Petra Huda

Q1. What is the biggest problem Portsmouth is facing, and how would you solve it?

The biggest challenge Portsmouth faces is affordability — both in housing and in daily living.

Over the last 3½ years, city spending has grown by $23.5 million, driving up property taxes. That hurts homeowners, but it also drives up rents, since landlords pass the costs along. I’ve seen my own tax bill climb by $2,300 in just two years — many residents are facing the same.

We can’t talk about affordable housing while making the city itself unaffordable. True affordability means protecting the people who already live here — homeowners, renters, families, and seniors. My priority is restoring fiscal responsibility — asking tough questions, reviewing efficiencies, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, so Portsmouth remains a city you can afford to buy in, rent in, and stay in.

Q2. Portsmouth’s budget has reached nearly $150 million and its payroll has 260-plus people earning $100 000-plus. As a city councilor, what steps would you take, if any, to address the tax burden on residents?

The first step is real oversight. During my prior term, I fought for and delivered the lowest budget increases in a decade by challenging unnecessary spending and demanding efficiency. I’ll do the same again. We don’t need to cut essential services, but we do need to rein in spending, prioritize core needs, and stop passing unnecessary costs onto residents. Every tax dollar should be justified.

Q3. With affordability being such a challenge in Portsmouth, what would you do to make it more accessible to people with a wide range of incomes?

At the end of the day, affordability is Portsmouth’s biggest challenge. Our budget has grown to $150 million, taxes keep rising, and rents follow right behind. Families, seniors, and workers are being priced out of the city they love.I’ve shown it can be different — during my prior term, I fought for and achieved the lowest budget increases in a decade. I’ll bring that same discipline back to City Hall: controlling spending, protecting taxpayers, and demanding real accountability from developers so affordable housing isn’t just a promise, but a reality.

Because keeping Portsmouth affordable — for homeowners, renters, and future generations — means keeping Portsmouth home.

Q4. The Portsmouth Housing Authority has projected rents for the apartments the agency is building on city-owned land at the former Sherburne School will range from $1,580 for a one-bedroom unit to nearly $2,200 for three bedrooms. Are those rates low enough for working people? If not, what can be done to lower them?

The projected rents of $1,580 for a one-bedroom and $2,200 for a three-bedroom raise a very real question: are those numbers truly affordable for working families in Portsmouth? The honest answer is — we don’t know, because this project is built on uncertainty.

The "option to ground lease," signed by PHA and the city manager in April 2025, makes that clear. It allows for flexibility in scope and timing depending on financing, and the “option period” doesn’t even expire until December 31, 2027 — with the possibility of another one-year extension. In other words, we have no guarantee what the final rents will look like, or when this project will actually be delivered.

My concern is that taxpayers could be left carrying the risk while developers and agencies adjust their timelines and financing. If the goal is true affordability, we need real safeguards in place — protections for residents, accountability for developers, and transparency every step of the way. Portsmouth families deserve certainty, not shifting promises.

Q5. Should the city commit to using more city-owned land to build truly affordable housing or has Portsmouth done enough?

Portsmouth has done its part — we changed zoning, loosened ADU rules, and even eliminated parking requirements. Yet 96% of the time, developers still choose market-rate over affordable housing. Now the current council wants to give away city-owned land to build “affordable” units — shifting the cost onto taxpayers who are already struggling to stay in their own homes. Residents shouldn’t have to pay more just so others can move here at a price they think is affordable. True affordability starts with protecting the people who already call Portsmouth home.

Q6. Should the city reconsider the scope of a potential police station and City Hall renovation and upgrade project with a projected $42 million cost?

Yes, I believe the city should reconsider and refocus the scope of this project. Four years ago, the projected cost for a new police station alone was $42 million. Since then, the city has already spent $1.5 million on mold remediation and refurbishing the existing police space, and more money continues to be requested. At the same time, City Hall has been refreshed with new paint and carpet.

The priority should be clear: focus on the Police Department’s long-term needs first. Public safety is essential, and the Police facility has been patched and piecemealed long enough. If this project is going to be done in multiple phases, then phase one should be the Police station. Only after that is resolved should we consider more City Hall upgrades.The city has already paid for several “new build” plans and is now working on a combined municipal/police facility plan. But combining the two only risks delaying what matters most. Let’s get the police station right before layering in additional projects.

Q7. Should Portsmouth do something to encourage development at the McIntyre building site, where the owner says city zoning has made redevelopment difficult?

No. The zoning was established to protect the community’s interests, and the owner bought the property knowing the requirements. Changing the rules now for a single project would set a another bad precedent.

Q8. The City Council has put forward ideas to address traffic flow and walkability in high-profile locations like State Street and Congress Street. What is your opinion on these efforts?

Our downtown is vibrant because people can easily visit businesses, dine, and shop — and parking plays a big role in that. The council’s plan to narrow Congress Street, our main artery and eliminate more parking may actually hurt our downtown economy, reduce parking revenue, and create the need for costly new garages.

I believe there’s a better way. We can widen sidewalks strategically in high-foot-traffic areas without removing essential parking and pilot any changes before making permanent decisions. By balancing pedestrian improvements with parking preservation, we create a downtown that’s accessible, thriving, and fiscally responsible — without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for unnecessary projects.”

Addressing the State Street — Yet another study for making State Street a two-way street. How many times and how much money are we going to spend to study this question, until someone gets the answer they want? This is a "state" road, there is a good reason it is a one-way — leave it alone!

Q9. Should the city begin looking for a site where it can build its third municipal parking garage? If so, what part of the city makes the most sense? If not, how can the city meet its increasing parking demand?

If a new garage is needed, I would only support building it underground to protect our historic downtown. Yes, we’re close to the water, but cities like Boston have been doing it for years.

Current zoning doesn’t require developers to provide parking for new residential units. For example, the latest Congress St. “co-living” project intends to rely entirely on the Hanover public garage for parking. Developers shouldn’t rely on public garages at taxpayers’ expense.

Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a new garage so developers can maximize profits? Portsmouth can protect parking, preserve history, and build smart while also ensuring the developers who benefit contribute — keeping it fair for residents and visitors alike.

Q10. What else would you like voters to know about you?

Please see my website for more information — www.petrahudaforportsmouth.com.