A debate for the Irvine mayoral candidates was held by ASUCI and the UCI Community Government Relations on Oct. 17. Students and Irvine residents were given the opportunity to interact with and learn more about the candidates who will be running for mayor in the upcoming election.
While all five candidates were invited to participate, only four were present. Nonpartisan candidate Katherine Daigle was not in attendance.
The debate began with two-minute opening statements from each candidate. The first candidate to speak was Simon Moon, a 41-year-old nonpartisan pastor and army officer with no prior public office experience. Moon’s introduction highlighted his main topics of concern, which included public safety, veterans’ affairs and the increased development of Great Park.
“As a mayor, I am committed to strong public safety in our community and fiscal responsibility with no new taxes, honoring our veterans and controlling over-development, and ensuring we have transparency in our city hall,” Moon said.
The next candidate to speak was Tom Chomyn. Chomyn, at 62-years-old is also a nonpartisan candidate, focused his opening statement on his experience with community service. As a father of three, Chomyn has served on several volunteer boards, including the Irvine High School Boosters and the Greentree Homeowners Association. He expects to be able to use these qualifications to support veterans’ affairs.
“I’m involved and I’m gonna keep moving on for the veterans,” Chomyn said.
Incumbent mayor Farrah Khan followed. Khan’s topics for discussion included celebrating the diversity programs she implemented as mayor, as well as her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“With my leadership and the support of my council, we have created the COVID-19 task force… opened the business reopening task force… established a DEI [diversity equity and inclusion] committee… signed on to a resolution to establish an online hate-reporting portal,” Khan said.
Branda Lin was the last to give her opening statement. 43-year-old Lin introduced herself as an Irvine native and UCI alumnus. She then spoke about the Irvine Watchdog program she created, which serves to “promote transparency, accountability, and honesty in our local government.”
Lin concluded by confronting Khan’s current office.
“What you’ll hear on the various issues will be examples of failed leadership over the course of the current mayor’s term time and time again. This race is about reckless spending, ethics violations, and irresponsible development here in Irvine,” Lin said.
Following the opening statements, candidates were asked pre-determined questions that were unknown before the debates took place. Each candidate was given a minute and a half to respond. Topics included the lack of student housing, sustainability, reproductive rights and transportation.
Housing sustainability was an issue of concern for many of the students in attendance.
“Housing sustainability is what I care about… I’ve heard of international students who have to sleep in their car and I think that shouldn’t happen,” UCI international student Thang Nguyen said.
All of the candidates are running as non-partisan — they do not identify as either Democrat or Republican, nor do they completely identify as “liberal” or “conservative.”
This shared non-partisanship led to a generally similar stance on most issues discussed, though candidates tended to disagree on solutions. On issues of public safety, for example, Chomyn and Khan tended to lean towards the strengthening of the police force while Lin favored a mental health approach.
The least contested issue was reproductive health. None of the candidates were willing to take a strong stance in either direction.
The most contested issue was that of district-based elections in Irvine. This question was followed by a rebuttal from each candidate with the exception of Moon. The candidates argued over whether Khan’s office had been reactive enough when it came to deciding on the issue. Khan was left to defend her choices amidst criticism from Lin and Chomyn and booing from spectators.
This strategy of provocation was often used by Lin, who replied to several questions with criticism towards Khan and her office.
This question and response segment lasted for about an hour. Afterwards, candidates were asked questions from audience members. Topics included veterans’ affairs, student involvement and campaign donation.
To conclude the debate, the candidates each delivered closing statements.
Lin began her statement with a list of accusations against the current local government. She reminded the audience of the corruption allegations and complaints regarding censorship and undemocratic policy have been filed against local officials. Lin finished by outlining her plans as mayor.
“On day one as mayor, I am committed to; one, creating a strong recusal against pay-to-play deals. Two, giving everyone their full three minutes again per agenda item for public comments to increase public participation. And three, banning cellphones from the dais to increase transparency. Your vote for me is a vote for ethics, anti-corruption and responsible planning for Irvine,” Lin said.
Moon was second to give his closing statement. Similar to Lin, Moon summarized his political goals.
“I will ensure that we have better traffic circulation flow, and a safe and clean environment, and we retain great quality of life. My statement is that my first duty is to serve and protect Irvine residents,” Moon said.
Chomyn used his closing statements to criticize Mayor Khan’s COVID-19 response in 2020. He focused specifically on the prolonged response time when opening vaccination sites, something that Khan had earlier claimed to be proud of. He quoted the Ohio State Senate to conclude.
“We need an ass-kicker, not an ass-kisser,” Chomyn said.
Finally, Khan delivered her closing statement. As the incumbent, Khan used her time to summarize her achievements in office.
“I know that my credibility is under attack through petty politics but my record stands firm. From dealing with the pandemic to supporting our diverse communities, to maintaining a robust budget, leading innovative programs, even starting a municipal alarm to end food insecurity in our city and keeping our city safe, I have been there,” Khan said.
Following the debate, audience members reflected on the discussion.
Friend and supporter of Branda Lin Gene Kaplan felt that the city council has potential after watching the debate.
“We’re excited to bring it back to a more city-friendly, voter-friendly council,” Kaplan said.
The Irvine mayoral election will take place on Nov. 8.
Select quotes were contributed by Beatrice Lee. She can be reached at beatrirl@uci.edu.
Scarlett Roberts is a City News Intern for the fall 2022 quarter. She can be reached at sorobert@uci.edu.