Stacking the Deck: Political Ideology, Policing Controversies, and the Future of Redding’s Planning Commission

Update 4/16: The City Council voted 4-1 to approve the appointments of Blake Nance and Erin Ryan to the Redding Planning Commission, with Councilmember Dhanuka abstaining.

The Redding Planning Commission plays a key role in shaping the city’s future. It reviews land use applications, zoning changes, and major development proposals before they reach the City Council for final approval. While commissioners don’t cast the deciding votes, their recommendations carry real influence. They help determine what gets built, where it goes, and how those projects affect the community.

In April 2025, the commission became the focus of a sharply divided City Council. Mayor Jack Munns attempted to replace two current commissioners, Aaron Hatch and Brandi Greene, who had both requested to continue their service. The council deadlocked, with two members supporting the mayor’s new appointees, two opposing, and one abstaining. The result left the appointments unresolved and exposed deeper divisions within city leadership.

Mayor Munns’ initial picks were Joshua Johnson, a local developer, and Blake Nance, a former Beverly Hills police lieutenant. Johnson, a developer who was twice unsuccessful in City Council bids, including after a short-term appointment in 2024, has drawn scrutiny from residents questioning whether political appointments are being used to override electoral outcomes. Nance has no prior planning experience and was a supervisor of a controversial Rodeo Drive policing unit that drew national attention for its arrest practices.

After the vote failed, a week later, the mayor nominated a new candidate, Erin Ryan, a political activist and conservative radio host with a long history of commentary on social issues and public policy.

Some residents and councilmembers raised concerns that the commission is at risk of becoming unbalanced, with too many appointees tied to development or partisan interests. Hatch and Greene, the two commissioners passed over, were known for their background in environmental policy and community planning. Neither faced any formal complaint or misconduct. Many viewed the effort to replace them as unnecessary, given their experience and willingness to continue.

The mayor’s office has the authority to nominate commissioners, but those appointments require a council majority to move forward. In this case, the process has stalled, and the debate has left the commission in a holding pattern. With major development decisions on the horizon, including the Riverfront Specific Plan, the outcome of this dispute could have long-term implications for how planning decisions are made in Redding.

The April 1st, 2025 Council Meeting – Division on the Dais

The April 1, 2025, Redding City Council meeting began with what should have been a routine discussion: the appointment of two individuals to the city’s Planning Commission. But it quickly became clear that this was no ordinary vote. The chamber, packed with residents, sat through a debate that revealed a deeply divided council and conflicting visions of how public appointments should be handled.

Mayor Jack Munns introduced his nominees, Joshua Johnson and Blake Nance, to replace Aaron Hatch and Brandi Greene. Both Hatch and Greene had expressed a willingness to continue serving. Munns did not cite any performance issues with either commissioner, instead framing the appointments as part of his prerogative to bring in new voices. The mayor spoke little during the debate, but his choices sparked a series of strong responses from councilmembers.

Councilmember Erin Resner was the first to raise concerns. She noted that Planning Commission appointments were historically uneventful and often difficult to fill. That had changed in recent years. “It is our job as members of the council to make sure that when we appoint people to commissions… they represent the balance of our community so that everybody’s voice can be heard,” Resner said. “Because of that, I will not be voting to support these appointments.”

Councilmember Paul Dhanuka echoed that sentiment, calling the attempt to remove sitting commissioners “unfair” and potentially harmful to public trust. “Short of a serious misconduct,” he said, “we need to respect somebody who wants to continue for a second term rather than unceremoniously showing them the door.” Dhanuka also referenced the failed effort in 2024 to remove Hatch from the commission, a move that had divided the community and triggered intense public backlash. “In order for us to heal that,” he said, “we need to be thoughtful.”

Vice Mayor Tenessa Audette offered a different perspective. She defended the mayor’s authority to select nominees, calling the criticism of his appointments “insanely disrespectful.” Audette acknowledged she did not know Nance personally but said she trusted the mayor’s values. “Each mayor is going to pick. You pick your own diversity of people. You'll pick your own diversity of people. Erin will pick her people and nobody in the past. I've watched. I went back and watched many of these, nobody objects because it is the prerogative of the mayor.””

Her comments suggested that the Planning Commission has historically turned over with each shift in council majority, though that point was later disputed by some community members.

Audette was also blunt in her assessment of the discussion itself. “What brings healing is that we don’t disrupt and interrupt and say no, you have to do it this way,” she said. “These are volunteer positions. It’s a four-year gig. You go there to learn.” She framed the process as one driven by voter support for the mayor’s values and dismissed concerns about continuity, stating, “Are they serial killers? Are they going to come and destroy the city? No? Okay, great.”

