|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On Jan. 8, Shashi Sinha was the first to challenge incumbent Malik Evans for the mayoral seat.
The 51-year-old from Patna, India moved to Rochester about 14 years ago when his wife accepted a position as a history professor at Rochester Institute of Technology. Sinha has a business background; he is a technology director at Comcast and a real estate investor who owns the Dartmouth House, an inn in the Park Avenue neighborhood.
Sinha decided to jump in because, he says, he was tired of politicians paying lip service to solving the city’s problems while he saw few improvements.
“Somebody’s gotta do it. If it’s not me, who’s it going to be?” he says. “I have a comfy life, a comfy job, I have a small business, but I’m thinking, ‘Is that enough, just living my own life and not thinking about the wider community?’ It’s always somebody else. I said, ‘No, it’s gotta be me now.’”
Evans launched his reelection campaign the same week, and four days after that, City Councilmember Mary Lupien said she would run for the position as well. Lupien plans to formally announce her candidacy with a campaign kickoff event Saturday.
“I am running to become our mayor because Rochester needs leadership that prioritizes our people,” she says. “Too many of our neighbors are struggling with housing insecurity, public safety concerns and a lack of opportunity, and the current system isn’t meeting their needs.”
Evans pitches his second term as a continuation of what he holds up as successful efforts. At his announcement, he highlighted the areas of affordable housing, economic development and public safety.
“I submit to you that we still have work to do,” Evans said on Jan. 10. “But because we finish what we start, we will continue to use those minutes over the next four years to make sure that Rochester reaches the highest of heights.”
All three candidates have similar priorities in their vision for the city of Rochester—housing, economic growth and public safety rank high—though their approaches differ. Voters will make their decision June 24.
On the issues
When Evans announced his reelection bid, he walked out to the DJ Khaled song, “Just Be,” which begins with the singer’s oft-repeated phrase “another one.” That phrase ended up being a big theme of Evans’ reelection campaign launch.
“At a time when many cities are struggling to build, Rochester has become a leader in building various forms of housing. We have been designated a pro-housing community by New York State,” he began.
“(A city resident) was able to make her dreams of owning a home a reality because of a bold new housing program that we launched,” he said. “She participated in our Buy the Block program, where we have built dozens of new homes with our partners on vacant city lots.”
Buy the Block began in 2021 as one of former Mayor Lovely Warren’s final pieces of submitted legislation. The project would build 100 homes for low-income families in an act of “greenlining,” a term used for investing in historically disinvested neighborhoods by converting vacant lots to single-family homes. So far, through its second phase of development, approximately 20 families have moved into new homes through Buy the Block, with 32 currently available to buyers.
In addition to the Buy the Block program, Evans also listed completed or in-progress housing projects in the city as accomplishments, including Center City Courtyard, Canal Commons, Taylor Square, Alta Vista at St. Joseph’s Park, the Edward Building and Edna Craven Estates. So far, since 2022, the city has invested almost $2 billion in affordable and market-rate housing, Evans said. He also mentioned Rochester’s Housing Quality Task Force and expansion of its Home Repair program as initiatives started in his tenure that go further than simply building housing stock.
Conversely, Lupien believes that Evans has prioritized large development projects over the needs of everyday residents. She says this has caused the greatest challenge Rochester faces: inequity.
Specifically, she believes his approach has increased gaps with unattainable housing, struggling small businesses, and overuse of and overtaxing the police instead of using social workers or crisis counselors when appropriate.
“I’ll prioritize a housing-first strategy to ensure safe, affordable housing for all. I’ll improve public safety by supplementing law enforcement with trained professionals to handle mental health crises, addiction, homelessness and quality-of life-concerns that are currently being addressed through the criminal justice system,” Lupien outlines. “And I’ll invest in our neighborhoods and small businesses, creating opportunities for our residents to grow and thrive.”
Sinha’s campaign slogan is blunt—”Change is coming”—and his website is stuffed with big, wide-ranging goals in several areas. But the single issue at the absolute center of his campaign, he says, is affordable housing.
