Tim Rudd, the city's former budget director, is running for mayor on an independent ballot line. Credit: Courtesy of Tim Rudd

Editor’s note: If you’d like to read our other Q&As with other mayoral candidates, click the following links: Alfonso Davis, Sharon Owens, Tom Babilon.

Former common councilor and City of Syracuse budget director Tim Rudd is trying to replace his former boss, Mayor Ben Walsh, in this year’s mayoral election. 

Running on an independent ballot line, Rudd faces another former boss: Deputy Mayor Sharon Owens.

Rudd is a Syracuse native and graduate of Henninger High School. He worked for four years at the New York City Office of Management and Budget, followed by seven years at MDRC, a New York City-based social policy think tank. From 2018 to 2020, Rudd served on the Common Council as a councilor-at-large.

Rudd worked under Walsh and Owens from 2020 to 2025 in the city’s Office of Management and Budget as the budget and procurement director. In February Rudd was fired by City Hall, when he released a podcast that included racist comments about Owens. 

Before his firing, Rudd had lambasted Walsh and Owens for the city’s problematic payroll modernization project, accusing both of deceiving city taxpayers and covering up a former employee’s unethical conduct in facilitating the project. 

Rudd has not shied away from that controversy, and insists he was fired as retaliation for his part in exposing the city’s payroll project snafu — which he believes demonstrates a secretive status quo in need of a shake up.

We asked Rudd policy-based questions ahead of this year’s election. Here are his answers:

Editor’s Note: This interview was edited for length and clarity.

Central Current: If victorious, you will inherit an ever-expanding budget at a time when Syracuse needs significant investment and development. How do you plan to get the most out of the city’s dollars while maintaining affordability for constituents?

Tim Rudd: One of my priorities is financial stewardship and transparent leadership. 

So I’ve said that I would hold the property tax rate constant, which the mayor hasn’t done, and there will be increases in value, and that, I think, will be enough to sustain it. It really has to be responsible management of the budget. I’ve been the Finance Chair and I’ve been the budget director, so I’m probably as familiar with the city’s finances as anyone in the whole city.

As a result, I definitely have thoughts on what are not core functions. I would definitely focus on the core functions of government as I see them, which is public safety, the public right of way, like DPW and our water system. I would de-emphasize a lot of the other stuff. I would rein it in. 

There’s a number of projects that have had millions and millions of dollars spent, none more obvious than the payroll modernization, although it’s clunky for people to understand. But they’ve clearly spent close to 10 million, and they’re literally asking for a new product, with a new consultant – in my opinion, saying that all the money before has been for naught, in a way.

And there’s too many projects like that, and some of them are under the radar. Surgelink –  what’s the status on that? How many people use that? How many millions have been spent on that? The secondary water intake pipe certainly had a design done and, totally frozen, totally not funded for construction. So what’s the deal? 

So I think it’s just focusing on the work at hand, and getting in the weeds of making sure the city runs well. And so in a way, I think competency, over political allegiance, can fix the budget situation. If you focus on hiring the best department heads, empowering them, letting them really tell the truth about what’s good and what’s not and what they need to get there – rather than a commitment to a narrative of like, rising above or whatever the new narrative may be –  if you hire the best and empower them, I think you’ll get much better results. 

So, I don’t see any need to compromise on public safety. I understand the power of financing, so I wouldn’t be cheap on public investment. I would be big on, we’re gonna leverage into fixing our own lead pipes. But that narrative and the thoughtfulness that it would take to do it well, will attract the state, the county, the feds, to partner and help facilitate it. Because in many ways, I think we would be able to be a leader. That would be a model for how to get things done with resource constraints. So I would not say, ‘hey, we can’t afford to make investments,’ but I would rein in the operating budget in a number of ways that I think are frivolous.

And we don’t spend the money we get right. Like, DPW gets road reconstruction money from New York State, and eight months ago, there was, like, over a $20 million surplus. I don’t know what it is now, because I’m not privy to it, but it’s clear we’re ineffective at spending the money we get. And when you’re ineffective at spending it, it means you don’t get more money. If you spent all the money, you’d be able to ask for the next pot of money. 

But we are so bad at spending the money, like the DRI, still a slow roll. Where are all the projects? I don’t know if there’s a single one. There were lots of conceptual things done, but it’s so slow, and everything in the Walsh administration is so slow that I think they should be making a case that eight years is not sufficient for term limits, because they didn’t get anything done. If eight years is sufficient for somebody to come in and get things done, then they should have gotten more done. It’s not like you need another eight years to finish all the stuff you started in the first. It doesn’t make sense.

CC: Mayor Ben Walsh established protections and policies aimed at safeguarding Syracuse residents from over-encroaching surveillance technology in his 2020 Surveillance Technology Executive Order. The protections, though, are not codified into city law, meaning that a future mayor could strip the safeguards and set the stage for unrestricted and potentially intrusive and dangerous use of these technologies. Will you codify the protections and policies established in Mayor Ben Walsh’s Surveillance Technology Executive Order?

