1Before a data center is approved, what should the public be entitled to know about it?

Before any data center is approved, the public should know who the end user is, what the facility will actually power, and who it serves. They should also know how much electricity and water it will use, who pays for the grid upgrades it needs, what tax breaks or public money it is asking for, how many permanent local jobs it will create, and what backup generators or on-site power plants it will run. The neighborhoods closest to the site need that information first.

We have already seen what happens without it. At Greenidge on Seneca Lake, public money helped convert a coal plant to gas. Its power then went to Bitcoin mining, and now the company is pivoting to AI and claiming the state's data-center moratorium doesn't apply to it. At Lake Tahoe, nearly 50,000 people are losing the supplier that provides about three-quarters of their electricity next May, and their own utility told regulators that competition from data centers is part of the reason. Families end up being outbid for their own power and paying more for it. Trade secrets can protect a company's code. They should not hide what it costs a community. Data centers must pay their own way, and the existing-facility loophole must be closed.

2How should tax abatements or incentives for data centers be handled?

Every abatement or incentive should be disclosed in full before any agreement and approved by a public vote of elected officials, after a public hearing in the community that will host the facility. No confidential deals, and no nondisclosure agreements that keep local officials from talking to their own constituents. Every agreement should have written commitments on permanent local jobs, wages, and what the company will pay for power, water, and grid upgrades, with clawbacks if it doesn't deliver. Ratepayers should never subsidize a data center's electricity. Data centers must pay their own way. If a project only works with secret subsidies, it isn't a good deal for our communities.

3If a data center fails to meet conditions set during approval or operation, what response do you favor?

Enforce the penalties written into the permit, and write them with real teeth from the start. That means automatic clawback of every abatement and incentive when job, wage, or payment commitments aren't met. If violations continue, or if a facility threatens the community's power, water, or health, permits should be withheld or revoked. Communities should get regular public reports on whether each facility is meeting its conditions, so problems are caught early and not years later. A company that keeps its promises has nothing to fear from this, and a company that breaks them shouldn't keep the benefits.

4What is the right pace for data center development in your community?

Pause new approvals until local standards and protections are in place, and close the loophole that lets existing facilities, like Greenidge, convert to data centers without new review. Before anything is approved, communities need standards for full disclosure, public votes on any incentives, grid and water costs paid by the company, and enforceable clawbacks. While we set those rules, we should build locally owned solar, wind, and battery storage, with a return on investment built in, so communities that own their own power are paid for the excess they produce. That means ending the public rules that cap home, farm, and school solar and wind at 110% of last year's electric use. Every roof, barn, and parking lot should produce all it can, and the surplus should become a second income for our families, farms, and schools. Then our homes aren't competing with data centers for power. Investment is welcome when it plays by rules that protect the people who already live here.

5Which approach do you support for a proposed data center's impact on water?

The company must prove, through public hearings, public comment, and independent research, that it will not significantly change the quantity or quality of our water. If it can't, the project is denied. The independent research should be paid for by the company but chosen and overseen by the community, not the applicant. Approval should come with continuous public monitoring of water use, discharge, and temperature, and penalties if the facility goes beyond its permit. Lake Ontario, our wells, and the water our farms depend on are not ours to trade away. Water is one of the greatest challenges New York faces this decade, and we protect it first.

6Which approach do you support for a proposed data center's impact on land and farmland?

The company must prove, through public hearings, public comment, and independent research, that it will not significantly disrupt current land use and will stay within limits set by the people who live here. If it can't, the project is denied. A data center takes farmland out of production permanently, so prime farmland should be the last place one is built, not the first. Data centers should use already-developed sites first and post restoration bonds so land isn't left abandoned if a facility closes.

This is not the same as public solar and wind development on farmland. Farmers can keep growing crops and grazing between solar rows and around wind turbines, so the land keeps producing food while it produces power and income. Wayne County's apple and onion growers and our family farms are our economy and our heritage, and locally owned energy on their land helps keep them farming and gives young families a reason to stay.

7Which approach do you support for a proposed data center's impact on air quality?

The company must prove, through public hearings, public comment, and independent research, that air impacts will stay within acceptable limits based on current air quality and the changes the project will bring. If it can't, the project is denied. That review must cover on-site gas plants and backup diesel generators, not just the building, as Greenidge showed when a power plant was run to serve a private computing operation. It must also look at the total burden on nearby neighborhoods, because communities that already breathe more pollution, too often working-class communities and communities of color, should not be asked to absorb more. Approval should come with continuous public air monitoring and real penalties for violations. Clean air is a right, not a bargaining chip.

8Which approach do you support for a proposed data center's impact from noise?

The company must prove, through public hearings, public comment, and independent research, that noise will stay within acceptable limits for a typical resident. If it can't, the project is denied. Data centers run day and night, and their cooling fans and generators can create a constant low-frequency hum that ordinary decibel standards don't fully capture. Limits should be measured at the nearest homes, with tighter limits at night. Approval should come with continuous public monitoring, a simple way for neighbors to report problems, and penalties when limits are exceeded. People should be able to sleep in their own homes and enjoy their own yards.

9Which approach do you support for a proposed data center's impact on community character and quality of life?

The company must prove, through public hearings, public comment, and independent research, that it will not broadly disrupt residents' current enjoyment of their community. If it can't, the project is denied. As a Planning Board member, I know a town's comprehensive plan and zoning are where residents decide what their community should look like, and a data center should never be able to override them. Review should cover lighting, traffic, views, and property values, and whether the project drives up local electric bills or adds pollution that becomes higher health care costs for nearby families.

Quality of life also means being able to afford to live here. Locally owned solar, wind, and battery storage keeps our power and our energy dollars at home, and the New York Health Act lowers what families, towns, and school districts pay for health coverage, which comes straight off the property-tax levy. Decisions about the character of our towns belong to the people who live in them.