Sinha wants to build 4,000 new housing units in the city in four years: 500 in the first year, 800 in the second, 1,200 in the third, and 1,500 in the fourth. He also wants to slash property taxes and end tax foreclosure auctions, all with the aim of enticing people to move to the city and making city living more affordable.
“You need the resident base who buy into it, who see the city as a good place to live and raise kids,” he says. “In the last three years, we have lost residents. That’s the trajectory for many, many years. We are bleeding.”
To accomplish this level of housing development while keeping the city budget reined in amid property tax cuts, Sinha is pitching a number of changes to the city’s development approach. He contends that the city can build affordable housing for much cheaper.
“We are building affordable housing. We are not building mansions,” he says. “And when you look at them they are basic houses, basic units. Why is it costing so much?”
For one, in line with the Buy the Block program but at a larger proposed scale, Sinha wants to focus on developing the over 3,000 vacant lots owned by the city, which he says would cut land costs. He says he will use every single one of those plots that isn’t already a community space or park for housing.
For two, in perhaps his most sweeping proposal, Sinha wants to bring the housing construction process in-house. Rather than contracting, the city should hire most engineering and construction staff directly and sell the buildings at cost, he says.
“If you hire people from in the city, you’re providing jobs,” he says. “At the same time, you’re doing vertical integration. This is very common in business to reduce cost—you take the middlemen out.”
He also wants to expand rent-to-own and cut down zoning barriers.
Sinha’s two other major campaign priorities are improving public safety and the Rochester City School District.
While acknowledging that violent crime has dropped to near-pre-COVID levels, Sinha wants to shift the handling of what he calls “minor” responsibilities—traffic enforcement was his example—out of the hands of police while increasing police patrols in areas with higher violent crime rates. Targeting gang activity should be a priority, he says.
Managing this goal with community input will be a balancing act, but the people he has talked to in these areas are tired of violence in their communities, he adds. Sinha sees this policing measure as a temporary fix while the city tackles the larger goal of ensuring basic needs are met.
On RCSD, which is not controlled by the mayor, Sinha says he wants to work with district leadership to get improved results from its relatively high spending per student. He also wants to bring school hours more in line with parents’ work hours to keep kids off the streets.
Lupien believes a city’s success hinges on the well-being of its people.
“A city cannot succeed when its people are left behind,” she says. “When families face eviction, when people don’t feel safe, youth are in crisis, and when small businesses struggle to stay open, the entire community suffers. Prioritizing our people strengthens our city from within.”
As mayor, she hopes to focus on tackling the root causes of the city’s challenges, “ensuring housing is a human right, building a safer community by providing the right response at the right time, and shifting resources to programs that uplift our residents. This is about creating a future where Rochester works for everyone.”
Her run for mayor is to help make that happen. She adds that, since the executive branch “sets priorities, controls resources and drives citywide initiatives,” the mayoral position allows for greater influence not afforded by a City Council seat.
Lupien was elected to a leadership position in City Council as vice president in 2022, but lost it in 2024 to LaShay Harris. She often votes alongside the council’s other outwardly progressive members, Stanley Martin and Kim Smith, and has supported efforts such as Good Cause Eviction and replacing RG&E with a public power option.
That progressive stance on issues has sometimes put her at odds with Evans’ administration, voting against the mayor on issues of police funding and a Gaza ceasefire resolution, for example. Part of Lupien’s decision to run includes what she sees as a misfocused vision by the current mayor.
“Rochester is at a turning point—we cannot continue to focus on expensive development projects meant to attract new residents while ignoring the people who have called this city home for generations. We need to invest in our existing communities and meet their needs,” she says. “When we do that, our city will thrive and people will organically be attracted to Rochester.”
A familiar rivalry
This will not be the first primary election where Lupien and Evans have squared off. In 2017, both were part of a crowded 13-candidate race for five open City Council At-Large seats. Evans, Mitch Gruber and Willie Lightfoot Sr., all newcomers, and incumbents Loretta Scott and Jackie Ortiz won those seats, each securing at least 7,700 votes.
Lupien was the next closest candidate, however, just 1,000 votes shy of Gruber’s total. The election results highlighted her strength among voters in southeast Rochester.
