Land Use Reform

1. Do you support statewide zoning reform to allow multi-family housing in areas currently zoned exclusively for single-family homes?

Strongly Support

I strongly support statewide zoning reform to allow for more multi-family housing in areas currently restricted to single-family homes. New Jersey is in the midst of a severe affordability crisis, and we need bold, practical solutions that give working families, young people, and seniors the opportunity to remain in the communities they call home. Reforming outdated zoning laws will help create more diverse and affordable housing options, curb displacement, and encourage smart, sustainable development, especially near transit hubs and employment centers. This issue goes beyond housing policy; it’s about fairness, opportunity, and building inclusive, thriving neighborhoods for everyone.

2. Would you vote to legalize Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) statewide, overriding local bans or restrictions?

Yes

Yes, I would vote to legalize Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) statewide, overriding local bans or overly restrictive policies. ADUs are a smart, flexible way to expand housing options, support multigenerational families, and help residents stay in their communities as their needs evolve. When built to meet appropriate zoning and safety standards set by local officials, ADUs can provide affordable housing without disrupting neighborhood character. Local restrictions have blocked progress for too long. It’s time for thoughtful statewide action that empowers homeowners, broadens housing choices, and responsibly addresses New Jersey’s housing shortage.

3. Would you vote to legalize single-stair buildings statewide, overriding local bans or restrictions? If yes, do you support four-stories or some higher number? If no, why not?

Yes
Yes, I would vote to legalize single-stair buildings statewide. I believe updating our building code is essential to creating more affordable and livable housing across New Jersey. Single-stair buildings, common in many other countries, allow for better use of space, improved natural light and ventilation, and greater design flexibility, particularly in walkable urban areas with high housing demand.

I support legalizing single-stair buildings up to four stories, which balances increased housing options with strong safety standards. If building and fire safety experts determine that taller single-stair buildings can also meet rigorous safety and accessibility requirements, I would be open to exploring that as well.

This effort must go hand-in-hand with strict zoning and safety requirements, such as alternative fire exits and compliance with emergency codes to ensure no one’s safety is compromised. Ultimately, my goal is to support smart, people-centered development that addresses New Jersey’s housing needs while keeping communities safe and vibrant.

Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”)

4. Should the state preempt local zoning laws near major transit stations to allow “by-right” development of multi-family or mixed-income housing?

Yes
Yes, I believe the state should preempt local zoning laws to allow by-right development of multi-family or mixed-income housing near major transit stations. New Jersey has made significant investments in public transportation, and our land use policies should reflect and support that commitment. Building more housing near transit is one of the most effective ways to reduce traffic congestion, lower emissions, and improve access to jobs, schools, and essential services.

Unfortunately, local zoning restrictions often stand in the way of the smart, sustainable development we need. Allowing by-right development near transit hubs will help create more diverse and affordable housing options, stimulate economic growth, and better serve residents who rely on public transportation. This is a practical, forward-thinking approach to addressing our housing crisis and strengthening communities across the state.

5. A developer has proposed (link) a 1,000 unit (150 designated income-restricted affordable units and 100 workforce units for artists) apartment building at 150 Bay Street in downtown Jersey City. This development would also include a new public school for Kindergarten through Sixth Grade, a public plaza, and no parking spots. Do you support this project? If yes, would you support more projects like this within half a mile of PATH or NJ Transit HBLR stations in (or near) your legislative district?

Yes
Yes, I support this project. It would bring 1,000 new homes, including 150 affordable units and 100 workforce units for artists, to downtown Jersey City, where housing demand is high and access to public transit is excellent. The addition of a new public K-6 school and public plaza reflects a meaningful investment in the broader community, not just in housing.

While the project does not include parking, that’s appropriate for a neighborhood so well-served by the PATH and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. We should be encouraging walkability, transit use, and sustainable development in areas like this. That said, I would want to ensure the developer is required to clearly inform prospective residents about the lack of parking so expectations are set up front.

I would absolutely support more projects like this within walking distances of PATH or NJ Transit HBLR stations in my legislative district. These kinds of developments are critical to addressing our housing shortage and building vibrant, transit-oriented communities.

