What District 3 Councilmember Kristina Duggan Says She Did vs. What She Actually Did

We're in the final two weeks before election day. Folks are making important decisions and I think we need to go beyond feelings and get to the specifics. I am not supporting the reelection of my Councilmember Kristina Duggan and I want to explain why.

Her campaign website paints a picture of a busy, effective leader who has delivered results across public safety, homelessness, infrastructure, and fiscal responsibility. But when you compare what she claims to her own official city record, a very different picture emerges.

Everything below comes from two public sources: her campaign site (https://www.kristinaduggan.com/) and her official council policy page on the City of Long Beach website (https://www.longbeach.gov/district3/councilpolicy/). I encourage you to check both.

Public Safety

What she claims: Graduated four police academies. Approved recruiting incentives up to $78,000. Rebuilt the police department. Renovated Fire Station 14. Led local support for Prop 36.

Reality: Police academies, recruiting incentives, Fire Station 14, and firefighter contracts are citywide decisions made by all nine councilmembers on the recommendation of the city manager and police chief. She voted yes. So did everyone else. That's not leading, that's showing up.

On Prop 36, her campaign says she "led local support." The Long Beach Post article linked on her own campaign site is headlined "City Council won't support increased penalties on repeat theft, drug possession crimes." Her own council voted against endorsing the measure she says she led.

What she actually authored: A $10,000 camera rebate program that produced 69 locations with new cameras or lighting. That's her single strongest deliverable in three and a half years, and credit where it's due — it's a smart, cost-effective program. Beyond that: a late-night safety plan for Belmont Shore (first introduced November 2025 — nearly three years into her term on an issue residents have been screaming for years, and only after the third murder in 18 months in and around Second Street), and several items directing staff to come back with reports.

That late-night safety item is still being drafted by city staff six months later. Three people are dead, residents are demanding action, and the ordinance is supposedly in the works — but where is the urgency from the councilmember? In Long Beach's council-manager system, the council has authority over the city manager. When staff takes six months and counting on something this serious, it's the councilmember's job to push. If she's pushing, it's not working.

Homelessness

What she claims: Helped bring 50 recuperative care beds. Helped entitle 1,800+ housing units including 100+ affordable. Expanded outreach teams. Supported the homeless emergency declaration. Built a "balanced approach" of compassion and accountability.

Reality: The 1,800 housing units were developer-driven projects that came through the normal planning process. Developers proposed them. Planning staff reviewed them. The council voted. The homeless emergency declaration was a citywide action. The outreach team expansion was a staff decision. There is no council policy item on her official page behind the 50 recuperative care beds — if she facilitated that, there's no public record of how.

Her campaign site also describes some unhoused people as "career criminals who have made homelessness a lifestyle." That's how your councilmember talks about vulnerable people when she's trying to get reelected. Draw your own conclusions.

What she actually authored: One item directing staff to explore what other cities do about encampment rules (June 2023 — nearly three years ago; what came of it?). A $10,000 donation from her office budget to a nonprofit. And the CORE Strategy (March 2026), which she's particularly proud of. Let's look at that one.

The CORE Strategy directed staff to create a mental health and substance abuse response strategy. She introduced it in March 2026 — the final months of her term — then immediately featured it on her campaign website as an accomplishment. It's the same pattern as the late-night safety item: wait years, introduce a directive to staff, and campaign on it before it produces a single result.

Infrastructure

What she claims: Completed the Bay Shore Library, Junior Lifeguard Facility, Fire Station 14, and improvements along Ximeno Avenue and Appian Way. Advanced Studebaker Road, the 10th Street Greenbelt, Belmont Pool, and the Davies Bridge. Invested over $65,000 in curb and sidewalk repairs.

Reality: Every project on that list is a Public Works capital improvement managed by city staff on engineering timelines and department budgets. Many were planned and funded before she took office. Saying she 'completed' the Bay Shore Library is like taking credit for a building because you showed up for the ribbon cutting. If photo ops were policy, her record would be outstanding.

What she actually authored: A $50,000 fund transfer from her own office savings for sidewalk and curb repairs. A request for a presentation on why the Colorado Lagoon project is behind schedule — and only after residents had been loudly demanding answers about the delays. And a request to rename the Junior Lifeguard building.

Fiscal Responsibility

What she claims: Opposed the sales tax increase. Secured key audits. Launched Keep Long Beach Oil Revenue Local.

Reality: Opposing a sales tax increase that the council has no authority over costs nothing and changes nothing. She requested two audits, which sounds like oversight until you ask: what happened after the audits came back? Did anything change? Did she use the findings to push for a policy change? Requesting information is not the same as acting on it.

And then there's Keep Long Beach Oil Revenue Local, which she mentions constantly. She talks about it on her website, in her newsletter, at meetings. But after all that talk, the actual council policy item (August 2025) asks the city manager to add it to the city's lobbying wish list for Sacramento. That's it. No ordinance. No binding policy. No negotiated deal. Whatever conversations are happening behind the scenes, the outcome so far is zero. If you've been hearing about this initiative for years and wondering what's actually changed — nothing has. It's her most talked-about effort with the least to show for it.

The Pattern

Across every priority area, the same pattern repeats:

Take credit for citywide actions she voted on alongside eight other councilmembers. Claim staff-administered projects she didn't initiate as personal accomplishments. Introduce directives to staff, get the headline, and move on without follow-through. And save the items most responsive to residents' actual concerns for the final stretch of the term, just in time for the campaign website.

Her authored record over three and a half years: one $10,000 camera program, $60,000 in discretionary fund transfers, a series of study requests and staff directives (most of which passed unanimously because they weren't controversial), a handful of resolutions with no binding effect, and two significant policy items that didn't arrive until residents had already been waiting for years — and that still haven't produced results. Zero ordinances. Zero changes to the municipal code. Zero new enforceable rules.

The question for District 3 voters is simple: is that record enough to earn four more years? When a councilmember's campaign website tells one story and her official record tells another, that's a trust problem. District 3 deserves a councilmember who doesn't need to inflate her record to justify reelection — someone who leads on policy, holds staff accountable when they're slow and delivers results people can actually see in their neighborhoods.