Who’s Got Your Vote: Meet Harrison Roday

Rich: Welcome to RVA’s Got Issues, a podcast about politics and public affairs in and around Richmond, Virginia. I’m your host, Rich Meagher. On this special election episode, RVA’s Got Issues with the Richmond mayoral election. Five candidates are vying to be Richmond’s next mayor. Each one wants to be the key decision maker that will shape the future of the city and the region. I’m Rich Marr. We’ll sit down with the candidates for an in-depth conversation about who they are, what they plan to do, and why they should be the choice of Richmond’s voters in November. We’re joined now by Harrison Roday, a nonprofit founder with a decade of business experience in New York and Richmond. Welcome, Harrison.

Harrison Roday: Thanks for having me, Rich. Pleasure to be here.

Q: You are no stranger to Virginia politics. You were a page in the State House of Delegates back in the day?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Yeah, my daughter wanted to do that, and she decided she wanted to dance instead. You have to give up a lot to do that kind of stuff. It was a real commitment. You have, you know, worked on Tim Kaine’s campaigns, you’ve been a White House intern. What would you say to voters? Who wonder though whether you’ve spent enough time getting to know the city of Richmond’s problems?

A: Sure. Well, as you said, I’ve had an interest in public service for a long time and That’s shown itself in a variety of different ways. Over the last few years, I started a nonprofit here in the city. We support the community by making loans to small businesses that are run by entrepreneurs that lack access to capital. So, I’ve had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in the city for many reasons. That’s one of them. I’m excited to continue to do so through the course of this campaign. I think we also all know that, you know, there are many issues that we face and many opportunities that we have that are. Uh, you know, not just around our city’s government, but also around making sure all the stakeholders we have in the city have a seat at the table. And I think the work that I’ve done in the business community, as well as in the nonprofit part of my life bring, bring a skill set to the table that will be really useful.

Q: Sure. And so, I mean, I get the sort of skill set argument. I think though, there still might be a concern that like, who do you know, who knows you, right? There’s a sense in Richmond sometimes of a kind of like network of people that if you’re known, like, do people trust you? So, I guess, what would you say to folks who would say, well, we don’t know you or we don’t know if you’ve been here long enough to convince them that no, actually, I actually do know this city.

A: Yeah, well, I never, you know, want to make any claims that, you know, can’t be backed up. So, I always am careful to say I grew up in Henrico. You know, the city and Henrico have a lot of things in common, but there are also some important differences, but it’s not like, you know, I just showed in our region. I grew up here, I spent first grade through 12th grade here, worked on Senator Kaine’s campaign in Richmond, you know, over a decade ago. I went to college at William Mary not too far from here, so I spent a lot of time in and around the city and I would ask people to talk to the people who I’ve worked with in the nonprofit space over the last five years and evaluate, you know, the work that I’ve done. I think folks will see that it’s been done in a partnership-oriented approach that’s been really focused on serving the community and impacting our city in a positive way.

Q: So, let’s get a little into those kinds of specifics, right? You’re, you have private equity experience, you have some business experience that’s generated some buzz. There is a sense, I think, among some folks in Richmond that they feel the city could use a leader with some business savvy. You don’t oversell your track record here as you’re saying you try to back things up, but it does seem to play into the way you view government a little bit. Can you talk about how your business experience informs your priorities that you’d put into place if you were mayor?