6. Would you back legislation that removes minimum parking requirements near transit (within half a mile) to reduce housing production costs and promote TOD?

Depends
I’m open to supporting legislation that removes minimum parking requirements near transit, especially in areas with strong public transportation infrastructure. Eliminating these mandates can significantly lower housing production costs and support the kind of transit-oriented development New Jersey needs. That said, the approach must be deliberate and responsive to local conditions.

Many residents, including seniors, families, and people with disabilities still depend on cars, and abrupt changes could lead to unintended challenges. I would back reforms that reduce or remove parking minimums where walking, biking, and transit are truly viable alternatives, but those reforms must be paired with community engagement and smart planning.

Ultimately, we need to strike a balance between affordability, accessibility, and livability, so that new development serves everyone, not just some.

7. Should the state provide funding or tax credits for municipalities that adopt pro-housing zoning reforms near transit?

Yes
The state should absolutely use tools like funding and tax credits to incentivize municipalities to modernize zoning near transit. Local governments play a key role in shaping how and where we build housing, and state-level support can help unlock the kinds of reforms needed to meet our growing housing demand.

By linking resources to zoning updates that support transit-oriented development, the state can drive more coordinated, effective growth. This strategy not only promotes affordability and access, but also strengthens local economies, reduces sprawl, and makes the most of our public transit investments. It’s a smart, collaborative way to make progress, community by community.

Housing Affordability and Public Land Use

8. Do you support ending the 30-year exemption on rent control for new rental buildings?

Depends
I recognize why the 30-year rent control exemption exists. It’s designed to motivate developers to add new rental housing. However, after a certain timeframe, it’s important that rent protections kick in to help maintain affordability for tenants. Eliminating the exemption too quickly risks deterring much-needed construction, but a full 30-year exemption can leave tenants vulnerable to steep rent increases for decades.

I support exploring a middle ground: gradually introducing rent control safeguards after a reasonable period that still encourages investment. Balancing the need to protect renters from sudden rent hikes with the necessity of incentivizing new development is crucial. Ultimately, we must find an approach that ensures long-term housing stability without stalling growth.

9. Do you support defining what “unconscionable” means with respect to rent increases? 

If yes, how – or at what rate – would you define the term “unconscionable” and if no, why not?

Depends
Establishing a clear definition for “unconscionable” rent increases is essential to shield tenants from unfair spikes, but it requires a balanced approach. Rent hikes need to be reasonable to allow property owners to cover maintenance and operational costs. After all, well-maintained buildings benefit everyone. However, any increases must be tied to transparent standards. These include inflation, local wage trends, or cost-of-living adjustments and accompanied by accountability measures ensuring landlords actually maintain their properties.

I believe rent increases should never reach levels that could be deemed egregious or exploitative. At the same time, tenants need protections from sudden, excessive hikes that jeopardize housing stability. A flexible, fair framework that addresses both sides will help sustain the rental market and protect renters.

10. Do you support using surplus state or local land (such as government-owned parking lots, disused buildings, etc.) to build affordable or mixed-income housing?

Support
Utilizing surplus state or local land, such as government parking lots or vacant buildings, to develop affordable or mixed-income housing is a practical and impactful solution to our housing challenges. These underused public assets represent valuable opportunities to create homes for families in need while lowering development costs and accelerating project timelines.

When located near transit, schools, and employment centers, repurposing such sites maximizes existing infrastructure and promotes sustainable growth. While each location requires thoughtful evaluation to ensure community compatibility, this approach is a vital strategy for increasing housing affordability and fostering vibrant, inclusive neighborhoods.

11. Do you support banning institutional ownership of single-family homes or multi-family homes under four units? 

Support
I support reasonable rent increases that enable property owners to maintain their buildings, provided those increases are tied to actual repairs and kept well below levels that could be seen as excessive or unfair.

Institutional ownership of single-family homes and small multi-family properties has played a role in worsening housing affordability by reducing opportunities for individual buyers and sometimes driving up rents. To protect affordable housing and promote neighborhood stability, I back policies that limit or prohibit such ownership.

That said, institutional investors can also provide valuable resources for upkeep and professional management. Any approach should carefully balance protecting residents with encouraging responsible investment that benefits communities. The priority is ensuring housing remains accessible, affordable, and properly maintained for all.

12. Would you support funding a state-led expansion of the housing choice voucher program to give low-income residents more housing choice?

Support
I strongly support expanding the housing choice voucher program as a critical tool to broaden housing opportunities for low-income residents. Vouchers empower families to secure safe, affordable homes in communities with access to quality schools, good jobs, and essential services. These are all factors that contribute to long-term economic stability and upward mobility.

While careful oversight is needed to manage funding effectively and mitigate risks such as rent inflation, a state-led expansion can enhance the program’s reach and impact. Strengthening housing choice vouchers is a vital part of a holistic strategy to tackle housing affordability and promote equitable access across New Jersey.

13. Would you vote for legislation requiring municipalities to meet minimum housing production targets, including affordable housing, as a condition of receiving certain state funds?

Depends
I agree that municipalities should play a role in addressing the housing shortage, especially when it comes to affordable housing. Establishing minimum production targets can drive accountability and measurable progress. However, it’s important that these targets remain adaptable to reflect each community’s unique circumstances such as infrastructure limits, environmental factors, and local priorities.

Tying state funding to housing goals can be an effective motivator, but it must be combined with resources and support to help municipalities meet these expectations. The focus should be on collaboration and shared responsibility, working together to expand affordable, sustainable housing options throughout New Jersey.

14. If you had to choose between an expansion of state-led housing choice voucher program and funding the production of affordable housing units, which would you choose?

Affordable housing production

I would prioritize funding the development of affordable housing units. Increasing the supply of affordable homes provides stable, lasting housing solutions and helps build vibrant, resilient communities. Without a sufficient stock of affordable units, housing choice vouchers alone can only do so much—people need actual places where they can use them.

15. Would you vote for legislation that bans junk fees in rental agreements like broker fees statewide?

Yes
I’m in favor of cracking down on unfair and excessive fees that make renting more expensive and difficult for tenants. Broker fees and other hidden charges can create real obstacles for renters trying to secure housing. However, any ban needs to be carefully crafted to avoid unintended side effects.

For instance, brokers often provide valuable services, and fees that reflect legitimate costs should be recognized. I would back legislation that clearly distinguishes between exploitative “junk fees” and reasonable charges, ensuring renters are protected without undermining fair compensation for necessary services.

16. Would you vote for legislation that bans applications like RealPage from aggregating rental price data?

Yes
Transparency is important when it comes to rental markets, but I would support legislation that bans platforms like RealPage from aggregating rental price data. Without proper oversight, these private companies can use collected data in ways that contribute to rent inflation and reduce competition. Studies show that such aggregation tools may enable landlords to manipulate prices, driving rents higher and limiting affordability.

Banning these practices would protect renters and promote a fairer, more transparent rental market. At the same time, the state should develop responsible methods to gather and share rental data so tenants still have access to crucial information.

Green Space, Resilience, and Smart Growth

17. Should new development projects be allowed to build more densely if they fund or provide nearby public green space or parks?

Yes

I support encouraging new development to include public green spaces or parks, as these contribute greatly to quality of life, community health, and environmental well-being. Allowing projects to build more densely in exchange for funding or providing nearby green space can be an effective way to balance growth with livability.

However, it’s crucial that any increase in density fits the character of the neighborhood and is supported by adequate infrastructure such as schools, transit, and recreational facilities. I am in favor of expanding green space and enhancing quality of life, provided that these developments do not negatively impact schools or existing recreational areas. Thoughtful planning and community input are essential to ensure this approach benefits everyone.

18. Do you support the Caven Point Protection Act for Liberty State Park?

Yes.
I wholeheartedly back the Caven Point Protection Act because safeguarding this precious natural area in Liberty State Park is vital for preserving biodiversity and enriching our community. Caven Point is a key sanctuary for wildlife, especially migratory birds, providing them with the habitat they need to thrive.

By protecting this unique peninsula, we ensure it remains a public space where people can connect with nature, find peace, and learn about the environment for years to come. It’s crucial to keep this area free from development or privatization that could harm its natural beauty and ecological value. This legislation represents a strong commitment to protecting our public lands and promoting environmental responsibility.

19. Would you support legislation that prohibits the use of any state park as a venue for professional sports and protects all state parkland from commercial development and stadium construction?

Yes.
I fully support legislation that protects all state parkland from commercial development and stadium construction, including prohibiting their use as venues for professional sports. State parks are vital green spaces dedicated to conservation, recreation, and community enjoyment.

Allowing commercial enterprises or sports stadiums threatens natural habitats, limits public access, and changes the character of these treasured areas. Protecting these parks ensures they remain accessible for outdoor activities, relaxation, and connecting with nature, for current residents and future generations alike.

Street Safety and Highway Policies

20. If elected, will you champion or co-sponsor legislation that advances Vision Zero statewide?

Yes.

If elected, I am committed to championing and co-sponsoring legislation that promotes Vision Zero throughout the state. Reducing traffic deaths and serious injuries is an urgent public safety priority that demands focused dedication and collaborative efforts.

21. How would you describe your position to the New Jersey Turnpike Extension highway widening and replacement program?

Support
The NJ Turnpike Extension widening and replacement program is a complex and highly debated issue, especially in Bayonne and Jersey City. Many Bayonne residents support the expansion because they believe it will improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, which is a significant quality-of-life concern for their community. On the other hand, constituents in Jersey City have expressed opposition due to worries about increased traffic, environmental impact, and disruptions to their neighborhoods.

I appreciate and respect those concerns from Jersey City, but I also recognize the pressing needs of Bayonne residents. I believe a more detailed analysis is necessary to explore ways to separate port-bound traffic from residential traffic entering the city. This could help balance the different demands and reduce conflict.

A potential compromise might involve widening the bridges between Exit 14 and Exit 14A to ease access and congestion in Bayonne, while avoiding expansion near the Holland Tunnel area in Jersey City. Such an approach would aim to deliver improvements where they are most needed without imposing undue burdens on either community.

Furthermore, any expansion plan should include strong measures to mitigate environmental and community impacts, such as enhanced sound barriers, increased green spaces, and better public transit options. Ultimately, I support seeking a balanced solution that addresses the needs of both Bayonne and Jersey City residents in a fair and sustainable way.

22. Would you introduce or sponsor legislation that allows the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to implement dynamic, demand-based variable tolling (commonly referred to as “HOT Lanes”) for express lanes on I-78, Garden State Parkway, and the New Jersey Turnpike? 

I recognize that dynamic, demand-based tolling can be an effective way to manage congestion by giving drivers the option of faster travel during peak hours. While this approach has worked in other regions to improve traffic flow and reduce delays, it’s essential that any implementation is fair and equitable for all commuters. Special attention must be given to low-income residents who might be disproportionately affected by toll costs. Additionally, sufficient investments and improvements in public transportation must accompany these changes. Particularly in industrial and other areas that often lack reliable transit options. This ensures everyone has access to affordable and efficient alternatives. Toll revenues should be reinvested to strengthen public transit and infrastructure for the benefit of the entire community. I am open to supporting HOT lanes if they are thoughtfully planned, equitable, and paired with meaningful transit enhancements.

23. Do you support New York’s Congestion Pricing?

Yes.

 I support New York’s congestion pricing because it has demonstrated success in reducing traffic congestion and generating essential funding for public transit improvements. Early data shows less gridlock and faster travel times, which benefits commuters and the environment alike. Implementing a similar program in New Jersey could help ease traffic while providing much-needed resources to enhance our public transportation system.

At the same time, I recognize that this is a quality-of-life issue for many residents, such as those in Bayonne, where opinions vary. Better analysis is needed to explore ways to separate port traffic from residential traffic to accommodate both effectively. A thoughtful compromise, possibly involving a more limited expansion, could address the concerns of all parties and lead to a solution satisfactory to the community.

Finally, any congestion pricing plan must be designed with fairness in mind to protect low-income communities and ensure equitable outcomes for everyone.

24. If any group, organization, or continuing political committee that supports or benefits from the Turnpike Extension were to support your campaign directly or indirectly, would you return the money and disavow the support?

If my campaign were to receive support, directly or indirectly, from any group or committee that stands to benefit from the Turnpike Extension, I would carefully evaluate the situation. It’s vital that campaign contributions reflect the values and interests of the community I serve. If accepting such support risks a conflict of interest or the appearance of undue influence, I would not hesitate to return the funds and disavow that support. Transparency and maintaining public trust are my top priorities.

Public Transportation Access & Affordability

25. Would you support reallocating funds from highway expansion projects to enhance public transportation infrastructure and services?

Yes

The NJ Turnpike Extension expansion is a complex issue that affects communities differently. While many residents in Bayonne favor widening to ease congestion, Jersey City residents worry about increased traffic, environmental harm, and community disruption. I believe funds should be allocated thoughtfully, with some directed toward improving public transportation and infrastructure where it will have the most impact—such as widening bridges between Exit 14 and Exit 14A to relieve Bayonne’s traffic—while limiting expansion near sensitive areas like the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City.

Importantly, each project should be considered on its own merits, taking into account local needs, environmental concerns, and long-term benefits. Any plan should also include investments in noise mitigation, green spaces, and public transit improvements to ensure a balanced, sustainable approach that supports both mobility and community well-being.

26. Would you support incentivizing Hudson County and local municipalities with state funding to implement bus rapid transit lanes for NJTransit on select county or local roads like John F. Kennedy Blvd?

Yes

I support using state funds to encourage Hudson County and local municipalities to create bus rapid transit lanes on roads like John F. Kennedy Blvd. These lanes can improve transit speed and reliability, reduce congestion, and promote sustainable transportation. Each project should be considered individually to best serve community needs.

27. Do you support the implementation of the Corporate Transit Fee—a 2.5% tax on corporations with net incomes over $10 million—as a dedicated funding source for NJ Transit?

Yes

I support a modest transportation tax on corporations as a way to provide stable funding for NJ Transit, benefiting employees and the community alike. However, I believe it’s important to weigh all options carefully to find a fair and balanced solution. It would be ideal if companies that pay the tax could receive tax credits under the Community Redevelopment Act, creating a mutually beneficial system that supports transit and community investment.

28. If you had to choose between transferring funding from 1) the New Jersey Turnpike Authority / NJDOT highway fund, 2) implementing a corporate transit fee, or 3) raising the sales tax to fund transit, which policy would you implement? You may only choose one.

If I had to choose, I would support implementing the corporate transit fee. This option generates dedicated, reliable funding for NJ Transit by focusing on large corporations with high net incomes, many of which are headquartered outside New Jersey. By targeting these businesses, it lessens the financial impact on everyday residents. Stable transit funding is essential for maintaining and improving infrastructure, fostering economic growth, and meeting environmental goals. While it’s important to consider how this fee affects businesses, I believe it offers the most balanced and fair approach to funding transit needs without overburdening working families.

Commitment to Urban Vitality Issues

29. Will you meet with Better Blocks New Jersey to shape legislation and priorities in Trenton?

Yes

I’d be happy to meet with Better Blocks.

30. Is there anything else we should know about your policies regarding housing, transit, street safety, or public parks?

Housing, transportation, and environmental justice are deeply interconnected issues that require thoughtful, community-centered leadership. Throughout these responses, I’ve emphasized the importance of balanced, equitable solutions. Ones that improve quality of life, protect public spaces, and ensure working families aren’t left behind. Whether it’s supporting affordable housing production, expanding access to reliable public transit, preserving Liberty State Park, or pursuing fair funding mechanisms like the corporate transit fee, my focus is on policies that serve the people of our district, not special interests.

I believe in pragmatic progres and making decisions grounded in community input, fairness, and long-term sustainability. Every project, policy, or proposal deserves to be evaluated on its own merits, with an eye toward creating a more livable, inclusive, and resilient New Jersey for all.

Candidate Information

Candidate Name: Jacqueline Weimmer

Campaign Name: McCann Stamato and Weimmer for Assembly