She had the most votes of any candidate in Districts 23 and 24, which cover neighborhoods such as North Winton Village, Neighborhood of the Arts, the South Wedge and Highland Park, which typically have a larger white population that is more affluent than the rest of the city. Lupien’s support was also strong in District 21, which includes her own residence in the Beechwood neighborhood.
In central Rochester and, in particular, the western half of Rochester, Lupien earned fewer votes. Voters in Districts 27 and 28, which include the Lyell-Otis neighborhood and 19th Ward, predominantly black neighborhoods, were instead inclined toward a combination of Scott, Lightfoot or Evans.
Lupien’s next attempt played to the strengths shown in 2017. She handily won the City Council East District primary against four other candidates (including a soon-to-be close ally, Stanley Martin), securing 58.5 percent of the vote two years later. Running for reelection in the same district in 2023, Lupien faced a single challenger, Paul Conrow, and won with 56.8 percent of the vote.
Evans’ history of elected service goes back to 2003 with his election to the Rochester City School District Board of Education. In contrast to Lupien, over that lengthy period, Evans consistently earned a competitive number of votes across the city.
In 2003, for instance, his vote total was middling compared to other candidates in every district, but still strong enough to win a seat. While he solidified his position after that election, eventually becoming board president, no region of the city consistently and overwhelmingly voted for him. Instead, he continued to do fairly well across the board, a trend that continued into his City Council and mayoral primary races.
Sinha has never held elected office. However, his outsider status is no liability, he believes—he says he has heard from people who think what he is bringing to the table could be a breath of fresh air for the city.
“Based on what I’m hearing, people want change from politicians,” he says. “So I cannot say that my chances are 99 percent or 90 percent, but I think what I’m bringing to the table, everybody or most of them will be very happy. This is my common-sense, no-nonsense approach—I’m going to get things done. If I had to guess, my chances are pretty high.”
Sinha says he is more qualified than anyone else running because he has delivered results in the private sector. Politicians, on the other hand—”well, all they do is talk,” he says.
“I’m unknown. Nobody knows me. … But I am running for a cause, and I will lay out every single thing on my agenda with a very logical plan, how I’m going to do this,” Sinha promises.
Jacob Schermerhorn and Justin O’Connor are Rochester Beacon contributing writers.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
An exception to the rule was Bob Duffy, who challenged the designated Democratic Party candidate. Although a registered Democrat at the time, his challenge to the party machine’s guy appealed to a wide range of voters and even got people to vote for him and work on his campaign because of his accomplishments and general appeal. Sadly, when Mr. Duffy was called to Albany to become Lt. Governor, and his Deputy Mayor at the time, Tom Richards, who was exceptionally well qualified, didn’t campaign as vigorously as he could have, allowing the worst Mayor in decades to win the office. Dynamic, visionary, and knowledgeable people can run for office, regardless of party affiliation; the citizens need to find and encourage them to run. That said, broadly speaking, citizen’s top priority is public safety, followed by economic development and education. If candidates can (or have successfully) taken on those issues, they will win the election. My priority is fiscal responsibility when using taxpayer dollars. In that realm, the RCSD and the commissioners have a more deleterious effect on me than the city administration, which is doing fine under Mayor Evans.
The worst mayor of Rochester NY came between Tom Ryan and Bob Duffy, and the Duffy-Richards condominium was only slightly better, if only because they weren’t in office as long as Johnson.
I do agree with you, however, on the importance of fiscal responsibility and that the primary goal of city government is to provide essential services to the city residents and taxpayers. Providing bread and circuses is NOT supposed to be the goal of city government as it is both wasteful and has no long-term beneficial effect on city residents other than whetting their appetites for “excitement.”
As for the RCSD and its commissioners, they are not within the purview of city government, nor are they the real problem faced by our school system. They are merely the ugly red rash that illustrates the presence of disease, a disease which the voters of our fair city are unwilling or unable to cure, though the antidote is readily available.
Finally, you are entitled to your opinions about the current occupant of the mayoral throne as is everyone, whether in agreement or not.
That’s the beauty of the Rochester Beacon. It provides the dozen or so of us with lots of free time on our hands with nothing better to do than voice out opinions with a forum where we can do it.
