Q&A: Jefferson Shreve on gun control, the abortion ban, broken windows policing and crime

In three months, voters will decide whether they want Mayor Joe Hogsett to serve a third term or if they'll throw their support behind his Republican challenger Jefferson Shreve.

IndyStar sat down with Shreve to talk about appealing to Democratic voters, risking his conservative base over gun control, why he won't take a stance on Indiana's abortion ban, public safety and his "broken windows" proposal for policing.

The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

On the need for change in a Democratic city

Question: You won in the Republican primary by a huge landslide, but there were 20,000 more Democratic voters who showed up than Republican voters. What would you say to those people who say they want Democratic leadership on why they should support you?

Answer: The city is hungry for change. There were 10 people who put their names on the ballot, including the incumbent. The Democrats control every county-wide office in Indianapolis. There's responsibility that goes along with that. That Robin Shackleford pulled as many votes and others and several other people jumped in there is evidence of hunger for change.

Q: Do you think of yourself as the kind of Republican who can appeal to a progressive voter?

A: I am a man with moderate views that I believe are attuned to Marion County. We've got a very diverse city, the most diverse county in the state and my views fall somewhere in the middle. And I do think that people will listen have listened, are interested, are tuning in, are engaged in this election because they see that.

On gun control

Q: Since you've announced your gun control plan, some in your base have since said they feel betrayed by you, angered. Why have you decided to take such a big risk to take a stand on an issue that, while is important, isn't something that the mayor's office has direct control over, which is gun regulation?

A: I announced a public safety plan that's an important element of leading the city. There are a number of elements or planks to the public safety plan. Not everyone's going to agree with every element of that plan. To be successful in being hired by the citizens of Indianapolis, the majority, a plurality, needs to agree with most of the elements of what I'm articulating from a public safety standpoint because the results of the past seven and a half years are self-evident. Our murder rate, our homicides are up by 52%. (IndyStar note: Based on IndyStar's fact check, criminal homicides were up 41% in 2022 from 2016. Shreve's campaign clarified that he is comparing the number of criminal homicides in 2016 with the total homicides in 2022, which include accidental and self-defense killings.)

More: Shreve angers base with gun control plan that NRA calls 'pathetic'. Will it pay off?

We've lost too much human talent in the public safety infrastructure of our city. The solve rate on our homicides has fallen way too far. As I move around the city, as I talk to people, months ago, today, the message is, "We're not going downtown. We're not going to Broad Ripple. We're not going to XYZ because we don't feel safe." It's essential that a mayor provide for the public safety of the city that he or she leads.

Q: What would you say to the people for whom the Second Amendment is one of the biggest issues for them?

A: I'm for the lawful, legal ownership of guns. I'm a handgun owner myself. I support the lawful ownership of guns, and it's not in the purview of the mayor to determine that policy anyway. But as the person seeking the job that is responsible for the delivery of a safe and civil city, there are some tools that I believe our city needs as I listen to the police leadership, both in the city, chief Randal Taylor specifically, and (Indiana State Police) Superintendent Doug Carter. I have campaigned on a message, in part, of being attuned to and supportive of our police.

On abortion laws

Q: What is your stance on Indiana's current abortion laws, which amounts to a near-total abortion ban?

A: My position simply is that I'm running for mayor. I'm not asking to be hired for a policy making position. The mayor has no authority over abortion policy. As mayor, I wouldn't allocate any city resources toward abortion policy matters. Zero.

Q: Your opponent has spoken at length about abortion issues.

A: Mayor Hogsett is trying to nationalize this election when it's about broken windows and mass transit and our convention business and things that matter to the citizens that the mayor can influence. And abortion policy is outside the purview of the mayor's job. I feel like the mayor is trying to make this competitive race about an issue such as that because he chooses not to run on the issues that are germane to running the city of Indianapolis better than he's doing.

Q: What would you say to people who think it's relevant for them as they're making the decision that they want to know what your stance is on abortion?

A: My stance is that as mayor, I would take no role in abortion policy and allocate no resources of the city of Indianapolis to abortion policy enforcement or changes one way or the other. That's not where my focus will be. And that's not what our citizens are hiring a mayor to do.

On public safety, broken windows policing

Q: Speaking of your public safety proposal, there are a number of elements in it, hiring, recruitment, retention of police officers, using of shot spotter technology, addressing the root causes of crime, that are already elements of the Hogsett administration's approach. Why do you think you would be successful at those things when they've tried that approach for eight years?

A: Mayor Hogsett has a record. It's demonstrable, the results are in and the results aren't impressive. I'm articulating a pathway, plans, that I'm telling citizens, I'm going to make happen. He hasn't made a lot of things happen. There are significant differences in what I'm articulating from what he has said he will do seven and a half years into his administration that haven't happened.

When he ran, he said he was gonna hire 150 more officers. Well, he's got fewer officers on the force today than when he came into office in 2016. The FOP President Rick Snyder stated this this past week that we were 322 officers down from the count that was authorized and funded by our city...

I've said that I will bring in top talent Public Safety Director. Mayor Hogsett said he would be his own public safety director.

Q: Your plan includes the idea of eliminating the perception of chaos. You mention specifically aggressive enforcement for illegal littering and dumping. Does that look like a zero-tolerance policy toward some of these crimes like illegal dumping vandalism, public drinking?

A: I share citizens' desire for a safe and civil city. There's that "broken windows theory." That's not a theory.

We've got to stay on top of, ahead of the property level crimes, the graffiti, the vandalism, because if we don't, societally, we deescalate. If we don't stay on top of the fundamentals, neighborhoods deescalate, deteriorate, and this ties into public safety, but doesn't rely directly on public safety resources, but also the Marion County Health Department, Business and Neighborhood Services and a number of other functional areas of our city that are underperforming under the Hogsett Administration.

Q: Broken windows policing theory — is that how you could describe your approach?

A: It's a prong of it. It's not just a broken window. It's the graffiti tags. It's the trash and litter on our arterial roadways. It's the abandoned and dilapidated housing that our city doesn't work to turn when it comes into the city's inventory and repurpose thoughtfully. We've got to actively manage these frontline elements of creating an attractive cityscape.

Q: Do you worry about criticisms of some of these aggressive policing tactics, including broken windows, that it has a disparate impact on racial minority groups?

A: No. I think the citizens of this city regardless of income strata want to live in clean, safe neighborhoods.

On economic growth and Pan Am Plaza Signia Hotel

Q: The Hogsett Administration is financing the Signia Hotel at Pan Am Plaza with $625 million in revenue bonds and you've spoken out against that project in the name of private investment and free market competition. What is your vision for an alternative way to spur downtown growth if you don't support the Pan Am Plaza plan?

A: I vigorously support our convention industry. We've had great success over 30 years in growing our convention business and expanding our convention centers and all of the hotel infrastructure that makes that possible has been developed with private coinvestors in our city.

The state of downtown is such that an experienced developer, locally based, couldn't attract private capital financing to the deal. The city had to bail it out on the shoulders of our taxpayers to bring it forward. That's not what I think we should prioritize our limited bonding capacity with. I don't think the city should be in direct competition with the private hoteliers that have invested at their own risk in our convention industry.

Q: Would you put the brakes on the Pan Am Plaza Signia hotel financing plan if you were elected mayor?

A: I would not. I would honor the commitments our city makes today in an administration that I would come into in 2024.

Contact IndyStar reporter Ko Lyn Cheang at kcheang@indystar.com or 317-903-7071. Follow her on Twitter: @kolyn_cheang.

This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Q&A: Jefferson Shreve on guns, abortion and broken windows policing