Absolutely not. Safety in school and construction zones will always remain a top priority — those limits exist to protect children, workers, and families, and they will stay in place.

My proposal applies only to highways, where many current speed limits are outdated and no longer reflect modern traffic patterns or vehicle safety standards. Across much of the country, states have safely implemented highway speed limits of 65 mph or higher thanks to advances in road design and vehicle technology.

We will review traffic data, engineering studies, and safety trends carefully, but an adjustment to roughly a 50 mph minimum and 65 mph maximum would bring our highways in line with national standards — improving traffic flow while maintaining strong safety oversight.

The goal is simple: smarter, safer, and more efficient highways that serve drivers responsibly without compromising public safety.

Our goal is to modernize the voting process while ensuring every eligible voter can participate easily, securely, and confidently. In the first year of launching a new online voting platform, voters who do not have internet access or cannot vote in person would be able to request a mail-in ballot by affidavit. This ensures that no one is left behind during the transition.

After evaluating the platform’s performance and security during its first year, we’ll determine whether a full phase-out of mail-in ballots is appropriate. Throughout this process, accessibility and integrity will guide every decision.

All ballots — whether cast in person or online — would be securely verified and counted by election night. Each voter would receive a unique confirmation number that allows them to verify their ballot was recorded exactly as they submitted it, without revealing their identity.

Our online system will utilize state-of-the-art encryption, multi-layered security, and transparent auditing features to uphold the highest standards of election integrity. The mission is simple: make voting faster, safer, and more accessible for every New Yorker while preserving full public trust in our democracy.

Every idea I put forward begins and ends with the people. This is not my government — it is our government. My role is to listen, lead with transparency, and act on the will of the people, not impose personal opinions.

If the majority of New Yorkers don’t support a proposal, I will take that feedback seriously and adjust course. But when the people stand behind an idea and the only resistance comes from entrenched politics or special interests, I will fight tirelessly to make sure your voices are heard and your priorities become law.

True leadership means collaboration, respect, and persistence — working together to turn good ideas into real progress for everyone.

Absolutely. Preparedness saves lives, and we will make sure every community is ready for any challenge that comes our way. My administration will conduct a comprehensive review of all emergency management and response plans to ensure we are fully equipped to handle any disaster — from wildfires to floods, storms, or other unforeseen crises.

Of course, if we ever face an alien invasion, that one is for the federal government to handle!

On a serious note, government’s most important duty is to keep people safe. We will explore emerging technologies, such as advanced fire prevention systems like Firedomes, and invest where needed to strengthen public safety and resilience. Protecting lives, homes, and communities will always come first.

New York's Returnable Container Act is a scam that punishes consumers instead of incentivizing them like the bottle bill should be intended to do. Recycling should be about protecting our planet — not penalizing people. The current container deposit system places an unnecessary burden on consumers when it should be designed to encourage participation, not punish it.

Under a new, fairer model, individuals would no longer have to pay a deposit up front but would still receive a return incentive for recycling bottles and cans. This change would continue to support low-income families and individuals who rely on bottle redemption programs, while making recycling more accessible to everyone.

The program would also expand to include all types of recyclable plastics and containers, creating a simpler, more consistent, and more equitable system. By broadening the scope, we can reduce confusion, improve environmental outcomes, and strengthen the impact of community recycling efforts.

Too often, legislation is shaped by special interests rather than the public good. It is time to ensure that every policy — including those meant to protect our environment — is written with fairness, transparency, and integrity. The goal is simple: a cleaner planet, a fairer system, and a government that always serves the people, not the lobbyists.

Because everything I am proposing is grounded in common sense, not political fantasy. I am focused on reforms that save money, reduce waste, and improve daily life. I do not promise what I can’t deliver—and I am fully prepared to be held accountable.

Not at all. It is the most realistic way to end tribal politics. Labels divide us—ideas unite us. Voters deserve to choose leaders based on character and competence, not a letter next to a name.

By doing what no administration has done in decades—streamlining government. New York does not have a revenue shortage. We have a spending-efficiency problem. Smarter budgeting means lower taxes without cutting essential services.

They are balanced. Violent criminals must face firm consequences—period. Nonviolent offenders can be handled with alternatives that save taxpayers money and reduce repeat offenses. It is safety and fairness.

No. I am supporting families with more resources and making sure every woman has support, not judgment. Choice remains, but families get more options and more help.

Because personal medical decisions belong to families—not politicians or corporate lobbyists. My job is to reduce costs, increase transparency, and protect access—not dictate private choices.

