merely because it is market rate. More housing should help broaden supply over time, although I have not yet seen new apartments produce the affordability residents need. My strongest focus would remain affordable and workforce housing, including opportunities on city-owned land.

I would work with developers to understand the economics rather than impose a requirement that prevents the project from being built. The city should consider incentives, city-owned land, and additional density, but developers receiving assistance should be willing to show their numbers and be held accountable for the commitments they make.

I would need to review the city's ordinances, state requirements, and the effects on existing neighborhoods before supporting broad permission for duplexes and fourplexes. I would also want residents involved. On undeveloped land, I do not see the same concern. I support well-designed townhomes and other denser housing when they include parks, walking access, and nearby services.

Santa Clara should comply, and major sites such as Related, Great America, and Downtown may give the city opportunities to exceed the state requirement. Exceeding the number is not enough if the resulting apartments remain unaffordable to working residents.

Yes, when the project is responsibly operated. Housing for families and people who have fallen on hard times should be a priority, followed by stronger mental-health intervention. Supportive housing should include counseling, management, security, and help for residents transitioning from homelessness so that both residents and neighbors can feel safe.

Encampments should be removed, but the city and county must identify somewhere for residents to go first, such as temporary shelter or small-home options with showers and services. Simply moving people into another city or leaving them with no alternative does not solve the problem.

Yes. Denser housing with little parking requires a functioning regional transit system. However, the repeated cost increases cannot continue indefinitely. Local officials should establish a firm financial limit and require the project to operate within it, because continued escalation and delay will eventually destroy public support.

I do not object to higher-density station-area development. My concern is timing and practical transportation. BART may not arrive until 2037, while housing could be completed sooner, so projects should address traffic and provide realistic parking rather than assume residents will immediately stop owning cars.

I strongly support moving Parcels A and B through the RFP and developer-selection process. If City Hall property is redeveloped or partially sold, proceeds could help fund Downtown infrastructure. I support the adopted Downtown direction, including buildings of roughly five to nine stories near my own home. Because I live near Parcels A and B, I may need to recuse myself from votes involving those parcels. If elected, I would seek an FPPC determination regarding whether decisions involving Parcels A and B require my recusal.

I am not opposed to additional data centers once adequate electrical capacity exists. They provide revenue and construction work while requiring relatively few ongoing city services. However, residents should not subsidize the infrastructure they require, environmental and water impacts must be addressed, and Santa Clara should not place a data center on every available site. Data centers should not be located in residential areas.

My first priority is to strengthen reserves and fund ongoing maintenance so a downturn does not force severe cuts. If revenue fell substantially, every department would need review. Attrition or leaving some vacancies unfilled could be considered, including in public safety, but I would not support reductions that materially harm police or fire response times. I did not identify one single expenditure that alone should absorb the reduction.

Compensation should be tied to formal performance reviews, market comparisons, and available revenue. Departments should receive a defined raise pool and allocate more to strong performers rather than giving everyone the same automatic increase. If revenue growth is weak, the overall pool may need to fall from three or four percent to one or two percent while the city continues trying to retain strong employees.

From what I understand, the 49ers are currently meeting their contractual obligations. My criticism is the neighborhood impact after events: intoxicated fans, public urination, disorder, and the need for curfew and safety enforcement after formal stadium operations end. I would also like the organization to make more visible contributions to youth fields and community facilities. I would like the city and the 49ers to work more closely to pursue the 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup and future Super Bowls at Levi's Stadium rather than lose those events to San Francisco or San Jose.

Yes, 100 percent. I would publicly ask an outside organization to stop spending if its involvement were damaging public confidence. My campaign is currently largely self-funded, and I am emphasizing direct door-to-door contact with residents.

Mike Wiltberger. He has been courteous and appears genuinely interested in improving Santa Clara. I do not yet know all of his policy positions, so I would want to understand those better before choosing a particular appointment, but I would seriously consider him for an appropriate committee.

Years of late, combative council meetings are a central reason I am running. I would first build trust with every councilmember, establish respectful conduct, and create a citywide strategic plan that incorporates priorities from each district rather than allowing meetings to become personal battles.

Small businesses have faced sharp business-tax increases while very large companies benefit from a maximum tax. I would revisit that cap, use additional large-business revenue to lower burdens on small businesses, offer startup incentives and education, fill vacant storefronts, and retain more local sales-tax activity.

I oppose data centers in residential areas and mega-scale projects. Industrially sited projects can provide revenue with relatively low public-service demands, but they must pay for their own power infrastructure and use environmentally responsible cooling, recycled water, or closed-loop systems. Capacity should exist before approvals continue.

New apartments renting for thousands of dollars do not meet the needs of nurses, caregivers, electricians, and other essential workers. I would use city land, developer incentives, deeper affordability, and first-time-buyer programs, including mixed-income ownership projects and high-density condominiums in suitable locations.

I live across from Parcels A and B and see the delay every day. The RFP must move now, with the city manager held accountable for progress. Completing those parcels can stimulate surrounding owners, create a place for residents to gather, and capture tax revenue now going to neighboring cities.

The bond will not erase the entire deficit. Santa Clara needs recurring revenue from Related, Downtown, small businesses, and stalled projects so it can invest tens of millions annually rather than seek another bond. My priorities would include fire stations, roads, sewer systems, parks, and recreation facilities.

The city needs more revenue from Related, Downtown, small businesses, and stalled development, along with performance reviews before senior officials receive raises. I would focus on growth and accountability rather than cutting police or fire as Santa Clara’s population increases.

Related’s change in plans altered where Silicon Valley Power must deliver electricity, pushing the schedule toward 2028 or later. I would bring the city manager, SVP, and Related into one room, identify every roadblock, and find ways to shorten the timeline by six or twelve months.

The city and 49ers are in a long-term relationship, and continuing legal combat benefits attorneys rather than residents. If elected, I would meet immediately, compare the team’s and city’s ten-year plans, pursue future major events, and keep more event spending in Santa Clara rather than San José or San Francisco.

First, I would bring the council together around a three-to-five-year strategic plan and district priorities. Second, I would identify fiscal and infrastructure gaps and create funded action plans. Third, I would review open positions and accelerate permitting that produces economic activity, sales taxes, property taxes, and school revenue.

I would hold monthly or at least quarterly community meetings, add walk-and-talk events, expect the mayor and councilmembers to publish newsletters, use social media and libraries, engage community leaders, provide translators, and make council proceedings accessible in the city’s most commonly spoken languages.

I would oppose a technology-only redevelopment but first ask the city attorney what the city can legally require to avoid an expensive lawsuit. I would pursue mixed-income housing, an entertainment zone, parks, youth recreation, and preservation or relocation of the carousel through a collaborative council strategy.

I have not met with the 49ers or sought their political support, and I would not take their money. If elected, I would meet with them after the election to compare priorities and build a productive long-term working relationship.

I would work with the city manager but require greater transparency, earlier resident involvement, and accountability to the council. We have already discussed City Hall and the possible Santa Clara University/fire-station land swap; I would continue direct conversations while ensuring decisions are not made behind closed doors.

I am running for my children and future generations because Santa Clara cannot leave them escalating debt and neglected infrastructure. My campaign is resident-driven and largely self-funded, and my door-to-door work has convinced me that voters want change, direct engagement, and business experience applied to city government.