Rudd: So in my platform, number five, I say no compromise on safety, security, including transportation. So all available technology, drones, plate readers and cameras will be used to make Syracuse safe. I talk about closing parks at certain periods, having Codes walk around exterior, look at things more often. Again, focusing on the core functions, there’s nothing more important than having Syracuse be safe. If we don’t feel safe in our neighborhoods and our downtown, then you’re not going to live there, you’re not going to make an investment there, and people aren’t going to come from outside to be there. And we need that before everything else. 

When I was on the council, I was an advocate of the cameras, I was definitely fighting for South Ave. cameras. I do think they’ve been helpful in a number of ways. I think the plate reader technology is used more broadly, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t be using it to ensure that we’re maximizing these systems. 

Whether or not I would codify the thing he made up, the process he made to, in theory, protect us, I’m not totally sure. I would not want it to be a constraint on the departments and the way in which they want to secure the parks, secure the streets, effectively deploy the police in response to crimes and all these other things. So I certainly won’t say I’m definitely going to protect it. I’m open to changing that, and I’m open to having it be accountability at the department head level, and really empowering them to do it, so that they don’t have this constraint of the separate panel. 

We’re at a point where the technology is ever more powerful and ever more potentially intrusive. Most people have cameras on their home at this point, and I think they’re probably unaware of the ways in which their information may be accessed or used. So they’re okay with it, and I know it’s a dangerous slope – like we’ve probably given up far too many privacy protections nationally, like as American citizens – in the name of security, but I definitely think there’s more to be done to make Syracuse feel safe. 

I just don’t think it feels sufficiently safe right now. So to the extent we can invest in technology, I’m going to. A lot changes in eight years, I don’t know if that’s an effective measure. I think I would rather be really transparent about how everything is used, and then if residents have a problem, then have it be a thing, and maybe you have to change it. But I don’t see that as the solution, the current committee.

I’m not committed to his approach. I think it depends on what’s necessary within each department to make it work and see from there. I really think we’re approaching a technology forefront that’s so unprecedented, it’s hard to really say and to feel like you’re going to be protected, like is the city of Syracuse in a position to protect your biometric data? I don’t know.

Like I would rather have a city that’s focused on making sure the water is reliable and safe, and then making sure the housing stock is plentiful and affordable, right, and then making sure the streets and schools are safe. Because if it’s not safe, you’re not going to school. If it’s not safe, you’re not learning in school. So there’s like a pecking order to the needs of Syracuse, and I don’t think the current pecking order is, we’re worried about invasions of our privacy from the city of Syracuse.

CC: Mayor Ben Walsh has shied away from calling Syracuse a “sanctuary city” – but that rhetoric hasn’t changed the federal government’s perception of our city. As federal agents and the US military flood major liberal cities, how will you prepare to protect Syracuse citizens from a potential federal occupation?

Rudd: I will not be trying to be on a list. I will not be talking, ‘Hey, this is a sanctuary where I can somehow protect you from the federal government.’ I actually think that’s a disservice, and I think we’re seeing that it’s a disservice, so I would not be invoking that, and I do not feel

that fighting like the federal government is the priority in Syracuse.

We have to focus on providing quality housing, really seizing the opportunity with I-81, investing in our water infrastructure so that people have reliable, safe water, and making sure the streets and schools and the whole environment is safe. Right now we don’t have much of that. I think we’re in a position where we may see a lot of investment.

I think one of the problems locally is that people don’t follow the rules. They go, ‘Oh, I don’t like this rule. I don’t need to follow it.’ I actually think that approach of ‘I don’t need to follow the rule’ undoes the pressure to change the rule. The mayor of Syracuse doesn’t set federal immigration policy.

So I feel like it’s a different representative who really has to be engaged on ‘hey, we would like you to have legal mechanisms for people to come live here.’ But I think it’s hard to provide a safe place for people who haven’t come through legally with the federal government, and I wouldn’t be encouraging that. It doesn’t mean you’re not welcoming. It doesn’t mean you don’t support all the new arrivals who have come through a legal process. There is a need to be diverse, inclusive, welcoming — at the same time, I think people have to follow the rules, and I’m not going to pretend I can fight the federal government. I can’t. 

I don’t think any mayor could. Any mayor who says they’re going to, I’d say it comes as with a steep opportunity cost. The same way the housing authority comes with an opportunity cost because they pursue this grand vision, so does fighting the federal government. The people of Syracuse would be better served to focus on the core services and get results. You don’t have to weaponize, and become ICE. ICE is ICE. But that is the federal government, and the mayor of Syracuse doesn’t run ICE.

CC: The Columbus Statue, and the push for its removal, remain a sticking point among our community. Recently, County Executive Ryan McMahon inserted the statue into discussions with the Onondaga Nation regarding a potential land transfer that would return a parcel of land along Onondaga Lake back to the nation. As mayor of the city where the statue stands, you’ll have a unique position to work as an intermediary on this issue. How would you proceed with the Columbus Statue, and would you work to facilitate the stalling landback negotiations between Onondaga County and the Onondaga Nation?