Unfortunately, most Democratic voters won’t hear the candidates speak and share their vision for Rochester, cite their experience, or take questions from voters. It’s too bad because if they did, they’d get an apparent picture of who is qualified and who isn’t.
I don’t know how much money some of the challenges will raise for their campaigns if they are not the party’s choice for their candidate. So they could let voters know who they are beyond just convincing the members of party committees to vote for them. Some politicians have big egos; a passion for change drives some without the skill or knowledge to manage a large civil service organization. Some want a well-paying job with lots of benefits. So, ultimately, likeability becomes a significant factor for voters, or in the case of Rochester’s Mayoral candidate, no choice at all. Mayor Evans is doing an admirable job, and I see no reason not to support him in continuing to be mayor. That said, it would serve our democratic system if the Republican party could put up a genuinely qualified, articulate, and visionary candidate so voters could have a real choice.
I am sure that the current occupant of Rochester’s mayoral throne is much gratified by your vote of confidence in him.
As for the Republican party fielding candidates for elective offices in Rochester, whatever for, apart from providing evidence that our fair city isn’t a one-party town, which it has been for more than thirty years?
According to Monroe County’s BOE, less than ten percent of the city’s registered voters are affiliated with the Republican Party.
Registered voters rarely cross party lines here, no matter how qualified, well-spoken and well intentioned the Republican candidate is, resulting in yet another victory for Democratic candidates.
The Monroe County GOP will not waste time, effort and money (more’s the pity) to run candidates in the City of Rochester because the juice simply isn’t worth the squeeze.
Reality and practicality have resulted in that decision.
It is not their intention to provide a sham show and go through the motions of campaigns just to ease the consciences of those individuals who feel one-party rule isn’t democratic but would never vote for Republicans.
Andreas, competency.
I’m not sure how Evans has been inadequate on the whole.
In Rochester, “adequacy” has proved to be that someone can sit on the mayoral throne without fidgeting too much.
It also means that said occupant can recite speeches or refer to talking points provided by their spin control doctors in the Communications Department when they decide circumstances dictate it.
On occasion, said occupant may also attend public meetings and events for photo ops, and attend other meetings with similar elected officials.
Most of our mayors have been adequate in that respect.
They have had little else to do, since City council actually rules the roost here.
As for “competency,” Evans has proved he can dig one or two holes for planting trees during yet another photo op.
As I have stated previously, Sinha can do just as badly as the rest of them if permitted to try.
Frankly, if I were a registered Democrat, I would probably throw in my lot with Sinha because he is NOT a professional politician.
He can certainly do just as badly as the others if he is allowed to try.
As I am not a registered Democrat I can be of no use to Sinha’s campaign and cannot vote in the Democratic primary.
I will probably do as I usually do in City elections: write in a candidate come November unless some messianic candidate comes along that can save Rochester from itself.
I don’t see that forthcoming.
We have a president and top adviser who are not politicians but business people, how’s that working out?
Applying business practices to government is not necessarily a good fit.
Oh, I dare say it is a better fit than were the professional politicians that comprised the Clinton and Biden Crime Families while they were in office.
To be clear, you think Trump/Musk is doing a better job than Biden?
Mayor Evans. He’s not flashy. He’s quietly competent. His top administration choices, like Chief Smith, are also quietly competent.
Competency is a good thing.
Competency or adequacy?
Agreed, the Framers assumed the republican form of government would be comprised of “men of virtue”, educated and sophisticated, free from the influence of populism and direct democracy. I am not sure I would limit the abundance of unqualified candidates to people of color. There seem to be plenty of White people lacking the same qualifications. I’m guessing a city council member might possess the knowledge you refer to. I’m wary of people with no experience in government in positions of leadership. Business concepts are not necessarily compatible with the needs of government.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I did not mean to imply that people of color were less qualified. It was just an observation that most people seeking offices in this election cycle are people of color. Part of what I am advocating is that both parties, locally and nationally, do more to identify, recruit, train, and support much better-qualified candidates for office. For example, it astonishes me that in a nation of more than 350 million individuals, the only person the Republicans were willing to put up for president is a convicted felon and all-around scoundrel. I want to scream at all the Republican cowards in Congress that “there is nothing to fear but fear itself.” How the Senate can confirm truly incomplete individuals for cabinet positions defies reason. Talking heads say that sitting elected officials are fearful of the president. Why? As one of my favorite bosses used to say, “you were looking for a job when you came here, you can do it again.” Term limits have never been so appealing. Elected officials take an oath of office, but I doubt they take it to heart. Just look at the newly sentenced NJ former Senator Menendez, who, despite being convicted, actually has the gall to proclaim still that the system is corrupt. I embrace diversity. Party chairpeople must have a fire lit under them to support superior candidates.