A: Well, I’m always very careful to say anyone who says they want to run government like a business I think is wrong and is being intellectually dishonest. So, I’m not a proponent of that idea, but I do think there are lessons that anyone who has helped run a large organization knows that are directly applicable to the challenge that the city faces. First and foremost, you know, one of the most important jobs of the mayor is to write and execute the budget for the city and finance is an area where I have extensive experience and I look forward to using that to make a positive impact for all of our residents, particularly in areas that have been underinvested in the past. We also face some clear organizational challenges that are in the weeds, things you and I like to talk about, whether it’s ERP conversions or systems implementations. Just, you know, minuit detail work that needs to be done organizationally in order to reform City Hall. Stuff that I’ve had some direct experience with I think is very helpful. You know, leadership, there’s different ideas about how to be a good leader. What my experience in the private sector and the nonprofit space has taught me is the best leaders view their job as supporting the folks who do the work. So, I’m not a top down, you know, bang the table. There are certainly times when someone who is a mayor or who is a leader has to say this is the decision that we’re making and there are moments for that. But I think more often, particularly when we’re talking about change and particularly when we’re talking about making investments in a strategic plan that will be in effect for five, 10 years. What you really have to be good at is working with people and partnering with folks who are doing the jobs every day. The perspective that I bring, the way that I was taught, is in manufacturing. When you run a plant, you don’t just tell everyone what to do. You try and do the opposite. You put your desk in the middle of the plant floor, and you ask people to come to you, share their views. You share what you’re trying to accomplish, and you work together to accomplish goals. We need to do that inside City Hall, and we also need to do it in a partnership-oriented mentality with our school board, our city council and the many stakeholders that are outside the formal structures of government.

Q: So, there’s a lot in there. Let’s unpack a little bit of that, particularly this idea about organizational management and change. So, without getting too technical about it, like you mentioned, uh, ERP conversions, which I totally know what they are. I promise. What kind of specific things would you do or just an example of a specific thing that you would bring to changing the organizational structure of the city or reforming it to make it work a little better?

A: Yeah, well first I want to make sure to always say, you know, the top issues that I want to talk about in the campaign that I think are most important to residents are safe and affordable access to housing, investing in our school system, supporting our neighborhoods, and protecting reproductive freedom. And that’s not to say that reforming City Hall isn’t important, it’s deeply critical. But I also want to make sure we’re focused on, you know, the big picture. With respect to your specific question, I’ve called for an audit of every department in City Hall so that we can generate, you know, real performance plans for each of the agencies. These are things that need to be public facing documents with genuine goals that say, here’s what we’re going to improve. For example, according to a recent audit document that was done, it takes 117 days on average for a City of Richmond resident to hear back and get their case addressed from the city when they have a question about their personal property taxes. So, someone needs to articulate what’s our goal to bring that down?

When are we going to do it by and how are we going to hold ourselves accountable? And when goals are missed, which inevitably they will be missed, taking the time to say here’s why we missed and here’s how we’re going to improve. I don’t think people are looking to say, “Hey, we’re doing great all the time, and no one ever asked us any questions.” Part of change is setting goals that are aspirational, working together to achieve them. You won’t hit every single one but if you keep moving in the right direction working with people setting the right metrics, you’ll achieve change.

Q: Right. It sounds great. Right. And I understand kind of what you’re pushing for. But that can be difficult also for the people working, for the people in power, and it’s also a very highly charged, like political environment. There’s also a sort of like logistical question too, right? Who pays for all that? How do you make it happen when you’re also busy trying to like do all the stuff that cities do right. That mayors do. So, like what’s the sort of plan to kind of free up the time and space and energy to make that stuff happen?

A: Yeah, well, we do need to continue to invest in the talent within the organization. There’s no doubt about that, and when I say that it’s not a talking point. I mean, take a look at the headcount of City Hall relative to the population of the City of Richmond. You’ll see on a relative basis, since the Great Recession, You know, City Hall has been understaffed and, you know that we are too quick to ask people to do very challenging things without giving the resources to succeed a classic way to fail at a difficult change project is to ask all your high performers to work on it, not backfill them, and then expect the organization to continue to deliver results on a day to day basis while putting a lot of the knowledge and expertise in out of town consultants that don’t have a vested interest in the outcome. That’s what not to do. What you have to do is invest in the capabilities of the organization itself and that means hiring more people. It means training people internally. It means working with people to figure out what support they need to do their job better on a day-to-day basis. It is not stuff that’s ever going to make the front page of the newspaper, but it is the work that moves an organization forward.

Q: So how do you maintain the sustained focus on that work, right? When things happen, right? Pandemics happen or let’s hope not, right? But it might, or some other crisis. Like, how do you keep that focus when there’s so many other things that happen to someone who’s the head of a big organization like a mayor?