Rudd: I wouldn’t take Columbus down. I would leave Columbus, and we can talk about Columbus, we can talk about the vision, we can talk about other art to surround it with. But I wouldn’t spend any money to take it down, and I wouldn’t take it down. And I think the mayor has spent over $100,000 of public dollars to take it down without taking it down, which is sort of classic, and I think symbolizes his whole administration. 

You can spend $10 million on a paper timekeeping system to still have a paper timekeeping system. You can spend all kinds of money for free internet that’s going to provide for all these people and not provide any internet for people. I think art’s important. I would totally have an request for proposals to reuse the steel and the materials from I-81 that separated us and see what artists think, to reuse it, to build like a public sculpture type thing at Almond and East Genesee Street to be the center point of Syracuse, moving forward.

The eternal flame — I think the mayor has wanted to build an eternal flame to memorialize victims of gun violence in Syracuse for probably the entire eight years, and he’s totally failed. I would build that. I think we need to build more art. 

I think the Haudenosaunee, in many ways, honor the spirit of this land. And as residents, we have to do that as well. And I would hope to build genuine communion and around the spirit of this place, and to honor our shared spirits at this point, and I would be open to what they think needs to happen for that. In general, I think there’s a lot to do around the lake and access to land, and I don’t have a definitive choice. 

I also think the county is a major partner, and I would be open to the ways in which we can partner. And clearly, the lake and the creek are resources that are close to the Haudenosaunee spirit and to our collective spirit. I personally feel connected to the land and the water, and I find Onondaga Lake to be a spiritual place. All the water runs through the community and then it rests in the body of the lake. It’s definitely spiritual in that way. 

I would do all to make sure we’re honoring the lake. Right now, we still dump sewage. It’s still gross when you go to the mouth of the lake and there’s all kinds of stuff. I don’t know, maybe we could even have a drone boat that picks up the crap that comes out so that the water is cleaner right there. I just think there’s a lot to do in partnership, and Columbus, I’m not taking it down. I don’t think that’s the highest issue with most partners.

CC: What is your plan to develop more affordable housing in the city?

Rudd: You have to attract private investment to build more units. So I think our current housing policies have unintentionally made it so many landlords are holding units off. The Skyline is on feed. Ballantyne’s under-used. Vincent is closed. How many hundreds units come off before you start to have an impact on the market rent? And there have also been changes that make it harder for landlords to feel like they can timely manage their products, so they build any anticipated costs into the rent. So the rents have gone up a lot. 

So the only way to combat that citywide is by bringing many more units online. I think you have to do that where private investments are willing to go. I think that’s around East Genesee Street, filling in where the highway comes down, and filling in downtown to make it a really dense place. And then with time, I think that density will create demand for investment in the inner ring neighborhoods, and hopefully you’re putting on enough units that keeps downward pressure and the rents don’t skyrocket as it becomes a more desirable place. 

But I definitely think the math is, you need more units. The way you do that is you have predictable, timely approvals. Don’t think we’re there yet. I think many developers experience very unexpected pain in the process of trying to build a 500-unit building. So I think there’s ways to use pre-approved plans and zoning to make it easier. Even with the Rezone, every parcel that got rezoned doesn’t make total sense. I think there was a lot of back room, I don’t want to say NIMBYism, but something akin to that. 

Just one example, there’s a parcel immediately next to Syracuse University, essentially, the entrance to the Mount, where people want to build dense housing, but it got zoned as something that’s low density. And it doesn’t make sense for the city, in my opinion, that you would restrict the density of some of the most valuable land in the city, in a way that discourages investment. We need to be really open to dense development within the city. 

Everything in the city is in the legacy footprint. Anything in the city is good. It needs to be dense, the more you can make it dense. Even little things like the auxiliary dwelling units, that don’t make sense to me, it’s like you can have an auxiliary dwelling unit if you’re a single family, but you can’t have an auxiliary dwelling if you’re a multi-family. I live in a single family, I can have an auxiliary dwelling unit that’s a detached garage and apartment, but my house in front, as a two-family has a detached garage, but I can’t convert that. There’s just things that don’t make sense, that restrict investors’ ability to expand the number of units and make more money on their stuff, and that’s what we need. 

We need it so landlords are empowered to make money, because that’s what gets them to provide more housing, and then that’s actually what puts the downward pressure on the rents, because it creates competition. And if you don’t like the housing I’m providing, there’s five other landlords who you can go to who are offering something for less. It’s still similar quality, and you make a market choice.

And we need more residents. So I don’t think Syracuse can plateau at 145,000 people, or whatever we’re at. We need 20,000 more people in the next five years. If you get that kind of growth, which has happened in the city’s past, then many of the poverty problems become manageable, and all of a sudden we can support the infrastructure. We can have better infrastructure. You can have transit that, in practice, becomes viable for more people, so that more people cannot have a car, which means, inherently, their affordability situation just got better. 

If we were able to successfully develop viable transit that would help. If you think of transportation and housing as one expense, rather than separate expenses, you start to achieve affordability just by having, viable bike, bus, even walking infrastructure.

Read more of Central Current’s coverage

Patrick McCarthy is a staff reporter at Central Current covering government and politics. A graduate of Syracuse University’s Maxwell and Newhouse Schools, McCarthy was born and raised in Syracuse and...