It is the opposite. Secure online voting with verification codes is the future. It increases turnout, prevents fraud, and restores trust. Every vote will be verifiable by the voter—privately and securely.

I am trying to bring common sense back to public service. People want solutions, not labels. I will work with anyone—left, right, or center—if it helps New Yorkers.

I am uniting people. Identity politics divides us. My focus is on shared goals—safety, affordability, fairness, opportunity—not on labels that drive wedges between neighbors.

Yes, most New Yorkers still call it the Tappan Zee Bridge so we just need to fix a few signs.

I am appealing to common sense. If a policy helps families, lowers costs, and improves safety, I don’t care whether it originated with Democrats or Republicans.

Investing in schools pays for itself. Strong education reduces poverty, boosts the economy, and increases long-term tax revenue. It is not an expense—it is a foundation.

It is targeted safety, not surveillance. Cameras and license-plate readers protect families, solve crimes faster, and help find missing children. Privacy stays intact—safety improves.

Because voters deserve freedom—not political boxes. It restores independence, ends party boss control, and empowers people to vote based on merit.

Not at all. Most affordability reforms come from cutting red tape, lowering taxes responsibly, capping predatory fees, and increasing competition. That is not overpromising—that is overdue.

Yes. Protecting children always comes first. Adults can make their own choices—minors deserve time, maturity, and protection.

Not when it is strategic. We shrink wasteful bureaucracy but strengthen essential services—education, safety, infrastructure, etc. It is called smart governance.

That is exactly why I am running. Career politicians created the problems we face today. New Yorkers want a leader guided by solutions, not by political habits. Experience matters—but results matter more.

No — I am trying to fix what’s broken. We are not blowing things up; we are rebuilding them stronger, fairer, and smarter than before.

I am running for New Yorkers — not for a party. If a policy helps people, I support it. If it hurts people, I don’t. It is that simple.

What is unrealistic is pretending the status quo works. I am offering solutions, not excuses.

I don’t water down anything. I call things as they are and propose what works — and that is why moderates, independents, Democrats, and even some Republicans all listen and support my agenda.

I am calling for accountability, not enemies. Anyone willing to put New Yorkers first will have a seat at the table.

Not at all. Bad regulations go. Smart protections stay. That is responsible governance.

If fairness, transparency, and security get challenged — we will fight for them. New Yorkers deserve a voting system they can trust.

We are tough on people who hurt others, and compassionate toward people who hurt themselves. That is the balance New York has been missing.

I am a New Yorker who chooses solutions over slogans. Labels do not solve problems — leadership does.

Good. Albany insiders have had decades. It is time for everyday New Yorkers to have their turn.

New Yorkers have waited long enough. I would rather deliver bold improvements than slow-motion decline.

Because division is destroying us. I would rather risk criticism than accept a divided future for New York.

I am trying to be a problem-solver. If that is disruptive to the status quo, so be it.

I say watch me. New Yorkers are ready for someone who actually does the work.

Nuance is not the problem — inaction is. My proposals are clear because New Yorkers deserve clarity, not bureaucratic fog.

Because I do not want your money — only your vote. That tells you everything about my motives.

Q1: What is the Accelerate Degree, in simplest terms?

A: The Accelerate Degree is a new, career-focused higher-education pathway designed to help students enter the workforce faster, with less debt, and with deeper expertise in the field they want to pursue. It removes unnecessary coursework and concentrates on major-specific learning, saving both time and money.

Q2: Who is the Accelerate Degree designed for?

A: It is ideal for students who already know the career they want—such as accounting, tech, nursing, engineering, criminal justice, business, and many others. It is also a strong option for adults returning to school, career changers, and students who want to start building their lives—homes, families, and careers—without a decade of student loans.

Q3: Does this replace traditional college degrees?

A: Not at all. Traditional degrees remain available for anyone who wants a broader educational experience. The Accelerate Degree simply provides an additional pathway for students who want a streamlined, cost-effective, career-ready option.

Q4: How will employers view the Accelerate Degree?

A: Employers consistently say they want graduates with strong technical skills and real proficiency in their field. The Accelerate Degree delivers exactly that — more depth, more mastery, and more hands-on experience. It is designed in partnership with industry leaders to ensure students graduate job-ready and competitive.

Q5: How much time and money does the Accelerate Degree actually save?

A: Most students will finish in significantly less time than a traditional 4-year degree, and without paying for courses unrelated to their chosen career. Faster graduation = lower tuition + fewer years of living expenses + earlier entry into the workforce.

