A stronger community
starts close to home.

Solve the actual traffic problem.

I want safer neighborhood streets and road projects that justify their cost, fit the vehicles using them, and make sense to the people who live nearby.

I’ve raised concerns about reckless driving on 8th Avenue east of Barker, particularly after dark. I asked for targeted observation and enforcement during the reported hours, along with a short speed study or other documentation.

I continue to oppose the planned single-lane roundabouts at Barker Road and 4th and 8th Avenues. My concerns include whether they are necessary, how they will handle commercial vehicles, and what they will mean for nearby residents.

As of October 22, 2026, the city’s South Barker corridor page lists right-of-way acquisition underway for the Sprague-to-8th project, with construction fully funded and planned to begin in 2027. That is the city’s published schedule, not a guarantee of the start date.

What I want to see

• Clear evidence of the problem each project is intended to solve.
• Vehicle-turning analysis that accounts for full-size trucks, along with repair and maintenance considerations.
• A public comparison of practical alternatives, including traffic signals where appropriate.
• Meaningful input from neighbors and drivers before decisions become difficult to change.

Project background: City of Spokane Valley’s South Barker corridor plans.

Muslim neighbors belong here, too.

I defend the right of Muslim neighbors to live, work, and worship peacefully in our community. My Christian faith does not require me to deny someone else’s religious freedom.

Religious liberty has to mean something when we disagree. I oppose hostility toward people simply because they are Muslim, and I believe local leaders should make clear that peaceful neighbors are welcome in civic life.

I draw a firm line at replacing American civil law with Sharia law—or any other religious legal system. Voluntary religious belief and observance are different from imposing a religious code through government or using it to deny someone else’s rights.

My standard is the same for everyone: freedom to believe and worship, equal treatment, and accountability for unlawful conduct. The actions of an individual should be judged on the facts.

Public decisions deserve public explanations.

Residents should be able to find the rules that govern city decisions and understand who made them, why they exist, and how to question them.

When I asked about AI-assisted traffic signals, I was told the city had a “no-AI policy.” I wanted to know what that meant: a formal policy, an administrative practice, or a departmental decision—and where the public could read it.

That is the standard I want for local government. If a policy affects the options available to residents, its authority and reasoning should be clear. Project costs, tradeoffs, and supporting evidence should be understandable to the people paying for them.

Listening to residents means taking their questions seriously and following through with useful answers.

Residents should be able to trace spending back to an adopted budget, compare it with actual financial reports, and see proposed changes before they are approved.

Public resources: City budgets and financial reports and October 2026 council recaps. As of October 22, 2026, the 2026 budget is adopted; the full 2027 budget is still a proposal. Proposed spending and possible savings should be identified as such.

Evaluate better tools. Keep people accountable.

I support evaluating AI-assisted traffic signals and other useful technology on their actual performance, cost, and ability to serve residents.

New technology deserves a fair examination. If a system could improve traffic flow or help us understand a recurring problem, I want the city to consider it openly.

For traffic systems, that means asking concrete questions: What would improve? How would we measure it? What would it cost? Who would oversee the system and respond when something goes wrong?

The purpose is straightforward: use tools that help solve local problems, with clear responsibility for the decisions made.

Let students advance when they’re ready.

Students should move forward by demonstrated mastery, with parents able to direct a learning path that fits their child.

In my education proposal, I call for advancement based on what a student can demonstrate, with room for different learning rates. A student who understands the material should be able to progress; a student who needs more time should receive it.

Parents have a central responsibility and right to guide their children’s education, working with educators. I support flexibility across public, private, and home education rather than forcing every child through the same timetable.

Background: Washington State Board of Education’s mastery-based learning work. My position supports developing this approach further.