In my 2 ½ years on the Board of Representatives, I’ve met well over 1,000 residents of District 20. They expect a Rep to communicate regularly with them, and they expect a Rep to resolve their constituent issues promptly. Those expectations are my job description.

My posts on social media get upwards of 10,000 views each. They discuss key decisions made by the BoR and how I voted on them, along with other issues of interest to D20 constituents. I’ve helped hundreds of D20 residents to solve problems in their neighborhoods, ranging from pothole repair and brush cutting to upgrading services and security in our parks. In my view, communication and constituent service are the hallmarks of an excellent Rep, and my record demonstrates the importance I attribute to them.

In District 20, my top priority is road safety – for drivers, walkers, and cyclists. During my tenure on the BoR, the police have increased their patrols in District 20, and the Traffic Department has installed dozens of new road signs to alert drivers to potential hazards. But that’s not enough. For example, well-paved roads are safe roads. District 20 started with 22 roads on the Mayor’s Top 200 paving list. I worked with the Road Maintenance Department to add four more roads to the list so far, plus another seven roads that will be paved following the completion of the Perna Lane neighborhood’s sewer project. I will work with the Traffic Department to get an additional five D20 roads added to the paving list. I also aim to work with the Traffic Department to install at least five electronic speed monitors on our winding country roads, where accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists are especially high-risk.

There has been too much fact-free rhetoric about the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, from both supporters and critics. Long before its passage, I took the time to read the 186-page document several times. In my view, there were good ideas in the Plan, and several that wouldn’t work. I sent the Planning Board a list of sixteen suggested changes – many of them involving housing – that I believe needed either revision or deletion, along with my reasons for deletion or my recommendations for revision.

I’m grateful that the Planning Board accepted some of my suggestions for improving the document, including the need to scale back and completely rethink support for Accessory Commercial Units in residential neighborhoods. I believe that what I sent to the Planning Board is the kind of thoughtful analysis voters want from their Reps – not a content-free “yea or nay” vote that doesn’t accomplish anything.

Let’s take the second half of the question first. Stamford AHTF funds are already allocated fairly and openly. All meetings of the SAHTF are open to the public. Agendas (including proposed fund applications) are disclosed publicly in advance, and minutes listing all approvals are also posted publicly. Even a cursory review of these approvals will show that the successful applicants are worthy recipients.

I support several ways to increase funding for the AHTF. Permit application fees are supposed to cover the administrative costs of the Land Use Bureau, but the fees exceed those costs by several million dollars. We could significantly increase the percentage of permit application fees that are allocated to the AHTF. Second, we could increase the fee-in-lieu formula that is the principal source of AHTF funds. A third strategy would exempt not-for-profit institutions from having to pay permit application fees. This wouldn’t increase funding for the AHTF, but it would reduce project costs for not-for-profit developers of affordable housing, and thus enable them to build more affordable housing.