Q6: Will the Accelerate Degree lower educational quality?

A: Quite the opposite. By removing distractions and focusing on concentrated, major-specific learning, students gain deeper specialization and stronger practical skills. Think of it as a laser-focused curriculum built for the modern workforce.

Q7: How does the new public Online University option fit into this plan?

A: The Accelerate Degree will be offered both in person and through a new low-cost online university. The online option makes higher education more accessible for rural students, working adults, parents, and anyone who needs flexibility. More competition among institutions also helps lower tuition overall.

Q8: Will students still be able to switch majors?

A: Yes. There will be structured checkpoints that allow students to shift programs before they are too far along. Flexibility is built into the design to support healthy exploration and genuine career alignment.

Q9: What about students who want general education courses?

A: They still can — through traditional degree programs. Students now have the freedom to choose the path that best fits their goals, learning style, and financial situation.

Q10: Why is this needed now?

A: Because the world has changed. College costs have skyrocketed, student loan burdens have reached crisis levels, and many young people delay starting families, buying homes, or launching careers due to financial strain. The Accelerate Degree is designed to open doors, restore opportunity, and help people build their futures sooner and more sustainably.

Q11: How soon after you are elected could students expect to see this degree offered?

A: After collaboration with educators, accrediting bodies, employers, and institutions. This is designed to be a thoughtful, inclusive effort with broad input to ensure the program succeeds from day one. We will make every effort to have this launched within one year.

Q12: What is the overarching goal of the Accelerate Degree?

A: To expand opportunity. To make education more affordable. To help people start their lives without crushing debt. And above all — to create a modern, student-centered pathway that empowers individuals to thrive in their careers, their families, and their futures.

Q1: What exactly is the problem with private equity buying homes?

A: Private equity firms buy residential homes in bulk using all-cash offers that ordinary families cannot compete with. They target affordable starter homes, convert them to rentals, raise rents, add fees, and file higher eviction rates. These homes then leave the owner-occupied market—often forever.

Q2: Why focus on starter homes?

A: Starter homes are the foundation of homeownership and generational wealth-building. When private equity purchases these homes, first-time buyers lose the ability to compete, leaving families locked out while corporate portfolios grow.

Q3: Isn’t the housing crisis mainly caused by a lack of supply?

A: Yes, New York needs more housing—but supply alone does not solve the problem if large corporate investors can outbid families for nearly every affordable home that gets built. Stopping corporate buyers is a complementary policy, not a competing one.

Q4: How common is private equity home buying in New York?

A: While private equity does not own the majority of housing, their purchases are concentrated in markets where inventory is already tight. Even a small share of corporate buying can have outsized effects on prices, competition, and neighborhood stability.

Q5: What would this legislation actually ban?

A: The proposal would prohibit:

Private equity firms, hedge funds, large corporate investors and subsidiaries, and institutional buyers above a defined size threshold

from purchasing:

Single-family homes, condos/townhomes, and small multi-family properties (2–4 units)

This does not apply to small individual landlords or family-owned LLCs.

Q6: Would current corporate owners be forced to sell?

A: No. Existing ownership can continue temporarily, but future acquisitions would be banned, and subsequent sales must return homes to the owner-occupied market—not to another corporate buyer.

Q7: How would this help renters?

A: Keeping homes owned by people instead of corporations reduces predatory rent hikes, stabilizes neighborhoods, and prevents high eviction rates associated with private equity landlords. More owner-occupants also creates safer, more invested communities.

Q8: Would this raise taxes or require government spending?

A: No. This policy is regulatory—not a subsidy program. It does not require new tax dollars. It simply sets rules about who can purchase certain types of homes.

Q9: Are other states doing anything like this?

A: Yes. States including California, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Hawaii have introduced or are studying restrictions on institutional purchases. New York has the opportunity to lead with the strongest and most effective protections.

Q10: Will this hurt small landlords or people with an LLC?

A: No. This proposal is targeted only at large-scale institutional investors. Small landlords, mom-and-pop property owners, and family LLCs are completely unaffected.

Q11: What about fair housing laws? Does this violate them?

A: No. Regulations aimed at corporate investment entities do not target individuals or protected classes. Many cities already have “first look” programs prioritizing residents and nonprofits — and these have passed legal review.

Q12: Won’t corporations just create lots of small LLCs to get around the ban?

A: The policy requires beneficial ownership disclosure, meaning the true parent company must be identified. This prevents firms from hiding behind shell LLCs and keeps enforcement effective.