A: Well, you have to, again, you have to invest in the capacity. If you’re to use a business analogy, if you’re working to introduce a new product, you don’t stop producing today’s project, shut all the lines down and tell everyone to focus on developing something new. You hire the people and build the team to do that. So, that’s what we have to do in a way that is mindful of what our residents need and working with the people in City Hall to ensure they have what they need to be successful. People are too quick to disparage the frontline workers who are in City Hall. I can promise you; no one shows up to their job and every morning looks at themselves in the mirror and goes, I want to have a day where I’m frustrated and make someone else feel bad that they’re coming to me for a question. Like that’s not how things work. So, we can change the direction, but it is going to take a dedicated plan, patience and time.

Q: So, a key message of your campaign is the idea of building a City Hall that works, right? But it’s a works for everyone. Going to your campaign, right? You have raised more money than any candidate in the race. More than half of those donations have come from out of states, including some large contributions. What do you say to voters who might be concerned that how this money might shape your priorities in terms of this goal for building a city that works for everyone?

A: Yeah. Well, a few things. First, I’ve been a long-standing advocate since, you know, long before this campaign, that campaign finance reform is something that we need. So, I think in an ideal world we would get money out of politics entirely and have public financing. Until that happens, I would just say the folks who are supporting our campaign, they know what my values are. They know what I stand for. And they know that if someone is a donor, that doesn’t mean I’m going to listen to what they say to do. They are supporting a vision for a city that grows the supply of affordable housing, that protects renters, that stops and slows down evictions, that invests in our public school system, that supports our neighborhoods. They know what I stand for, and that’s why they’re supporting the campaign. They think that I’m a leader who can do that. We have, and I would have to go back and check the math, but I think we have either the most or second most donations under 100 dollars of anyone running. So, I’m proud of that. And the folks from out of state, who have supported the campaign, are people who I’ve worked with directly and who know what my values are, and I articulate those values every day in the campaign.

Q: So, I get the sort of dueling metrics, right? You can point to the individual donations and the smaller donations to show that support, but I still think there’s a sense, right? Not necessarily personally, for you, right, but a concern about candidates, particularly here in Virginia and in Richmond, right, and where we have a history of politics that have often been dominated by large interests, right? We could name a company or two, right? That has had a significant influence. Not just on Virginia politics, but on Richmond City politics, particularly over the last few years. So, I mean, I still think that there is a concern that anybody who is even, like, sort of seeing shared values with folks who might represent some of these larger corporations or at least that’s the milieu, the place that they work in. I mean I still think there’s a concern among some voters, some residents, that even if you’re articulating values, right? And folks are all talking about values that those values still may inadvertently leave out some folks in the city. What do you say to that?

A: A couple things. I mean, first, I would ask folks to look at the work that I’ve done in the nonprofit community, starting an organization from scratch that serves our community. I’d also ask people to look at the organizations that have supported our campaign. I’m very proud to have the endorsements of fantastic organizations like New Virginia Majority and the Richmond Crusade for Voters. These are organizations that have an extremely strong track record of advocating for the rights of tenants, workers, and holistically, everyone who lives here. So, I’m really proud to have the support of those organizations, and just for clarification purposes, anyone is welcome to look at our donors. What they will find is they are not large corporations. They are individuals, and they are people who I have a personal track record of spending time with, you know, either the nonprofit space or a professional capacity.

Q: So, people want someone with the skills to address problems, right? And let’s say even dysfunction in some of the city’s operations. Let’s get back to this idea. I know you said you want to kind of prioritize some other issues, but I think this is still on people’s minds, right? You talk about audits of every department. You talked about a five-year plan with quarterly progress reports. What are we tracking? What are we trying to fix or to improve? Or what are we trying to measure as what a good government does?