Dhanuka responded with restraint. “With all due respect, Ms. Audette,” he said, “you used certain words — I will just take those in stride.” He clarified that his remarks were not meant as personal criticism of the mayor, but as an appeal to fairness and process. “Just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we should.”

Councilmember Mike Littau took a more cautious position. He abstained from the vote and acknowledged feeling conflicted. “It felt political,” he later told the Redding Record Searchlight, explaining that he came to the meeting with an open mind but didn’t feel there had been enough transparency. Littau’s abstention was critical. With a 2–2 split, the appointments failed.

City Manager Barry Tippin noted that the mayor’s authority to make appointments remains intact, but any new nominees would also require a council majority. The failed vote left the commission seats unfilled and the city without a clear path forward on resolving the vacancy.

The meeting revealed deep tensions within city leadership and a growing divide over how public appointments should be handled. Once a procedural task, appointing volunteers to a local board has now become another front in Redding’s ongoing struggle over power, representation, and public accountability.

Blake Nance’s Record

One of the most controversial figures to emerge from the Planning Commission debate is Blake Nance, a former lieutenant with the Beverly Hills Police Department. Nominated by Mayor Jack Munns to replace Commissioner Aaron Hatch, Nance’s appointment drew public attention due to his leadership role in a policing operation that later became the subject of national scrutiny and his lack of experience in land use or planning.

According to a 2021 investigative article, Nance was a key supervisor in the Beverly Hills Police Department’s “Rodeo Drive Team,” a specialized enforcement unit launched in the summer of 2020. During a two-month period, the unit made 90 arrests. Of those arrested, 80 were Black. Only 10 of the cases were prosecuted.

Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump, representing plaintiffs in lawsuits filed against the city, described the operation bluntly: “The Beverly Hills Police Department arrested African Americans for being Black on Rodeo Drive.”

Nance’s internal memos to the department raised further concerns. In one, he claimed the unit had uncovered “massive fraud underway with CA’s EDD system,” and referenced rap music as a clue to criminal behavior, stating that “Rap songs even brag and educate listeners about the sites.” He also proposed a media strategy that included highlighting federal indictments tied to “local gangsters.” Critics viewed this language as racially charged and speculative.

The unit was disbanded later that year. Nonetheless, Nance and others involved were awarded an “Employee Excellence Award” by the department, a move that drew further criticism once lawsuits were filed. While Nance was not named as a defendant and has no public record of disciplinary action, his leadership in the unit and tone in communications raised public concerns about his judgment and suitability for the commission.

Beyond his law enforcement career, Nance lists event security work as part of his current occupation. His Planning Commission application included references to his Marine service and claims that he co-designed traffic and evacuation plans for over 10,000 Beverly Hills residents during wildfires. However, he offered no formal land use credentials and acknowledged he had never attended a Planning Commission meeting.

Mayor Munns did not offer public comment about Nance’s background, and Nance has not responded to media inquiries. His nomination failed to advance in the April 1 vote due to the 2–2 split, but the discussion surrounding his record continues to weigh heavily on the broader debate.

Erin Ryan’s Ideological Influence

Following the failed vote to seat Blake Nance and Joshua Johnson, Mayor Jack Munns introduced a new nominee to the Planning Commission: Erin Ryan, a longtime conservative activist, former congressional staffer, and co-host of a politically charged radio show on Redding’s KCNR 1460 AM.

Ryan’s nomination replaced Johnson’s and immediately shifted the conversation. While her background differs from that of developers or law enforcement, it raised concerns of a different kind, namely, whether her public positions on controversial social issues and her partisan media role make her a suitable candidate for a nonpartisan commission.

Ryan has been a fixture in Shasta County Republican circles for more than a decade. She helped launch the Redding Tea Party around 2010 and has served in various roles with the Shasta County Republican Central Committee, including treasurer. She also worked as a senior field representative for Congressman Doug LaMalfa, serving as a liaison to rural constituents and occasionally speaking at county-level meetings on his behalf. In 2013, she endorsed the State of Jefferson movement at a Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors meeting, voicing support for the idea of Northern California counties seceding from the state. Though she said she did not speak for the congressman, her remarks made clear her own views on local control and resistance to Sacramento-based governance.

Most of Ryan’s public footprint comes from her role as co-host of We the People Radio, a weekly conservative talk show that describes itself as “offering a viewpoint the mainstream media avoids.” The show covers a range of topics but often leans heavily into culture war narratives, featuring interviews and commentary that reflect strongly conservative or far-right viewpoints.