Q13: How will this impact home prices?

A: By stopping deep-pocketed corporate buyers from competing with families, the market becomes more balanced. This can help slow price escalation in the starter-home segment and improve affordability for first-time buyers.

Q14: Why not just regulate corporate landlords more heavily? Why ban purchases?

A: Because regulations alone cannot reverse corporate consolidation that has already happened — and cannot shield families from bidding wars where they are outmatched by cash-rich investors. A ban is the only way to keep starter homes available for New Yorkers, not corporations.

Q15: What is the long-term vision for this policy?

A: To ensure that:

• New York’s residential neighborhoods remain people-centered
• First-time buyers have a fair shot at owning homes
• Housing is treated as shelter and stability—not a financial instrument
• Communities can flourish without corporate extraction

This is about protecting New York’s future and rebuilding pathways to homeownership.

Q16: What is the main goal of this proposal?

A: The goal is simple: to make homeownership more accessible for New York families by stopping private equity firms and large corporate investors from buying up the homes that first-time buyers rely on. We want homes to be owned by people who live in our communities—not by Wall Street investment funds.

Q17: Why target private equity and large corporate investors?

A: These firms use all-cash, no-contingency offers that ordinary buyers cannot compete with. They target affordable starter homes, convert them into rentals, raise rents aggressively, and permanently remove those homes from the owner-occupied market. This behavior drives up prices and pushes working families out.

Q18: How common is private equity home buying in New York?

A: While private equity does not own the majority of homes, their impact is concentrated in exactly the price range and neighborhoods where first-time buyers shop. Even a relatively small share of corporate purchases can distort prices and inventory in tight markets like Long Island, Westchester, and parts of upstate New York.

Q19: How does this affect first-time homebuyers?

A: First-time buyers are outbid before they even step inside a home. When private equity buys up starter homes, it reduces supply, increases competition, and pushes prices higher. This makes it harder for teachers, nurses, veterans, and young families to buy their first home.

Q20: What happens to homes after private equity firms buy them?

A: Many are turned into rentals. Research shows corporate landlords raise rents faster than inflation, charge numerous fees, and file more evictions than small landlords. And importantly—these homes almost never go back to owner-occupants. They get sold in bulk to other institutions.

Q21: How does this proposal help renters?

A: By preventing corporate consolidation of the housing market, we can slow rent hikes and reduce displacement. Keeping more homes available for owner-occupants helps stabilize neighborhoods and prevents predatory landlord practices that often come with large institutional ownership.

Q22: Isn’t the real issue that New York doesn’t build enough housing?

A: Yes, supply is a major challenge—but private equity buying existing homes makes a bad situation worse. We can pursue zoning reform and stop corporations from competing against families. These are complementary solutions, not competing ones.

Q23: Would this ban hurt small landlords?

A: No. This proposal does not target small landlords, local property owners, or families who own a few rental units. It applies only to large, well-capitalized institutional buyers—private equity firms, hedge funds, and corporate investors that buy homes in bulk.

Q24: Are other states doing something similar?

A: Several states, including California, Minnesota, and North Carolina, are considering or drafting legislation to limit institutional home purchases. New York has the opportunity to lead the nation with the strongest consumer-protection model.

Q25: How would enforcement work?

A: Corporate entities above a defined size threshold would be prohibited from acquiring single-family homes or small multifamily properties. Sales records, LLC ownership disclosures, and state real estate filings would be used to ensure compliance—similar to existing transparency requirements already used in other regulatory areas.

Q26: Doesn’t private equity investment increase housing supply?

A: No. Private equity purchases existing homes. They remove supply from owner-occupants and convert housing into rental commodities. They do not meaningfully add to the housing stock, and in many cases, they reduce long-term affordability.

Q27: What is your message to New Yorkers directly affected by this issue?

A: You deserve a fair shot at owning a home. You should not be priced out of your own state because Wall Street wants to turn your neighborhood into an investment strategy. This proposal is about protecting your future, your family, and your community.

Q28: What is your message to lawmakers in Albany?

A: New York families are depending on you. Housing should be for people—not private equity. If we want to keep our communities stable and make homeownership attainable again, we must act now.

Q29: What would you say to critics who argue the ban is too extreme?

A: What is extreme is allowing distant corporations to buy thousands of homes that families cannot compete for. What is extreme is letting financial firms dictate who gets to live in our state. Ensuring that people—not hedge funds—own our homes is common sense.