A: Yeah, well, simple goals are the best goals, and the function of government is to support our residents and the folks who live here and who need services. Anytime I would look at, you know, a performance indicator or a metric for a department, it’s really important. You have to examine, you know, are you setting the right goal and are you doing it for the right reasons? So, we could talk about any agency in the city and come up with some common sense goals. Some of them are going to be public facing and, and address residents’ needs. Some of them, for example, if we want to pick out something where there’s been a challenge recently, having a certain number of cases resolved under the meals tax issue relative to the number of cases outstanding to the satisfactory resolution of both parties. That’s a way where you can kind of quickly common sense measure. Are we moving the ball? There’s also certain goals that are going to be more internal. That are going to be more focused on what is City Hall accomplishing internally on a regular basis. It’s really important to set those goals in a way that is open, in a way that welcomes feedback, in a way that works with people inside the building and outside the building because we need to have a city hall that is responsive to our residents as well as what people who are looking at the outside in think is required every day.

Q: So, I’m not going to give you a, you know, I’m a college professor, I’ll give you a good, a decent grade on the example that you chose, right? But it’s a fairly simple one in the sense that, you know, people are trying to reach out to city government, they’re not hearing back, and they want that time reduced, right? People should expect a prompt response. We’ve had some more complicated issues. You know, we’ve had a city spokesperson who had unclear oversight let’s say over what was going on there. Like, what do you do? Like, how do you fix a simple problem?

A: To me, that issue is actually not particularly complicated. That one, in my opinion, is where management did not perform their role. If you look at the paper trail that exists around the p card issue. First for anyone who doesn’t spend their time thinking about credit card expenditures and hasn’t been responsible for finance operations, you might not know that, you know, purchasing cards, p cards, credit cards, however you want to refer to them colloquially, you know, these are straightforward to manage. They’re software managed. There are delegations of authority. There are oversight teams. There are people who are supposed to do certain things like sign off on various things. So, this, you know, if you look at the emails that are now public, the frontline workers in the procurement department, they did their job. They highlighted transactions as problematic. What was missing was the accountability, and that’s a leadership issue. So, I don’t believe, you know, there are certain times when we talk about an IT systems conversion, for example, there are certain projects that are very difficult. They are complex. They require deep thought, long term execution, extra resources. There’s other things that are a little more common sense, and this one falls closer to that category.

Q: So, what would you say, like, if this had to be fed into a kind of management philosophy, what does accountability look like to you?

A: Yeah, accountability, I think if you’re…a hallmark of a great culture is that accountability comes from within. Not from top-down oversight. And, you know, there are parts of City Hall’s organization that appear to not be in that state today. And that can be fixed. It’s gonna take a little bit of time, but my observation would be if when organizations are run by leaders who are focused on, you know, negative adversarial consequence-based management, it probably means something has gone wrong somewhere else. And that is not really what we should be aspiring to. So, you know, these are nuanced things. Anyone who has ever worked in an organization that has more than three people, you know, understands that these complexities can be quite challenging, particularly when you overlay decades of underinvestment. I mean, we’re dealing with solving today’s issues, which rest on the shoulders of a long period of undermanagement in systems, undermanagement in people. I mean, these, these issues take time to correct.

Q: Okay, let’s try to break that down for just a second because that sounds very like I can translate it, right? It’s a little business-y in the sense that what you’re saying is that accountability, as the way you’re looking at it, requires a recognition of what came before. It requires a plan moving forward, and it sounds to me like you’re saying it requires patience. Do you think the City of Richmond, whether we’re talking about voters, whether we’re talking about folks who work in the city, have the patience for the kind of project and accountability that you’re talking about?

A: Yeah. Well, let’s break apart the two different parts of the answer. So, first on accountability, one of the reasons why I shared what I shared is I think it is often perceived that the word accountability means consequences and it means negative consequences. And all I’m trying to articulate is if that’s the mentality that someone thinks makes for a good leader. I think there’s a lot missing from that picture. All the other points that I mentioned about patience and about changing culture and that taking time, I think that’s just a reflection of different agencies are in different phases of journeys to get to a place where that’s not the kind of language we’re going to use anymore. And that does take time. And, you know, we can choose as a community collectively to have the patience or not. I’m very confident we do need it.