Over the years, We the People has included segments opposing COVID-19 mitigation policies, attacking cannabis legalization, and criticizing transgender-inclusive policies. Ryan hosted a three-part radio series on “the transgender thing,” featuring guests from Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) warning about the risks of inclusion in prisons and schools. She and her co-host have stated on-air that “all forms of cannabis cause cancer” and referred to the pandemic as a “plandemic.”

Her supporters describe Ryan as a principled voice for conservative values. Critics argue that her public commentary crosses into misinformation and ideological rigidity. These concerns have led to questions about whether she can approach complex land use matters with the open-mindedness and balance required of a Planning Commissioner.

Ryan has no formal background in city planning, environmental review, or zoning policy. However, unlike some other recent appointees, she is not directly tied to the real estate industry. In fact, her nomination came after concerns were raised about too many developers serving on the commission. In that sense, her selection may have been seen as a pivot away from industry control. Still, the shift from technical expertise to political ideology has sparked its own debate.

Ryan has not commented publicly on how she would approach planning-related decisions. Her prior public statements suggest a strong worldview shaped by skepticism of state authority and deep alignment with conservative activism. Whether she can bring that perspective into a balanced and constructive role on the Planning Commission remains to be seen.

Political Power Plays and Public Trust

The events surrounding the Redding Planning Commission appointments have made one thing clear: what used to be a quiet administrative process is now a flashpoint for larger political tensions. A routine appointment vote turned into a defining moment, exposing broader questions about power, transparency, and who local government is really serving.

Historically, Planning Commission appointments have been noncontroversial. Councilmembers often encouraged participation, especially from underrepresented community members or those with professional expertise.

Commissioners like Aaron Hatch and Brandi Greene brought environmental science, land-use policy knowledge, and years of public service experience to the table. Neither had been accused of wrongdoing. Both expressed a willingness to continue serving. Yet, their seats were targeted for replacement without a clear explanation.

Mayor Jack Munns, backed by Vice Mayor Tenessa Audette, presented the nominations as a routine part of the mayor’s authority. But the choices, a former police lieutenant tied to a racial profiling controversy and a conservative media figure known for polarizing commentary, raised questions about intent.

During the April 1 meeting, Audette defended the move by pointing to tradition, stating that mayors often rotate in new commissioners when elected. But that narrative didn’t match the facts. Councilmember Erin Resner pushed back, reminding the public that stability and experience are important, especially when the commission is advising on long-term growth. Councilmember Paul Dhanuka emphasized the need for healing, referencing the backlash from a previous attempt to remove Hatch. Even Councilmember Mike Littau, who did not vote against the appointments, said the process felt political and lacked the transparency he expected.

The concern now is whether a pattern is emerging, one where appointments to public boards are being used to reward loyalty, push ideology, or sideline those who ask difficult questions. With five of seven current Planning Commission members either working in or closely connected to the development industry, some worry that the commission no longer reflects the broader community. If the remaining seats go to political insiders or media personalities, public confidence in the commission’s neutrality could erode further.

This matters because Redding is facing big decisions. The Riverfront Specific Plan, affordable housing strategy, wildfire preparedness, and long-term zoning changes are all on the horizon. The people shaping these discussions should bring diverse perspectives, not just politically aligned viewpoints.

The April 1 meeting exposed more than division, it revealed a fork in the road. One path leads toward more transparency, balance, and thoughtful planning. The other risks reducing civic boards to political echo chambers. In a city where trust in government has already been shaken by years of public conflict and partisan strife, the Planning Commission may now serve as a test case for whether Redding is serious about rebuilding that trust.

The outcome of this process is still unfolding. But residents are watching closely, not just to see who gets appointed, but to understand what those appointments really represent. Their continued attention may be the most important safeguard against unchecked political influence.

(The counsel meeting starts at 6:00 pm tonight 4/15/2025) I will update once the appointments have been made)

Update 4/16: The City Council voted 4-1 to confirm both Blake Nance and Erin Ryan to the Planning Commission, with Councilmember Dhanuka abstaining. The final vote passed quietly, with minimal public comment. Councilmember Mike Littau said, “It’s not necessarily a perfect process… but we had one last chance to make it clean.” Erin Resner remarked, “I think it’s time to move forward,” while Paul Dhanuka noted, “We didn’t even interview the nominees. That speaks for itself.”

With waning public interest and minimal turnout, the appointments moved forward with little fanfare, a reminder that civic decisions are often made when public attention drifts. Community involvement remains essential.