In January 2025, Adena Ishii made local history as the first Asian American and woman of color to take the office of Mayor of Berkeley. Her success was shocking to many; Ishii, not having spent time on Berkeley City Council or in any other public office, went up against two veterans of Berkeley politics, Sophie Hahn and Kate Harrison. Ishii campaigned on a platform focused on practical, community-driven solutions to housing, homelessness, and public safety. Her campaign pitch, plastered across the top of her campaign website, was “let’s fight our problems, not each other.” Over a year into her term, has Adena Ishii lived up to her campaign goals? Has she been a fair and effective mayor?
STRENGTHS:
Ishii has lived out her motto since her election through a variety of initiatives.
For starters, after a unanimous vote to reaffirm Berkeley’s status as a sanctuary city, Ishii convened a Sanctuary City Task Force to strengthen protections for immigrant communities against federal immigration enforcement in 2025. This task force worked to acquire $200,000 in new funding for immigrant defense services. It also partners with local organizations and Berkeley Unified School District to protect immigrant families through “know your rights” training and legal services when necessary.
Ishii has also taken a strong stance on environmental preparedness. She has championed the Effective Mitigations for Berkeley Ember Resilience (EMBER) initiative, which focuses on preventing fire-related accidents in the Berkeley Hills by reducing flammable material next to houses in high-risk areas, such as Grizzly Peak. As climate-related risks continue to grow, this initiative reflects long-term thinking and planning.
Additionally, Ishii has proved competent in the face of economic challenges. In October’s City Address, Ishii reported that despite a $28 million deficit in funds, Berkeley has managed to pass a balanced budget, prioritizing essential services without layoffs. In the same address, she discussed Measure O, which helped fund over 700 new permanent supportive housing units that have been built citywide.
Ishii has also prioritized accessibility and transparency in city government. By launching biweekly office hours, she has created a direct channel for residents to voice concerns, ask questions, and engage with their mayor face-to-face. This effort underscores her belief that effective leadership begins with listening to her community.
Together, these actions reflect a mayor who leads with a consistent and community-centered focus.
WEAKNESSES:
Although Ishii’s win represented an overdue milestone in the demographic representation of Berkeley’s public office, we cannot forget that Ishii had next to no experience in Berkeley city government and could only be described as underqualified when compared to her opponents. Longtime community activist Robert Wrenn wrote a piece called “Berkeley Mayor — Does Experience Matter?” in which he rebuked Ishii, affirmatively concluding that it does. Wrenn negatively compared Ishii against the other candidates, saying that “when asked a question about whether a bond or parcel tax measure was best for repairing Berkeley’s streets, (Ishii) didn’t, unlike her opponents, show any understanding of the difference.”
This inexperience manifested itself in Ishii’s reliance on other staff in the early months of her mayorship and initial struggles like a failure to appoint her desired City Council members and vice mayor.
Ishii’s EMBER initiative has also made her unpopular with some Berkeley residents. EMBER requires the clearing of vegetation and wooden structures within five feet of houses, with steep fines for noncompliance. In many cases, this results in thousands of dollars worth of landscaping for some residents. Many express the sentiment that the lushness of the hills is what attracted them to the neighborhood in the first place.
Rick Van, a resident impacted by the new plan, described most residents as “reluctantly compliant,” frustrated by the costs and loss of beautiful trees, even as they understand the safety rationale. The policy has also drawn heavy criticism for focusing on private property while large nearby woodland areas go untouched. As these trees are equally likely to burn in a possible fire, residents feel they are being treated unfairly in Ishii’s efforts to appear prudent.