Where do the candidates stand on important issues?

Written By Stephen Jones

When every candidate for city council says they want a safer, more affordable Culver City, how do you know who to vote for? We looked past the platitudes to how each candidate has actually spoken and voted on real decisions in front of the council.

Keep scrolling to see our sources. For each issue, you'll find every candidate's position and where we found it: council minutes (with page numbers), the candidates' own websites and blogs, local press, and our interviews with the candidates.

CLICK HERE for our 2026 Progressive Voter Guide

Should the city cancel the Flock license plate camera contract?

Culver City camera data was searched by ICE. The council limited data access in 2025 and is now evaluating the contract. Read more about Flock in Culver City.

Endorsed by Our Culver

  • Freddy Puza — Yes, if the privacy review backs the concerns

    • Our Culver interview, August 1, 2026: "If it does come back that there are privacy concerns, I would not renew the contract."

    • June 30, 2025, p. 20: with Fish and McMorrin, put the Flock cameras on the July 9 agenda.

    • July 9, 2025, p. 35: moved to limit license plate readers to use within Culver City, with transparency reports every two months. Passed 4–1.

    • March 16, 2026, p. 30: with Fish, asked for a police report on how ICE became aware of a resident's presence "if not through the Flock license plate reader system."

    • July 13, 2026, pp. 30 and 32: asked for a presentation on the risks of Flock and "a discussion of changing, ending, covering, or overall review of the relationship with Flock."

    • September 14, 2026, p. 9: staff reported the review is still underway. No vote on cancelling has been taken.

  • Thomas Small — Yes

    • Our Culver interview, August 4, 2026: "We need to look into ending that contract."

    • October 19, 2026, Culver Crescent candidate series: "Based on what I know now, I would oppose using Flock cameras, and I want to examine the issue more closely." He adds that "changing vendors alone does not resolve the underlying privacy questions."

    • He was not on the council for these votes.

Other candidates

  • Franklin Carvajal — No: keep the cameras, but under stricter rules

  • Kimberley Griffin — No: defends the current privacy protections

    • October 20, 2026, Culver Crescent candidate series: "Culver City has drawn a line in the sand and said we keep our information in-house," and "regulating control of that technology protects our residents and the people that technology might be used against."

  • Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin — No

    • Our Culver interview, August 6, 2026: called Flock a "great tool" for catching criminals and said of privacy, "we need to take their word for it."

    • July 9, 2025, pp. 25–26, public comment: asked the council to consider "what victims would be told about cancelling a tool that could help solve crime."

Was the city right in helping to fund Jubilo Village housing?

Jubilo Village is a 93-unit affordable housing development. In 2025, the council committed city loans and 42 federal housing vouchers to it. Read more about Jubilo Village.

Endorsed by Our Culver

  • Freddy Puza — Yes: voted for every funding step

  • Thomas Small — Yes

    • August 17, 2026 candidate forum (Culver City Crossroads): "Morally, it was the right thing to do."

    • October 19, 2026, Culver Crescent candidate series: "I support the project because Culver City needs more affordable housing," and "I think the Council made the right decision in supporting Jubilo when the project was at risk." He adds, "That does not mean every housing investment should follow the same model."

    • He was not on the council for these votes.

Other candidates

Was the city right to approve safety improvements for Overland?

The current council unanimously approved designs that are safer for pedestrians and cyclists while preserving all existing travel lanes. Read more about Better Overland.

Endorsed by Our Culver

  • Freddy Puza — Yes: voted for each step and campaigns on it

    • October 13, 2025, p. 17: accepted a $5.4 million Metro grant for Better Overland Phase 2. Unanimous.

    • January 26, 2026, p. 14: approved final plans and sought bids for Phase 1. Unanimous.

    • January 26, 2026, p. 28: selected Design Alternative B for Overland Avenue between Culver Boulevard and the Ballona Creek bridge. Unanimous.

    • August 17, 2026 candidate forum (Culver City Crossroads): reported as focusing his campaign on "advancing safe transportation options, including the Better Overland project."

  • Thomas Small — Yes: emphasizes careful design and implementation

    • October 19, 2026, Culver Crescent candidate series: "I support the direction of Better Overland and Sepulveda Connects." He adds that his mobility goals are to "reduce dangerous speeds and cut-through traffic while keeping useful connections and reliable transit."

Other candidates

  • Franklin Carvajal — No: route bikes to smaller streets

    • August 10, 2026, blog post "Culver City Green Routes": proposes routing bikes onto quieter side streets.

    • October 18, 2026, Culver Crescent candidate series: "small streets should be created with a lot of bumps and a lot of annoyance so that only bicycles go through," and "we need to focus on sidewalks because people walk."

  • Kimberley Griffin — No: opposes the approved designs

    • Her campaign website: "I oppose the so-called improvements to Overland Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard because the Council has failed to take into account the unintended negative consequences to our local businesses that rely on street parking to survive."

    • October 20, 2026, Culver Crescent candidate series: "I am not in favor of the Better Overland Project as currently proposed." She suggests a rush-hour-only bus "flex lane" instead.

  • Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin — No: cites concerns from businesses

Stephen Jones
Next

Our Culver endorses Thomas Small for Culver City Council!