Editor’s Note: This questionnaire is part of an ongoing series publishing candidates’ opinions on how they would run the government if they were elected county supervisor. All questionnaires are archived on the Voice of OC Elections Page.
Incidents over the past year have put two major security concerns front and center for Orange County residents – chemical companies in their neighborhoods and Flock cameras watching their every move on the streets.
Chemicals came to the forefront of local attention after 50,000 people had to evacuate when a chemical tank in Garden Grove nearly exploded, followed shortly after by a smaller evacuation in La Habra when a facility next door to neighborhoods belched an orange, yellow cloud into the sky.
While most cities have yet to take action on them, Irvine is instituting new disclosure requirements, noting it’s the county’s job to track all the facilities using large amounts of dangerous chemicals.
Flock cameras are also facing growing questions from residents, with multiple city councils discussing removing them or limiting their use after multiple scandals involving police officers across the country using the cameras to spy on people.
We asked county supervisors if they think more oversight should be required in both these areas as they oversee the agencies that regulate both chemical usage and surveillance equipment.
The county oversees many of the local facilities working with toxic chemicals. Do you think the county should implement more oversight or a disclosure requirement for businesses working in or near residential areas?
Shaw, Fourth District: Residents have a legitimate interest in knowing about significant hazardous materials being handled near their homes and schools. At the same time, requirements should be based on actual risk and coordinated with existing state and federal regulations rather than creating duplicative bureaucracy. I would review whether current inspection, notification and emergency-response requirements are adequate. Where genuine gaps exist, the county should address them.
Traut, Fourth District: The GKN incident reinforced that when high-risk industrial chemicals are stored near homes, residents need more than paperwork on file. I would strengthen risk-based inspections, verification of safety systems, emergency planning, and proactive public disclosure. The County should also work closely with state and federal regulators on monitoring, enforcement, technical expertise, and cleanup standards, as occurred during the GKN response. That coordination also better equips our OCFA firefighters, who put themselves in harm’s way when prevention fails, with the information and resources they need to protect surrounding communities.
Dixon, Fifth District: Yes. Residents have a right to know when facilities near their homes are handling toxic or potentially dangerous chemicals. Recent concerns raised by residents in Garden Grove and groups like Creek Team OC have shown that the county needs to do a better job of responding to potential risks and making information available to the public. We should build on their work with stronger disclosure requirements and more frequent inspections when the risk warrants it. Residents should not have to investigate these issues themselves to find out what is happening in their own communities.
Foley, Fifth District: Yes.
The sheriff’s department manages a team of cities sharing their system of security cameras and license plate readers. Do you think this practice should continue?
Shaw, Fourth District: Technology can be an important law-enforcement tool when it helps identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects or solve serious crimes. But technology also must be used within clear legal and privacy safeguards. I would support the continued use of effective public-safety technology when there are appropriate policies governing access, data retention, information sharing, auditing and protection against misuse. The public should understand the rules governing these systems.
Traut, Fourth District: License plate readers can be a valuable law enforcement tool for locating stolen or wanted vehicles and supporting investigations. But as technology and data-sharing risks have evolved, oversight must evolve too. California law restricts sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies, and the Sheriff’s Department has privacy, access, and audit requirements in place. I oppose this data being used for immigration enforcement. I support a technology-based system to locate stolen vehicles, while reviewing how these contracts are implemented, including retention policies, vendor access, data sharing, and compliance. We can use technology to solve crimes while protecting residents’ privacy.
Dixon, Fifth District: Yes. License plate readers and security cameras are important tools for law enforcement to solve crimes, identify suspects and recover stolen vehicles. But the stalking case involving a former Costa Mesa police officer showed how seriously this technology can be abused. Access should be limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes, searches should be logged and subject to regular audits and there should be clear consequences for misuse. We can give law enforcement the tools it needs while making sure those tools are never used to target or track people for personal reasons.
Foley, Fifth District: Our Sheriff’s Department already requires authorized access, documented searches, and audits. I support continued collaboration with strict privacy protections. Law enforcement has used license plate readers for more than 20 years to help solve crimes, recover stolen cars, and save staff time. I understand residents’ concerns about Flock. The County does not contract with Flock.
Noah Biesiada is a Voice of OC reporter. Contact him at nbiesiada@voiceofoc.org.
