San Diego voters in District 2 are facing a heated debate over the city’s use of Flock surveillance cameras. The race pits Democrat Nicole Crosby, a former city attorney prosecutor, against Republican‑turned‑independent Richard Bailey. While Bailey’s supporters have sent mailers labeling Crosby as the “San Diego Flock camera candidate,” Crosby has repeatedly denounced the technology.
Crosby’s Opposition to Flock
During multiple public appearances, Crosby has called for the dismantling of the Flock system, describing it as a violation of due process and a threat to neighborhood safety. She joined Councilmember Stephen Whitburn at a press conference announcing his opposition to the cameras. Crosby told reporters, “The funny and the disappointing part is the AI slop and the lies that are absolutely unsubstantiated are being disseminated throughout our community. I have been open about my disapproval of Flock cameras.”
As a former prosecutor for the City Attorney’s office, Crosby says her experience informs her stance. She emphasized that she has never used Flock data to prosecute anyone and warned that the technology “terrorizes our neighborhoods.” Crosby added, “A camera or a drone does not help our response times when we’re talking to neighbors and knocking on doors; they want a police officer to respond to things – they want people.”
Bailey’s Position and Mailer Claims
Bailey’s mailers, funded by the Protect San Diego political action committee, claim he is “100 % opposed to the invasion of privacy forced on San Diego by a proliferation of Flock cameras.” In reality, Bailey has expressed reservations rather than a full‑throated condemnation. He described himself as a “civil libertarian” and warned against a “slippery slope of government surveillance.” More recently, Bailey told the reporter that the city’s continued use of Flock cameras is “unsustainable” because the city failed to implement adequate safeguards and lost public trust.
The mailers also suggest that the “politicians behind San Diego’s Flock cameras are all backing Nicole Crosby,” a claim that conflates opposition to the cameras with support for a particular candidate.
Funding and Political Context
The mailers are paid for by Protect San Diego, a PAC financed entirely by Point Loma attorney Steven Richter. Richter has been a major donor to conservative causes, contributing $1 million to the Lincoln Club’s PAC in 2024 and $700,000 to this year’s campaign. His wife, Carol Richter, responded to criticism on NextDoor, stating, “Nothing was said about Nicole except that her supporters are in favor of the cameras. She and her campaign are surrounded by camera enthusiasts. No deceit there. Maybe re‑read the mailer. Never says she is in favor.”
Implications for the City Council
The District 2 seat could determine the future of the Flock system. Whitburn’s anti‑Flock shift gave the City Council a 5‑4 majority opposed to the cameras, but the mayor remains supportive. Overriding a mayoral veto would require a sixth vote, making the outcome of this race critical for the council’s ability to move forward with or against the surveillance program.
California law restricts certain types of misinformation in campaign materials, such as false endorsements or incorrect voting information, but the Supreme Court has upheld broad First Amendment protections for political speech, allowing misleading claims to persist.
What Voters Should Know
Voters in District 2 should consider each candidate’s record and statements on surveillance, public safety, and civil liberties. Crosby’s consistent opposition to Flock cameras aligns with the council’s current anti‑Flock majority, while Bailey’s nuanced stance suggests a willingness to reconsider the program if safeguards are improved. Understanding the nuances behind the mailers can help residents make an informed choice at the ballot box.
Original reporting: Voice of San Diego — read the source article.
