Photo Credit: “WDIV/Local”
The first 55 minutes of Detroit’s first televised mayoral debate moved steady—measured responses, policy talking points, and political restraint. Then Saunteel Jenkins former City Council president and nonprofit CEO, leaned into the mic and cracked the room open.
“If you want a future that includes more guns in schools, locking up our kids, Craig is your guy,” Jenkins said. “If you want a part-time mayor who’s working two full-time jobs, Kinloch is ready. If you want a mayor who shows up on Instagram but doesn’t show up for meetings, then follow Mary. But if you want a mayor who is committed to this city and will continue the progress that Mayor Duggan has brought to this city over the past decade, then keep thinking Jenkins.”
Just as sure as Jenkins began the line of closing statements, Kinloch closed the ending remarks and rebutted with “my colleague has forgotten that construction does not happen by destruction, you cannot build yourself up by tearing other people down.”
It was the moment the stage got quiet—but the city heard everything. After an hour of cautious dialogue, the final statements delivered a clear line in the sand.
Four of the city’s top mayoral candidates—James Craig, Rev. Solomon Kinloch, Mary Sheffield, and Saunteel Jenkins—took the debate stage Monday night ahead of Detroit’s Aug. 5 primary election. Each was selected based on recent polling from the Glengariff Group, with Sheffield holding a clear lead and Jenkins polling in fourth place. Though tension lingered beneath the surface, it wasn’t until Jenkins closed with pointed criticism of her opponents that the debate moved from formalities to a fight for real contrast.
Held at Wayne State University and moderated by WDIV’s Jason Colthorp, the debate was co-sponsored by WDIV and AARP in partnership with the Michigan Chronicle. The format allowed voters to hear where each candidate stands on economic development, housing, and leadership style. But the closing statements showed where the sharpest distinctions truly live.
Throughout the night, Jenkins pressed a consistent point: Detroit’s next mayor will face serious financial headwinds. She cited the expiration of federal pandemic relief funds and rising city costs. Her proposal? A citywide penny tax that could generate $100 million annually to stabilize revenue and offset property tax cuts. “We have to prepare for what’s ahead. We cannot operate like we’re still in 2021,” she said earlier in the debate.
Sheffield, currently serving as Detroit City Council President, offered her own proposal for a half-penny tax. She framed it as part of a larger plan to tap underutilized revenue from downtown entertainment districts. “We are not capitalizing on the economic activity that is happening in downtown Detroit,” Sheffield said, noting her council’s effort to study taxation on high-traffic venues that draw profit without equitable reinvestment.
Craig, Detroit’s former police chief, questioned both proposals and instead called for an independent forensic audit of the city’s financial position. He argued that true leadership means knowing the numbers and making “prudent decisions” rooted in verified facts. Though his points were often cut short by time limits, he reiterated his stance that Detroit cannot afford a mayor who needs “on-the-job training.”
That line was echoed by candidate Fred Durhal III at the first debate during the Mackinac Policy Conference—Durhal, who did not poll high enough to participate in the second debate, released a tax reform plan the same day.
Kinloch presented a different pitch altogether. As senior pastor of Triumph Church, he framed his candidacy around lived experience and spiritual leadership. “I’m running because the people that are empowered and in these positions are not delivering for us, and we got to do something different,” he said. When pressed on how he would manage being both mayor and pastor, Kinloch said he would be “a full-time mayor 2.0,” relying on a team of qualified leaders to support both his roles. “I will be a mayor that will go to church on Sunday, and when he goes to church on Sunday, he will preach.”
Tensions rose when Jenkins and Kinloch questioned Sheffield’s commitment to affordable housing. Both candidates pointed to her record as chair of the city’s housing and homelessness task force. Jenkins issued a direct challenge. “When you brag about all you’ve done, and a mother had to bury her babies because she couldn’t find affordable housing in spite of reaching out to the city time and time again… you have failed our residents.” Sheffield responded by reaffirming her work, but the exchange raised deeper concerns about what qualifies as measurable progress—and who gets left behind.