Q: We want to talk a little bit about education. Now you’ve been very clear about, you know, you have business experience. You’re not interested in running government like a business but still some of that business experience can help you approach the education issue in Richmond. How do you apply your thinking about like government reform in terms of accountability, in terms of organization, to something like public education?

A: Well first, I’m a big believer that we should be investing in public education and outside of the topic of housing, which I think is the single paramount issue for the future of our community over the next 20 years, it’s very clear that our public school system is the number one issue. The mayor can do many things to be supportive of RPS going as early as pre-K, which sometimes, you know, is not technically RPS and as after 12th grade. There are many things we can do to support kids. We can fully fund the school system from a budgetary perspective. The mayor can use the bully pulpit. I’m looking forward to showing up in school once a month and working with kids. The mayor can fund organizations that are in the city, like Parks and Rec that support our kids as well as nonprofits that support our kids in out of school time that are not technically a part of RPS. The mayor can be a champion for teachers. These are things the mayor can do. I also think it’s very important as we continue our city-wide conversation about the future of Richmond that we acknowledge that we have a directly elected school board. The school board is in charge of setting policy for Richmond Public Schools. The mayor, and I will be as mayor, a very strong partner to the school system. But I think setting the public up with an expectation that the mayor can act alone to change outcomes in the school system is probably not the right approach.

Rich: So, it’s not that you need to fix the schools. It’s that you need to support the schools while the school board and superintendent do the work that they need to do.

Roday: We need to be closely aligned with school board, city council, and the State. I mean, if you add up the education line items in the city’s budget, they’re the largest number. But I think it is under discussed how much of RPS is actually paid for by the state government and the federal government. We have nearly a hundred million dollars of support that go into Head Start and support for other federal programs. We have over a hundred million dollars of money that comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia itself. So, fixing and, I mean, I hesitate to use the word fix. Supporting positive change in RPS is something that absolutely should be on the mayor’s desk, but it needs to be done in a partnership-oriented mentality and needs to be done in a way that is elevating the voices of our students and teachers. The key, you know, guideposts for success in the future for RPS are: students, their families and the teachers. So that’s who we should be listening to partnering with. It has to be the mayor, city council and school board working together to get that done.

Q:  So, in terms of leadership and government structure, it’s not the same kind of deal with law enforcement, community safety, but do you see the same kind of like partnership approach for improving, reforming whatever the word might be for people’s perceptions of community safety?

A: Well, the partnership approach, absolutely. The mechanics, very different. I mean, I’ve been very clear that we need to invest in violence intervention initiatives, particularly those that impact our kids. And a lot of the resources and people who do that work are not folks who work in law enforcement. So, absolutely. However, as I’m sure most folks know, a major difference in the question that you asked relative to the school system is this is an agency that does report up directly to the CAO. And into the mayor’s office.

Q: True, but it does seem that folks who have been calling for reform of law enforcement feel like there’s resistance. It seems so tough to change how we do law enforcement in the country and in the City of Richmond. How do you overcome that resistance, whether it’s resistance from within or without?

A: Yeah, I think I start by I always try and think to, you know, when you have role models and mentors in your life, you know, what do people who you admire? How do they lead? What do they do? You know, I started my career working with Senator Kaine. I think one of the reasons why he’s so admired and respected is he’s, first, a listener. And I think on issues that are particularly challenging, the most important first step is being a convener, listener, and partner to communities to work together, uh, not trying to dictate from on high a set of solutions. So, we can set some north stars that I think are reasonably common sense, which is we should want community members to feel as if they have a positive relationship with members of law enforcement. We should want folks who are in law enforcement to feel like they have the tools they need to do their job while being respectful of the communities they serve. I think there are some guideposts we can work on, but it does require folks working together, those who are formally in the structure of working for the city and those who are stakeholders who live in the community.

Q: So, what comes after listening, right? Listening is all well and good, but at some point, you need to take action. And so how do you take that action, and what if there’s resistance to that action?