“I am advocating is that both parties, locally and nationally, do more to identify, recruit, train, and support much better-qualified candidates for office.”
The rub is this is what President Trump also claims. Witness his comments regarding air traffic controllers. He argues he is color-blind and only wants the best qualified candidates. Now we believe it’s nonsense considering some of his cabinet choices, yet it is his argument.
So who did you back for mayor?
As a City Democratic Committee member, I’ve received two pieces of literature to help me decide who I will endorse at this afternoon’s committee meeting. As a long-time city resident and former community activist in the northeast part of Rochester, I desire stability more than anything. Mayor Evans took over when the mayor’s office was in crisis. He’s done a fine job of tackling a tough job. Public Safety has vastly improved with Chief Smith running RPD. Every city, large or small, has ongoing challenges, budget constraints, and human service needs. One thing that Mayor Evans can be applauded for is his partnership with County Executive Bello. With Mayor Evans’s help, Chief Smith brought State Police and Sheriff’s deputies to help calm violence in the city, which is no small feat. The city has received significant State and Federal aid that we desperately need. I don’t see either challenger as having the background to surpass what Mayor Evans has accomplished in his long service to Rochester, and I intend to support him into a second term.
Isn’t this the question for a voter or committee member regarding any challenger to an incumbent, what is it that the incumbent has done, or failed to do that replacing them makes sense? What specifically is it that the incumbent did or did not do that they should be replaced? Is there a significant probability that the challenger will outperform the incumbent? If no, better to stay with a known and work with the incumbent. If yes, make the change.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment. What fascinates me is that many challengers, although having a well-articulated and passionate vision, have no fundamental ideas about what the actual job entails or the objective evaluation criteria for voters looking to support them. We’ve arrived at a point in our history where personality, fast-talking con men, and media stars are appealing alternatives to hard-working, competent, knowledgeable, moral, and steady incumbents. Consultants and media outlets seem to drive what voters see rather than digging deeper into substance. However, in a democracy like ours, the notion that anyone can become President is more aspirational than realistic. Since our founders could not predict the utter complexity of what a twenty-first-century leader would need to manage, they must have been somewhat myopic in their worldview that mostly educated merchants, lawyers, and landed gentry would be the ones to seek office for a single term and then return to their chosen profession. I worry about getting better qualified, seasoned, and experienced people to run for local office, especially in the city. There appears to be an abundance of people of color seeking office who have grassroots experience but no civil service, management, budgeting, or understanding of the statutory requirements of the position.
First, thank you Rochester Beacon for providing substantive coverage of local politics – this has been a valuable service that went missing for several years after the end of the first “Beacon” in Rochester. Great article.
Second, Rochester has some very capable, thoughtful and engaged leaders. I would love to see these candidates (and others who might join the race) consider how they will continue to advance their broader vision for the city post-election. One will do so as mayor, the others will certainly have knowledge, social networks and financial resources to commit to the city. I hope that all three of these candidates continue to advocate for our city – in both words and deeds.
One final thought: given the broader political environment, I would strongly encourage all three candidates to consider how Rochester can build/strengthen institutions that will continue to promote democracy and equity in the face of countervailing forces. Keeping financial resources in the city by supporting cooperative housing and economic projects would be one way. Rochester has historically suffered from its “Smugtown” reputation because we ignored the needs of our neighbors and thought prosperity and stability were simply our birthright. Obviously, conditions can change quickly. We have to fight for our way of life. And if we still want to be a sustainable, equitable community of belonging, it’s going to take a lot of work. These three candidates have a lot to offer far beyond Election Day.
Aaron, perfectly stated.