Sheffield was also asked to address claims that she missed 90% of the council’s Planning and Economic Development Committee meetings over three years. The claim, traced to a column by political commentator Adolph Mongo, questioned her presence. Sheffield responded by calling it a “fake report.” She clarified that as council president, she is an ex-officio member of all committees and runs the Tuesday formal sessions. “My attendance isn’t required for those meetings,” she explained. “This is what we go back to in politics when you don’t have substance, you don’t have a record and you’re not sure what you’re running on.”
One of the most pressing questions of the evening came from Michigan Chronicle executive editor Jeremy Allen, who asked: “As Detroit continues to grow and revitalize, the need for affordable housing remains critical. With a strained city budget and rising development costs, how do you propose Detroit can increase its affordable housing stock without relying heavily on state or federal funds and what new or underutilized revenue streams can the city tap into to subsidize affordable housing?”
Craig emphasized his commitment to rebuilding Detroit’s middle class, proposing a data-driven approach to track progress across key areas, including affordable housing. He said he would support incentives for developers and push for expanded financial literacy efforts throughout the community.
Sheffield pointed to the rising cost of building affordable housing as a central barrier, noting that city-led abatements are necessary to close funding gaps. She also identified Detroit’s high property taxes as a core issue and said she would pursue tax reform if elected.
Kinloch said his campaign was rooted in ensuring that no one in Detroit is left without shelter or dignity. He called for increased support through incentive-based programs to expand access to stable, affordable housing.
Jenkins echoed the need for new tools and resources to expand housing access and stressed the importance of meeting the needs of Detroiters across income levels and life stages. She specifically called attention to the growing housing challenges faced by seniors and said more targeted options must be made available for aging residents.
Beyond policy, the debate revealed gaps in how aging Detroiters are being prioritized in campaign platforms. AARP’s Paula Cunningham, state director for Michigan, spoke candidly to the Michigan Chronicle about her concerns. “This is good for the people of Detroit and the reason that we hosted this debate is so that they can hear issues directly,” she said. “But I must say I am a little disappointed that there weren’t more [questions] toward older adults, who are the largest voting block in the country and particularly in Michigan.”
Her warning is grounded in data. Nearly 19% of Michigan’s population is over 65. In Detroit, Census figures place the senior population at about 15%. These are residents who often carry the burden of fixed incomes, limited mobility, and rapidly increasing housing costs. “I believe that the people aren’t preparing for what’s coming,” Cunningham said. “Michigan is one of the top four fastest aging states in the country. What does that mean for our infrastructure? What does that mean for our housing? Older adults contribute to the economy more than anyone.”
That statement matters. Because it reframes the debate from youth-centered campaign rhetoric to intergenerational policymaking. A growing senior population will require tailored transit options, walkable streets, and home maintenance programs. These voters aren’t looking for promises—they’re looking for a mayor who sees them.
The debate didn’t offer a winner—but it did leave a mark. When Jenkins took that final swing, she named accountability. And that shifted the room. It reminded viewers that Detroit’s next mayor won’t be chosen by who says the most, but by who shows up when it counts. In boardrooms, budget hearings, city council chambers, and neighborhood corridors—when there’s no camera in sight.
Detroit voters have weathered decades of promises and pivots. They’ve watched playgrounds close, block clubs rebuild from nothing, and city plans stall before the ink dries. They know leadership when it’s real—and they know when it’s curated.
What happens next won’t be shaped by a viral clip or a polished soundbite. It’ll be determined by who earns trust beyond the stage. Who knows the weight of rising water bills on fixed incomes. Who understands how it feels when affordable housing gets redefined until it no longer includes the people who built the block. Who answers when seniors ask how they’ll stay in their homes. Who picks up the phone when young people call for safety without fear. And who remembers that policy without proximity is just paperwork.
Detroit doesn’t need another spokesperson. Detroit needs stewardship.
Absentee ballots begin mailing by the end of the month. The August 5 primary is around the corner. For Detroit’s future, the choice won’t be shaped by who delivered the sharpest line—it will be shaped by who heard the city clearly and responded with action.