A: Yeah, well I’ve, I mean, let’s take the issue of gun violence, for example. I’ve advocated for what I believe are some common sense ideas like establishing an office of gun violence prevention within the mayor’s office, investing in gun violence intervention initiatives in the form of the budget and using resources, investing in school based, you know, community safety programs, and bringing in models that have worked nationally, and focusing on incident reviews so we can make sure we’re always addressing the root causes of what we’re seeing. I think those are reasonable approaches that the vast majority of people would agree upon.

Q: So, speaking of gun violence, that’s a good response there. One very Richmond kind of issue or view is a kind of divide between North and South. The South Side as being under invested. There certainly is a problem with gun violence in the city, but there’s certain areas of the city that seem to suffer from it more. I mean, I guess the way I would put it is, do you think you can be the person to bridge the divide between the North and the South, if there is one?

A: Well, I would I agree partially with the premise of your question. Richmond is a…one of the things that makes Richmond so special, is just how diverse it is in many different senses of the word. And yet, there are critical divides in access to opportunity. Some of them are geographic. Some of them are racial. There are different factors that surround all these issues. I think getting to a place where we can just start by saying the basic tenet of no one’s opportunities in life should be dictated by their zip code or what race they are. That’s something that I really believe. It comes from the personal story of my family and me having been religious refugees who had to flee Nazi Germany and come to the United States. They came to the United States for a reason. And I think we need to have the aspirational goal that no matter where in Richmond someone is, they live in a neighborhood they like, with housing costs that are under control, sending their kids to a public school that they believe in, where their rights and freedoms are protected. We need to hold up that aspirational goal, and we know right now that that goal is not being met.

Q: And so, what would you say to folks from neighborhoods that have been traditionally left out of the kinds of discussions or solutions, whether it’s North, South. Whether it’s black, white. What do you say to them to earn their trust? To say that these are not just words. These are things that I believe.

A: It’s easy to say words and make promises, particularly when you’re running for office. All I ask from people is take a look at the time I’ve spent in the nonprofit space and what I’ve tried to accomplish there in a partnership-oriented way that that serves the needs of the people who trust the nonprofit. Not focused on, you know, building up some entity for the sake of itself. This is an idea that is supposed to be of service. And I think hopefully that track record shows that when I say I believe in things like a level playing field, people can look at that and say, actually, this guy is serious because he’s done that work. Now, that’s not going to answer all questions for all people, nor should it. And I would ask people just to evaluate, particularly as mayor, where are you allocating the money in the budget? Where are you prioritizing physically economic development opportunities? Are you putting in structures in economic development transactions that the city is involved in that reflect not only the needs of workers who are focused on those projects, but reflect the needs of residents? Are you putting a line in the sand that says, “If we are going to have vendors working on this project, here’s how we’re going to support those who have historically lacked access to capital.” Those are things I will champion, and people can judge whether or not on my track record that that’s something that they think I’ll actually do.

Q: So that, that leads us nicely into what you say is the biggest issue facing Richmond, which is housing, right? It’s affordable housing and housing that can be affordable for everyone. So, are you talking about, like, building into codes, into contracts, like requirements for affordable housing? Are you talking about only working with developers who have a commitment and demonstrate that commitment and how do we do that and how do we track it and enforce it?

A: Well first let’s just talk about the state of housing in Richmond. The majority of Richmonders are renters. Estimates vary between 55 and 60 percent. And I think oftentimes when we start a dialogue in a public space talking about housing. Everyone’s minds go to, well, what’s being built? And that is a very fair and genuine place to spend time, and we should be spending time talking about that. We should be spending time talking about when, as taxpayers, we subsidize the creation of new housing. Who is it for and at what levels of affordability? That’s a core question. But I would argue that first we need to spend more time talking about protecting renters, and we need to talk more about stopping evictions. We need to have a consensus reached across our community when taxpayer money is being invested in projects. What does it mean to develop housing that is truly affordable? Oftentimes people who discuss this issue academically talk about area median income and percentages of area median income. Well, if we’re using taxpayer money to subsidize the development of housing that supports people who are between 80 and 100 percent of area median income, you know, that means we’re using taxpayer dollars to support people who make 60,000 a year as a single person. Maybe 100,000 plus dollars as a household. So, I think we need to be more clear that taxpayer dollars should be used to support people who are either unhoused or at the risk of becoming unhoused. And that means having some long-term conversations about how to work with some of our nonprofit partners, how to support the work of Richmond Redevelopment Housing Authority, how to do things that are challenging and correct a lot of the systemic disparities that have existed here for a long time. And I am all for talking about what our priorities are when we build new housing units. But if we only talk about that, we are missing a huge part of the conversation.

