District 1 and District 3 Council Candidates Lay Out Housing Plans Ahead of 2026 Race

Two candidates competing for Fresno City Council seats in 2026 have released their positions on housing and homelessness, responding to a questionnaire from the Community Alliance newspaper. The responses reveal sharp differences in tone and approach between the races.

District 1 candidate Naindeep Singh framed Fresno’s housing crisis as “a failure of responsibility and investment,” citing that 46% of U.S. renters are cost-burdened and noting that source-of-income discrimination remains “illegal but rampant.” Singh stated that more than 3,000 people sleeping outside represents “a governance failure, not an individual moral failing,” reflecting “decades of underinvestment in mental health, addiction treatment and affordable housing.”

Singh’s stated approach: “zoning that unlocks production, enforcement that holds actors accountable, investment in communities historically abandoned and partnerships with people closest to the problem, not distant bureaucrats.” The candidate characterized the run as aiming “to deliver results, not to manage decline.”

District 3 candidate Dr. Joaquín Arambula, currently serving as District 31 assemblymember, provided detailed policy positions spanning affordable housing production, eviction protection, and preservation of existing housing stock.

On affordable housing production, Arambula stated he would “push to streamline density bonus and ADU approvals and expand incentives so affordable and mixed-income projects clear permitting faster.” He indicated support for “dedicating ongoing city housing funds to leverage Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.”

Arambula expressed support for continued funding of eviction protection legal assistance, noting that “very few Fresno tenants facing eviction have lawyers, while most landlords do.”

On source-of-income discrimination, Arambula stated he supported SB 329 in 2020, which bars landlords from rejecting tenants using housing vouchers or public rental assistance. He indicated he would “urge the Fair Housing Council of the San Joaquín Valley to routinely test local listings for ‘No Section 8’ discrimination and refer confirmed violations to the state Civil Rights Department.”

Arambula proposed permanently funding landlord signing incentives, damage-repair funds, and vacancy-loss payments that Fresno Housing reports have “significantly increased the number of voucher holders who were able to find housing.”

On homelessness, Arambula expressed support for tiny home villages and managed safe camps, citing Poverello House’s 30-unit Village of Hope as a model. He stated support for “reform, not repeal” of the No Camping Ordinance, which has been in effect since September 2024 and allows fines up to $1,000 and misdemeanor charges for repeat refusal to vacate public spaces.

Arambula stated he would support “limiting enforcement to sensitive areas, including schools, active neighborhood parks and urban-core businesses with documented safety or sanitation hazards—not blanket sweeps.”

On code enforcement, Arambula indicated he would seek to allow City inspections of public housing when renters document unresolved violations, noting that HUD rather than city code enforcement currently inspects public housing. He stated landlords with ten or more citations across ten or more properties in a year “should not be allowed to treat routine $250 fines as a cheaper alternative to fixing dangerous conditions.”

The questionnaire was sent to all six 2026 City Council candidates across Districts 1, 3, and 7. The material indicates Singh and Arambula were the only candidates who submitted responses.

The Breakdown

• The Community Alliance sent housing and homelessness questionnaires to all six candidates running in Districts 1, 3, and 7 for the 2026 Fresno City Council election.
• District 1 candidate Naindeep Singh responded with a policy statement emphasizing zoning reform, enforcement accountability, and investment in “communities historically abandoned.”
• District 3 candidate Dr. Joaquín Arambula provided detailed positions including streamlining density bonus and ADU approvals, continuing eviction protection funding, enforcing anti-discrimination laws for voucher holders, supporting tiny home villages and managed safe camps, reforming rather than repealing the No Camping Ordinance, and strengthening code enforcement against repeat violators.
• The material does not indicate responses from the four other candidates: Robert Fuentes (District 1), Keshia Thomas (District 3), Nav Gurm (District 7), or Ariana Martinez Lott (District 7).

What This Means for You

The 2026 City Council election will determine who sets housing, homelessness, and code enforcement policy for these districts. The responses document each candidate’s stated priorities on questions that directly affect renters, voucher holders, residents living in deteriorating housing stock, and people experiencing homelessness in Fresno.

Singh’s approach emphasizes unlocking production through zoning and holding actors accountable; Arambula’s response details specific programs, enforcement mechanisms, and partnerships he would pursue. The gap between what candidates state and what they deliver once in office is a standard accountability question — these responses establish the baseline against which their actual votes and priorities can be measured.

The absence of responses from the other four candidates means voters in those races have less documented information on their housing and homelessness positions heading into the campaign.

What You Can Do

The 2026 City Council election will appear on your ballot. Review each candidate’s stated positions and compare them to their actual track record where one exists — Arambula’s eight years chairing the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services is a matter of public record that can be checked against his stated priorities.

What to Watch

Singh’s response emphasizes “enforcement that holds actors accountable” and “investment in communities historically abandoned” but does not specify dollar figures, enforcement mechanisms, or which actors would be held accountable for what. Arambula’s response provides more granular detail on programs and enforcement tools but leaves the funding source for most proposals unstated — streamlining approvals costs staff time, legal assistance costs money, landlord incentive payments cost money, and expanding tiny home villages costs money, yet the material does not state where that money would come from or what existing budget line would be reduced to fund it.

Both candidates acknowledge that Black residents are 6.8% of Fresno’s population but 15% of its homeless population, which Singh attributes to “disinvestment in specific neighborhoods and discriminatory lending and eviction patterns that are documented and measurable.” The question is whether either candidate’s stated approach actually addresses the structural patterns producing that disparity, or whether it amounts to managing the symptoms. Singh calls the disparity “policy,” not accident — what specific policy would either candidate change, and whose budget or authority would that require?

Arambula supports “reform, not repeal” of the No Camping Ordinance, limiting enforcement to “sensitive areas” rather than blanket sweeps. The ordinance allows fines up to $1,000 and misdemeanor charges — financial penalties and criminal records that directly undermine housing stability for people already living outside. The stated distinction between “sensitive areas” and “blanket sweeps” leaves unaddressed who decides what counts as sensitive, what happens to people moved from one area when no legal alternative exists, and whether criminalizing homelessness in any form is compatible with ending it. Arambula’s statement that “encampments create real health and safety concerns” does not answer whose health and safety is prioritized — housed residents and businesses, or the people living in those encampments who have nowhere else to go.

The four candidates who did not respond — Robert Fuentes, Keshia Thomas, Nav Gurm, and Ariana Martinez Lott — have not publicly documented their positions on these questions. Voters in Districts 1, 3, and 7 should ask why.