10Scientists have found the increase in extreme disasters like wildfires and floods are in fact created by polluting and negligent industries, so how would you hold them accountable for the costs?

Polluters should pay for the damage they cause, not taxpayers. In business this is called cost externalization: privatized gains and socialized losses. Companies keep the profits while the costs of floods, fires, cleanup, and illness are shifted to taxpayers and communities. Add one subsidy after another that drives profit instead of solutions, and taxes keep going up.

New York passed the Climate Change Superfund Act to make the largest fossil-fuel polluters pay for climate-adaptation costs, and a federal judge has now struck it down. I will fight to defend it on appeal and, if needed, rewrite it so it holds up. Within the state's own authority, any company that pollutes here, including data centers running their own gas plants, should pay the full cost of the harm through permits, fees, and bonding, never a voluntary fund.

The best way to prevent future disasters is to stop the pollution. Locally owned solar, wind, and battery storage cuts emissions, keeps our money at home, and keeps the lights on in storms through community microgrids. Stationary energy storage was a $67 billion global market in 2025 and is projected to reach $526 billion by 2035, and America makes only a small share of the world's batteries. We have local businesses here that specialize in batteries. New York should direct its support to them so they can develop the next battery chemistries and win this fast-growing, highly profitable world market, creating good jobs here instead of overseas.

Pollution and disasters are also a health care cost, from asthma to heat illness to emergency room visits. The New York Health Act makes sure every family is covered when disaster strikes and lowers what our towns and schools pay for health coverage, which comes straight off the property-tax levy. Public dollars should buy public solutions, not private profits.

11What would you do to ensure that government recovery aid is based on people's need for support, rather than who has wealth and influence?

Aid should follow need, not wealth or influence. Too often recovery money goes first to those with lawyers, lobbyists and paperwork staff, while renters, seniors, rural families, working families and communities of color wait longest. I support stronger reporting and appeal mechanisms, and more: distribute aid by need-based formulas, not first-come or political connections; publish where aid goes by community, income and race so gaps are seen and fixed; and give every applicant a simple, independent appeal process with help filing. Outreach must reach people where they are, including renters, people without internet and those who don't speak English.

Recovery should also build resilience where it's needed most: locally owned solar, wind and battery microgrids in the neighborhoods hit hardest, so power stays on for medical equipment, cooling and heat, and the energy savings stay in the community. And no family should face a disaster without health care. The New York Health Act covers everyone, with no network or coverage to lose, so injuries and illness after a disaster don't become a second disaster. Public dollars should meet public needs first, not private profits.

12What would you do to ensure communities have reliable access to cheaper and cleaner energy choices?

Wind down fossil fuels and build renewable energy that communities own, so the savings stay here. My plan is a distributed energy solution: towns, schools, farms, co-ops and municipal utilities like Fairport own their power, with NYPA as builder and financier at public rates well below bank rates. Remove Albany's caps on how much homes, farms, schools and businesses can produce, and pay surplus at the retail rate minus only the actual cost of metering and billing, so every roof, barn and parking lot becomes a second income.

Add solar canopies over parking lots, farming between solar rows, wind, hydro and battery storage, with community purchasing power for volume pricing. Where it makes sense, communities can buy the wires, as Massena did. Local power is cheaper, keeps our energy dollars home, keeps the lights on in storms and protects families from being outbid by data centers. Cleaner air also means less asthma and lower health care costs, and with the New York Health Act and local energy together, towns and schools pay less for both, straight off the property-tax levy. Privatized gains and socialized losses have cost us long enough. Public dollars should buy public power.

13What will you do to keep the lights on, the water running, and the roads open before a disaster strikes rather than just responding after?

Plan before disaster strikes, staff local emergency management properly, and make sure plans reach every family in language they understand, including seniors, people with medical needs, renters and rural households. Prevention starts with power. Put locally owned solar and battery microgrids at fire and EMS stations, water and wastewater pumps, and schools that serve as shelters, so the lights stay on and the water keeps running when the grid goes down. Fund road, culvert and drainage upkeep before failures, and protect Lake Ontario's shoreline communities from the flooding they have already lived through. Finish rural broadband so every home gets emergency alerts.

Health care is disaster readiness too: when hospitals close, as Wayne County has seen, emergency care is farther away for everyone. I will work to reopen nonprofit hospitals and pass the New York Health Act so every family is covered before, during and after a disaster. Local energy and the New York Health Act lower what towns and schools pay, freeing tax dollars for prevention. That's why we must act now. Waiting costs more every year, and choices like new nuclear leave our children and grandchildren paying to store spent fuel for a century without getting any of the energy. It costs less to prevent a disaster than to recover from one.

14Given the rising price of energy and the number of people trading off rent and food for utility bills, how do we give everyone the dignity of being able to afford their energy bills?

No family should choose between heat, rent and food. First, large new loads like data centers must pay their own way, including grid upgrades, so households never subsidize them or get outbid for their own power. Second, build locally owned community power. With no outside shareholders to pay, profits go back into lower rates, local crews restore power faster when problems occur, and the work goes to union workers and local companies, so we spend less, get more and grow local businesses. Open community solar to renters so families with the highest bills share in the benefit, and pay home, farm and school surplus at retail rate minus only actual metering costs, so production becomes income. Third, fund weatherization and efficient heat pumps first for low-income households, seniors and renters. Protect families from shutoffs during extreme heat and cold.

Energy and health costs squeeze the same family budget. When people can't pay utility bills, they skip doctor visits and medicine too. The New York Health Act ends premiums, deductibles and copays, putting money back in every family's pocket for rent, food and power. Privatized gains and socialized losses have cost families long enough. Dignity means bills people can actually afford.