Q: So, the talk is good, right? But what can the mayor do in terms of actually making the

A: Well, I think we should do some very simple things like create a tenant’s council within the mayor’s office. Actually, elevate the voices of people who are renters, a diverse cross section of people in the city. We should welcome developers who are doing good work and providing affordable housing and treating their tenants fairly. When landlords are not doing that, they need to be held accountable and that is something the mayor can do publicly. The mayor’s arguably number one or two most important job is writing the budget, and we spend millions of dollars subsidizing affordable housing. As mayor, I will not be spending money subsidizing housing that goes towards the creation of new units that don’t actually create genuine affordability. We also have a performance grant program run through our economic development authority in partnership with the city council where the city has given away, it’s under discussed in my view, over a hundred million dollars of future tax revenue for all the discussion that was had about whether or not tax increment financing or TIFs was appropriate for the Navy Hill project. The city is essentially creating many TIFs today for the creation of new apartment units under the stipulation that certain affordability criteria are met. Well, what are those affordability criteria and are they appropriate? I mean, these are things that the mayor has direct influence in.

Q: And so, what is affordable, do you think? Do you have a definition of it?

A: Well, we know what’s not working. We know it doesn’t make sense for someone to be paying, as I have seen when I walk through apartment complexes, over $1,200 a month at Woodland Crossing in Southside for someone to live in an apartment that has mold, that has exit stairwells that are falling apart, that has parts of a structure that have been burnt in a fire and people are still living in it. We know that doesn’t work. When we’re talking about new units. I think we need to have our dollars focused on people who make less than half what the median income here is in Richmond. And I would ask people hold me as mayor and hold the city council accountable because area median income is easy to say about 60,000. But if you actually unpack what’s in that calculation, there is a group of people who are earning higher and higher salaries who are doing fine and a group of people who don’t have the opportunities they deserve. And if you just use an average, you get yourself into a lot of trouble.

Q: So, is this going to cost us and where does the money come from? That’s the question that I think a lot of folks have during this whole campaign. We’ve got good ideas coming out. Do we have the money to do these kinds of things?

A: Well, one of the reasons why I talk so much about the budget is because we have to make important policy priority decisions and that’s done through the budget. I mean, if we just want to talk about some common sense math, the general fund for our city is about a billion dollars. We have made critical and important commitments to our workforce in City Hall that they are no longer going to be underpaid and that’s enshrined in a collective bargaining agreement. The same is true with our teachers at RPS. And, I believe all of the candidates running, including myself, have committed to keeping the bus system fare free. If you add just those commitments alone, you’re talking about somewhere around $50 million a year of increasing costs. So, we have to manage our budget well. If you look at the report on comparative municipal government and compare the city of Richmond to the city of Norfolk, we are roughly the same size in land area, population and demographics. We spend more money per capita delivering almost every city service here. So, I do think there are some opportunities for improvement in the budget. But I am not going to promise things that don’t make sense. We need, for example, tax relief for seniors who are homeowners, who are below a certain income, who have seen their assessments go up. There is a program that exists for that. We need to invest more in that program. I would love for the State to allow our city to improve to create real estate tax relief for people who own homes who have seen their incomes go down and their assessments go up. But we have other people running who are saying they want to just cut the real estate tax. Well, the real estate tax makes up over half the revenue for the general fund. So, anyone who says they want to cut that, as well intentioned as it may be, has to answer the question, how are these city services going to be funded? You know, the best thing we can do is continue to have an economy that’s growing so that revenue increases. How do we do that? We do it by investing in our residents and keeping Richmond affordable by supporting growth and affordable housing and making sure there’s good living wage jobs. So that, we have to increase the pie otherwise we’re not going to be able to fund these priorities.

