Newcastle’s City Council Election: Exposing Candidate Ties and Impacts

Newcastle’s council has become a partisan battleground where fights over Pride flags and climate, equity, and renter protections now hinge on the next election.

Newcastle’s council has become a partisan battleground where fights over Pride flags and climate, equity, and renter protections now hinge on the next election.

Newcastle, WA – Our city is an affluent suburban community of about 13,000 people. Despite over 70% of local voters choosing Biden in 2020, the City Council has seen the rise of undercover conservative candidates winning in low-turnout, off-year elections.

Recent controversies have turned this typically quiet city into an unlikely partisan battleground. In 2024, Mayor Robert Clark led a conservative bloc that initially blocked the Pride flag from being flown at City Hall for Pride Month. This move (later reversed after public outcry) garnered national attention and foreshadowed a broader agenda at odds with Newcastle's traditionally inclusive values. Clark's public comments during that episode were telling: he railed not only against the LGBTQ+ community but even against reparations for Black Americans, dismissing them as "creating victim groups." Such incidents have galvanized local activists, who note that while Newcastle's elections are officially non-partisan, a clear ideological divide has emerged in City Hall.

As Newcastle updates its Comprehensive Plan (a blueprint for future growth), Mayor Clark and his allies pressed to strip out language on climate change, diversity, and equity—priorities commonly included by cities across Washington. Clark derided these provisions as "vague" and "subjective," asking why the city should acknowledge marginalized communities at all. Under his influence, the city's Planning Commission obediently adopted a long list of edits removing references to climate change, social and racial equity, past discriminatory practices, and even consideration of impacts on marginalized groups. One deleted policy would have directed Newcastle to consider protections for renters to mitigate displacement, and another would have required using the "best available science" in development regulations. In an extraordinary rationale, the commission's report (which parroted Mayor Clark's own written suggestions) justified removing the science-based standard by sneering: "Best science? Biology is a science that maintains there are 2 genders, male and female. However, social justice warriors ignore the science they don't like. Who determines the science? Take this out." This statement—with its anti-transgender dog whistle—underscores how Newcastle's planning debate veered into culture-war territory.

Ultimately, in April 2025, a new council majority overturned these regressive changes in a 4–3 vote, restoring the original inclusive language on climate and equity. But the fight is far from over, as Newcastle's upcoming council election will determine whether that progress is cemented or rolled back.

The "Newcastle First" Slate: Ties, Backgrounds, and Political Leanings

Four candidates running in 2025 brand themselves under the banner "Newcastle First." On the surface, they emphasize preserving Newcastle's small-town character, safety, and fiscal prudence. However, a closer look reveals strong ties to far-right networks and an agenda aligned with evangelical Christian nationalism. The "Newcastle First" slogan itself is an apparent dog whistle echoing Trump's "America First" platform—language meant to rally a base with nationalist sentiments without alarming moderate residents.

Below is an overview of these candidates, their backgrounds, and their notable ties:

  • Sarah Goodman – A Microsoft program manager by profession, Goodman has actively courted support from the religious right. She boasts an endorsement from former Newcastle Mayor Steve Buri, a prominent conservative in the area. Buri is not a household name to average voters, but notably, he is the longtime president of the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank known for promoting intelligent design in public schools. By seeking Buri's backing, Goodman signaled to evangelical and MAGA circles that she is aligned with their worldview—something she downplays publicly (she pointedly does not tout any endorsement from the now-unpopular Mayor Clark). Goodman's platform centers on keeping Newcastle "safe and quiet," but her connections to creationist organizations raise concerns about church-state separation.
  • Kevin Kirkaldie – A real estate professional with 30 years in marketing, Kirkaldie presents himself as a pragmatic businessman. He has no campaign website or detailed platform published online—a tactic that may be intentional to avoid scrutiny. Kirkaldie's messaging revolves around fiscal responsibility and "transparent" budgeting. However, his alignment with the Newcastle First group suggests quiet support for the same social agenda.
    Notably, he shares campaign resources with the slate, indicating he would likely vote in lockstep with Goodman and others on divisive issues despite his low profile. Residents have struggled to pin down Kirkaldie's stances due to his limited public statements - a "stay hidden to win" approach that Newcastle conservatives have relied on.
  • Maggie Lo – An accountant who formerly worked at Boeing, Lo emphasizes her expertise in budget cutting and efficiency. She often cites her experience "making tough cuts" at Boeing as proof she can rein in city spending. While fiscal prudence is her talking point, Lo's campaign mirrors Mayor Clark's rhetoric on development: she warns about "overspending" on community programs and is critical of expanding services. During a recent candidate forum, Lo suggested Newcastle should "learn to live within its means like a business," implicitly favoring budget cuts that could affect social services.
    Importantly, Lo's agenda aligns with keeping Newcastle exclusive—she has expressed skepticism about affordable housing projects and did not object when the Planning Commission struck policies aiding renters and lower-income residents. Her supporters include members of the outgoing conservative council bloc, indicating that she would continue their legacy of prioritizing low taxes over equity initiatives.
  • Jim Quigg – A longtime Newcastle resident and homeowners' association president, Quigg was appointed to the City Council in late 2024 to fill a vacancy when Steve Tallman, a Clark-aligned member and unapologetic Trump supporter, abruptly resigned. Now running to retain his seat, Quigg emphasizes public safety and "neighborhood character."
    He chaired an HOA and served as vice-chair of the Newcastle Planning Commission, where he consistently voiced concern about "overdevelopment." Quigg's track record suggests a strong anti-growth stance: he prefers Newcastle remain a "small, quiet" bedroom community and has opposed zoning changes that would allow more apartments or dense housing. As HOA president, he even bragged about stopping new housing in his subdivision—prompting critics to say "Quigg doesn't want you to afford a home" in Newcastle.
    Quigg's approach to safety also raises flags. He was a driving force behind the city's Ad-Hoc Public Safety Committee and supported bringing in volunteer armed patrols. In fact, the Newcastle First slate's security rhetoric turned disastrous in 2024 when one committee member (an off-duty security guard and Clark appointee) took matters into his own hands: he shot and killed an innocent teen he racially profiled outside a local store. (The 17-year-old victim, Hazrat Rohani, was unarmed—the guard now faces murder charges.)
    After the tragedy, Quigg and his allies did not condemn the vigilante act; Mayor Clark instead issued a bland statement expressing sympathy "to all those involved"—a phrasing widely criticized for equating the shooter with the victim. Quigg's continued focus on "law and order" and silence on that incident suggest a troubling tough-on-crime mentality that could harm communities of color.

These four candidates collectively market an agenda of "Small, Safe, Quiet"—a phrase repeated in their campaigning. On its face, it appeals to preserving Newcastle's peaceful suburban character. But as one local observer noted, this phrasing reinforces fear-mongering and xenophobia: it's essentially code for keeping the city's status quo of predominantly wealthy, white homeowners, without the "disturbances" of diversity or growth.

Indeed, "Newcastle First" harkens to "America First," a slogan with nativist roots. By design or not, the policies this slate supports would exclude and disadvantage less privileged groups—as detailed next.

Harm to Unprivileged Communities and Marginalized Groups

If the Newcastle First slate gains control of the Council, many residents fear a rollback of inclusivity and equity, with disproportionate harm to underprivileged communities. Their track record and statements so far provide clear indicators:

  • LGBTQ+ Community: The Pride flag episode in 2024 revealed the hostility of this group's leader (Mayor Clark) toward LGBTQ+ inclusion. Clark voted against flying the rainbow flag at City Hall and launched into a diatribe implying that acknowledging LGBTQ pride—or addressing historical racism—only "causes division and hate." Although Councilmember Pratima Lakhotia flipped her vote under public pressure—allowing the flag to finally be raised—it was a narrow 4–3 decision. Had Clark's faction prevailed, Newcastle would have stood alone in the region in refusing to recognize Pride Month.
    The Newcastle First candidates have been notably silent or evasive on LGBTQ+ issues during the campaign. None have sought endorsements from LGBTQ+ groups, and their ideological allies include outspoken anti-LGBTQ voices. For example, the planning document they supported erased an "inclusive engagement" provision and instead inserted a jab about there being only "2 genders." This language mirrors talking points used to undermine transgender rights.
    LGBTQ+ residents worry that a Newcastle First majority would block symbolic gestures like Pride flags and, more importantly, offer no support for policies protecting queer youth or transgender individuals. The contrast is stark: current progressive Councilmembers led Newcastle's first-ever Pride event and pushed the flag decision, while the challengers align with those who resisted it.
  • Racial Equity and Diversity: The erasure of equity language from the city's Comprehensive Plan (later restored) is a red flag for marginalized communities. Mayor Clark objected to even acknowledging Newcastle's diversity, claiming "everybody is already welcome" and questioning why the city should empower diverse communities. One of Clark's council allies, Tom Griffin, went so far as to argue that discussing past racism (like redlining or covenants) would create racism, and that unless discrimination is blatantly obvious, "show it to me" or drop the subject.
    These attitudes fueled the attempt to whitewash Newcastle's planning documents of any mention of past discriminatory housing practices. The Newcastle First candidates have not disavowed these views. By seeking Steve Buri's endorsement, they are implicitly embracing a worldview that downplays systemic racism—Buri's Discovery Institute, for instance, often frames social justice efforts as "divisive."
    If elected, these candidates are expected to oppose initiatives aimed at racial equity. That could mean halting any diversity training at City Hall, refusing to engage with programs like King County's anti-displacement strategies, or even preventing the city from observing Juneteenth or ethnic heritage celebrations. The mayor's own comments on reparations (essentially denying the existence of any lasting harm from slavery or racism in places like California) illustrate an aversion to racial reconciliation efforts. This mindset in city leadership would make Newcastle's government less responsive to the needs and voices of its minority residents.
  • Low-Income Families and Renters: Newcastle is a predominantly homeowner, higher-income community, and the Newcastle First group seems determined to keep it that way. Under their influence, the Planning Commission not only removed renter protection clauses but also limited plans for affordable housing to the bare minimum required. The city's draft growth map allows multi-family housing (like apartments) only in a small downtown core, keeping most neighborhoods zoned exclusively for single-family homes.
    King County's Affordable Housing Committee has already warned that Newcastle's plan "does not set reasonable expectations" for meeting its affordable housing targets and keeps the city "highly exclusive" in character. Yet, the conservatives on Council dismissed these concerns. They even deleted a policy encouraging the city to use its own land for affordable housing projects.
    The message to lower-income people—including teachers, service workers, or young families who might want to live in Newcastle—is that they are not a priority. Candidate Jim Quigg's slogan of maintaining "neighborhood character" by fighting new housing development is emblematic of this exclusionary stance. Likewise, Maggie Lo's emphasis on budget cuts could translate to fewer city resources for things like rental assistance, transit subsidies, or human services that help struggling residents.
    In sum, a Newcastle First majority would likely freeze any progress on housing affordability, entrenching the privileges of existing (mostly wealthy, white) homeowners while pricing others out.
  • Church–State Separation and Education: Perhaps most striking is the evangelical Christian undercurrent in this group’s network. The Discovery Institute connection is key. Steve Buri, who has helped mentor or endorse these candidates, leads an organization infamous for its “Wedge strategy”—a long-term plan to undermine mainstream science and promote a theocratic worldview in public policy. According to a leaked Discovery Institute memo, their end goal is to replace the scientific, secular foundation of public discourse with one “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,” essentially eroding the wall between church and state.
    By aligning with Buri, the Newcastle First slate is tied into this agenda. Indeed, Goodman, Kirkaldie, Lo, and Quigg have all appeared at events alongside Buri or received support from his network. None of them have stated opposition to the Discovery Institute’s views. This raises concerns that, if elected, they might inject religiously motivated policies into Newcastle’s governance. For example, they could push for the city to partner with faith-based groups for public services in ways that blur legal boundaries, or resist science-based initiatives (as seen in their climate-change denial in the comp plan).
    Their disdain for “social justice warriors” and mockery of concepts like gender diversity aligns with a broader Christian conservative narrative rather than neutral civic reasoning. The implications for local schools and libraries are also worrying activists—while the City Council doesn’t directly set school curriculum, councilmembers influence community norms and can pass resolutions or advocate at school boards. A council captured by creationist-friendly politicians might, for instance, support challenges to LGBTQ+-themed library books or back activists opposing comprehensive sex education, under the guise of “community values.”
    It’s worth noting that Newcastle’s population is highly educated and works in tech—many residents would be alarmed to see local officials undermining science and expertise. Yet, as one commentator observed, these candidates count on the fact that voters may not realize what they truly stand for, since they avoid frank discussion of religion or national politics in their campaigns.