Q30: What happens if New York does nothing?

A: More families will be priced out. More neighborhoods will be dominated by corporate landlords. Homeownership will drift further out of reach for an entire generation. The time to act is right now, before the problem becomes irreversible.

Q1: Isn’t this proposal just an attack on free speech?

A: Not at all. This proposal protects the most important speech in a democracy—the voice of the voters. Every New Yorker deserves an equal say in choosing their leaders, and unlimited spending by outside groups can drown that out. Our goal is to strengthen the integrity of elections so that every person’s voice carries weight, not just those with access to immense financial resources.

Q2: Won’t banning PACs and Super PACs silence important organizations or advocacy groups?

A: Organizations will still be able to advocate for issues, educate the public, and participate in democracy. What changes is the ability to influence elections through massive, unbalanced spending. We want a system where ideas rise on their merits—not because one group can outspend everyone else. It is about fairness, not silencing anyone.

Q3: Super PACs claim they provide transparency. Why ban something that’s already disclosed?

A: While some spending is disclosed, many contributions come through dark-money networks or nonprofit pass-throughs that hide donor identity. Even when donors are known, the scale of spending creates the appearance of undue influence. Transparency is important, but transparency alone does not fix the imbalance. This proposal ensures the political system reflects broad public engagement, not concentrated financial power.

Q4: Is there any evidence that Super PACs actually corrupt elections?

A: Even without proven corruption, the perception alone is damaging. When voters believe elections are influenced by wealthy interests, trust erodes—and democracy suffers. Our goal is to restore confidence in government. By reducing the role of massive outside money, we help ensure decisions are made for New Yorkers, not for donors.

Q5: Won’t this hurt candidates who rely on PAC support?

A: This proposal helps all candidates in the long run. It lowers campaign costs, reduces the pressure to chase large donations, and encourages a stronger connection with voters. Candidates from every background—including first-time candidates—will have a fairer shot. This is about opening the door wider, not closing it on anyone.

Q6: Isn’t this unrealistic? PACs and Super PACs are deeply embedded in our system.

A: Many reforms once seemed impossible until New Yorkers made them a reality—public financing, early voting, and ethics reforms among them. New York has a long tradition of leading the nation with bold ideas. Changing a flawed system requires courage, and we believe New Yorkers are ready for a healthier, more equitable democracy.

Q7: Are you worried this will disadvantage New York compared to other states?

A: On the contrary—New York has always been a national leader on election reform. When we strengthen trust in our institutions and level the playing field, we attract broader participation and more diverse leadership. States that reduce the role of big money do not fall behind—they move ahead.

Q8: If independent expenditures are banned, how will voters get information?

A: Voters will still receive information from candidates, community groups, civic organizations, news outlets, and grassroots movements. What changes is the dominance of large-scale, negative Super PAC advertising. Our goal is to promote issue-focused, voter-centered communication—not eliminate information, but improve its quality.

Q9: Doesn’t this unfairly target corporations or unions?

A: This proposal does not target any group. It simply ensures that no entity—whether a business, a union, or a wealthy individual—can overshadow the voices of everyday New Yorkers. Everyone is still free to advocate for issues they care about. The only restriction is excessive financial influence in elections themselves.

Q10: What about accusations that this is partisan or favors one side?

A: Fair elections benefit everyone, regardless of party. Reducing big-money influence helps voters trust results, helps candidates engage more authentically with their communities, and strengthens policymaking across the board. This is about democracy, not partisanship. We want a system that works for all New Yorkers.

Q11: How do you enforce such a ban when groups can find loopholes?

A: The proposal strengthens enforcement by closing coordination loopholes, restricting dark-money pass-throughs, and giving the Board of Elections clearer authority. But most importantly, it establishes a new standard—one that shifts our political culture toward greater transparency and accountability. When the rules are simpler and clearer, enforcement becomes far more effective.

Q12: Won’t campaigns lose valuable resources they need to communicate with voters?

A: Campaigns will still raise money, still speak to voters, and still advocate for their ideas. What disappears is the overwhelming influence of a few ultra-wealthy donors. With lower campaign costs and a greater reliance on small donors, campaigns become more people-powered and more connected to the communities they seek to represent.

Q13: What do you say to voters who are skeptical that anything will really change?

A: Skepticism is understandable—but change has always come from people demanding better. By reducing big-money influence, we take a meaningful step toward restoring trust and building a democracy where every voice matters. This proposal is not the final solution, but it is a major step in the right direction. And every step toward fairness is worth taking.