Q: So, is it that the approach has to be an integrative approach? Or, I mean, because we’re talking about housing and now, we’re talking about the budget, and we’re talking about the economy, but is it just that we can get more efficient? Like, is it the difference between Richmond and Norfolk is we’re just doing things wrong here or is there something more fundamental structural or something about Richmond itself that we need to look at to get to where Norfolk is?

A: Well, I do think we are tighter. We need to have tighter fiscal management in our budget. I’m not going to propagate the age-old Republican talking point because I don’t believe it. And I think when Republicans do it, it’s in bad faith. As Democrats, we should be the first people to point out you can’t cut waste, fraud, and abuse and use that to fund programs. I mean, it creates negative perception of government, and it has other stereotypes associated with it that as a Democrat, like I’m very, very happy to push back on that. I also think, just generally, there are opportunities for the city to be better fiscally managed. And you know, that’s a skill set that I have that I look forward to using on behalf of residents. But again, going back to the top, you asked, is it integrative? The answer is, of course it is.  I mean, the, the economy, our budget, the priorities, they all work together. You know, this is why we have these robust conversations in the context of a campaign.

Q: So, what do you think people get the most wrong about you as a candidate?

A: That’s a great question. I’ve never given it much thought. I mean, sometimes people tell me that I’m taller than they expected. So maybe, maybe that’s one.

Q: Okay. You’re too tall. You can’t teach height, you know? So, that’s good. Well, let’s put the question a different way, right? There are five candidates in this race. What specifically makes you the best prepared of them for the challenges that Richmond is going to face over the next four years?

A: Yeah, I would very simply say, I am advocating for positive change in the city, a city that works for everyone, a place where we can be affordable and a great place to raise a family. We can raise the bar for the city. We can be a place where people, whether they’re lifelong Richmonders or new to the city, can afford to live here and can build a great life here. And the reason why I think I’m well positioned to lead us through that as mayor is because I have a track record of getting things done. I come from an outside approach, working with nonprofits and large organizations. I know how to run organizations. I know finance. I know how to manage a budget, and my values match the people of the city of Richmond. I have been a long-time consistent advocate for equity, for women’s rights, for equal opportunity.These are things that the people of Richmond deeply care about, and I think it’s really important to have a mayor that shares those values.

Q: How do you know, right? Like how do you know that Richmond shares those values? What’s your kind of bellwether for what Richmond is about? What’s your kind of vision of that?

A: Yeah. I mean, I’ve spent extensive time prior to the campaign in our community and over the course of the campaign have had the joy of meeting voters at their door, talking to people in forums, listening to their feedback and I have such high conviction on many things about what Richmonders believe. By and large, no matter who you are or where you live in Richmond, we all have aspirations for the city. We all are believers in what the future of Richmond can be if we work together. And the values that I hear over and over again are people want a place that’s affordable. They want to live in neighborhoods that are safe. And well invested in whether it’s streetlights and sidewalks or more complex, nuanced issues like gun violence. These are things that demand the attention of the city’s government. We want a city hall that is reformed and responsive. We want a mayor who shares a commitment. Particularly in a time when we have a Republican governor who is working to squash women’s rights. We need a mayor who has a commitment to standing up for women’s access to rights for abortion as healthcare. These are things that the vast majority of Richmonders talk to me about all the time, and whether it’s in a poll or just listening to people, I think it’s very obvious that these are things people in Richmond care about.

Rich: Harrison Roday is running for mayor of Richmond. Thanks so much, Harrison.

Roday: Thanks, Rich.

Rich: If you’d like to hear more about the important issues facing RVA, I hope you’ll subscribe to our podcast at our website rvasgotissues.vpm.org. Next week, our special election coverage continues. Join us for my interview with Maurice Neblett. You can find my interviews with all five mayoral candidates on YouTube, VPM.org, and wherever you find your podcasts. I’m Rich Meagher. Thanks for watching.