I want to believe I served the past 8 years as city representative who used their intellect combined with compassion and kindness to see their way through prioritizing and advocating for the needs of their constituents.
I do not feel any loyalty nor feel beholden to serve any specific political party or special interest, which is why I choose to run and risk losing as a "petitioning candidate". A candidate who doesn't have any official political party endorsements. I am here to fight for my constituents and not to rubber stamp the agendas or self-serving visions of any specific local political party.

I think the single top priority issue is preserving and enhancing Quality of Life for Stamford residents. Yes, that is a very broad issue, but it underpins that it is the foundation at risk based on many of the trends that are happening in Stamford over the past few years. The combined issues of overdevelopment, infrastructure strain, relentless traffic, decline of public-school student achievement, and overall affordability all have led to a concern about the future Quality of Life for Stamford residents.
I would like to set a goal that most if not all legislative actions would put the NEEDS of current and long-term working-class Stamford residents above (but without totally discounting) the speculative WANTS of future residents.

In the last decade, Stamford has added over 15,000 ABOVE MARKET RATE/LUXURY rental only apartment units only to see an increase in the cost of rental apartments by close to 40% over the same time period. It is apparent that developers can't leverage their raised capital into having banks support development for ownership opportunities. The banks have tended to only support the development of rental apartments. I don't see any reason to believe this trend will change soon.
So, we will continue to see most of the larger scale development applications that go before the Planning and Zoning boards to be for the usual trio of Luxury Rental apartments, Hotel rooms, and High-end Senior living facilities.
I think moderate, well thought, growth planning over time is good, however I believe Stamford went in too fast and too furious. I would personally like to see a temporary pause in development if it is going to continue to be that of the aforementioned trio.

As a member of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, I understand firsthand the need to increase the funding of it.
As co-chair of the Housing, Community Development, and Social Services Committee, I actually spearheaded legislative action that led to a 300% increase to its contribution through the passage of 2 ordinances that raised the amount of the linkage fees (permit fees through the building department) that are committed to it.
What should really be asked is "what other ways can we as a city, lower the housing costs of its citizens other than through the status-quo actions of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund?"