Last November, this magazine posed the question: What does the city need in its next mayor?
An early passage in our assessment, which I wrote, read, “If the past year is any indication of which way things are trending, [Mayor Dwight C.] Jones’ successor will take office at a time when public confidence in City Hall is cratering thanks to inefficiency, poor management and a seeming inability to carry out basic tasks of governance. And there’s no transformative leader in sight. As depressing as that may be, it adds intrigue to what could shape up to be a competitive, and crowded, 2016 election.”
That may be the most prescient paragraph this cub reporter has ever written. Jones is limping through the final days of his tenure after being thrown under the bus by every candidate who has come within arm’s reach of a microphone (save for Michelle Mosby). About half of the respondents to August and September polls said they felt the city was going in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, what will go down as one of the most bizarre mayoral elections in city history is reaching peak mania as the seven remaining candidates court prospective voters.
In case you’re just tuning in, a brief recap: The mayoral field swelled to 17 candidates in late spring — including a strip club owner, an ex-City Council member convicted of a drug felony and a former Virginia Commonwealth University student who waged an internet domain war against other contenders. It shrank to eight after a June deadline to file petitions: Former West End councilman Jon Baliles, former Venture Richmond executive Jack Berry, retired real estate professional Bobby Junes, former commonwealth’s attorney and state delegate Joe Morrissey, council president Michelle Mosby, former secretary of the commonwealth Levar Stoney, former councilman Bruce Tyler (who would later drop out) and architect Lawrence Williams.
Candidates made the rounds during the summer, but as is customary, campaigning intensified after Labor Day, with TV commercials, door-knocking, phone banks and what feels like a zillion forums. August and September polls found that Morrissey, a survivor of personal, professional and political turmoil, was voters’ top choice for the job. Some of his opponents downplayed the results. Others sought to strategically lay claim to being the “anti-Morrissey” candidate. In mid-October, the front-runner was the target of what one veteran political observer called an “extraordinarily pointed, even brutal” radio ad courtesy of Mosby, who said, “I wouldn’t trust Joe Morrissey with my daughter, and I’m asking you not to trust him with our city.”
Much of the attention throughout this race has been paid to the differences in the leading candidates’ qualifications and, secondarily, their accomplishments. In part, that’s due to the fact that, broadly, they actually agree on a lot. All say they will be more prudent with taxpayer dollars and not spend them on “big shiny things.” All want to restore confidence in City Hall by doing the small stuff — cutting grass, filling potholes, repairing sidewalks, putting out annual financial reports on time, processing paperwork, etc. — more efficiently. All want to fix how the city funds Richmond Public Schools. All have pledged to work more closely with City Council and the School Board. All say they will be more accessible to the residents who elect them. This is all good.
Maybe the question then becomes who has the know-how to honor all these commitments? But practically speaking, no one hires someone based on their résumé alone.
So perhaps the key question is, whom do you trust to honor all these commitments?