Conclusion: What's at Stake for Newcastle

This year's City Council election presents Newcastle with a stark choice. On one side are progressive and centrist candidates—like Andy Jacobs, Chris Villasenor, Paul Charbonneau, and Karin Blakley—who are openly endorsed by pro-democracy groups and the Democratic Party. They advocate for a welcoming, diverse Newcastle that balances growth with community needs. On the other side is the "Newcastle First" slate, whose members operate under a veneer of nonpartisanship but have been revealed as rebranded MAGA-aligned politicians. Their objectives, as documented above, include rolling back protections for marginalized groups, injecting a hardline evangelical ideology into local policy, and preserving the privileges of Newcastle's most well-off residents at the expense of inclusivity.

For Newcastle's LGBTQ+ residents, people of color, renters, and allies, having these candidates in power would likely feel harmful and exclusionary. A council majority that downplays hate symbols and discrimination (as seen with the Pride flag and racial equity debates) could make City Hall unresponsive to the concerns of vulnerable neighbors. Furthermore, the entanglement with a creationist, anti-science agenda poses a threat to the city's commitment to fact-based governance and its reputation as a modern, educated community. As The Urbanist noted, Newcastle's brush with the "anti-DEI" policies became "fully partisan," even dragging in references to Trump-era orders against diversity training. In a city where many residents work in science and tech fields, a leadership that treats science as a partisan enemy is deeply alarming.

On a practical level, a “Newcastle First” council would also steer the city toward fiscal and developmental decisions favoring the few. For example, they have signaled resistance to regional affordable housing mandates—a stance that could lead to legal challenges (for failing state requirements) while also perpetuating economic segregation. Their heavy focus on cutting budgets might threaten community programs that benefit seniors, youth, or low-income residents. Even public safety, which they tout as a priority, might shift toward private-security approaches instead of community policing, given their past support for armed volunteer patrols. Newcastle saw the deadly result that can have. The current council’s progressive wing has emphasized a “public safety for all” model—e.g., working with police to improve bias training and engaging the community—whereas the incoming conservative slate’s ethos of “law and order” often translates to tough tactics that disproportionately impact marginalized groups.

In sum, the election will decide whether Newcastle continues moving toward a more inclusive, forward-looking city or veers into a reactionary experiment driven by a narrowly focused, ideologically extreme minority. The stakes are unusually high for a city of 13,000. Newcastle's own history—from an all-white coal town to today's diverse suburb—shows that progress and inclusion are possible, but not guaranteed. Voters must look beyond the pleasant-sounding slogans of "small, safe, quiet" and recognize the far-right agenda lurking behind them. As one local activist put it, "Democracy only works if people actually know who they're voting for." With credible reporting and community vigilance finally shining light on these candidates' ties and beliefs, Newcastle's citizens have the information they need to make an informed choice at the ballot box.

Sources:

© Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved