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

• Support

• Oppose

• Strongly Oppose 

Please explain your position:

Single-family zoning has helped fuel the housing crisis and exclude working-class families. I strongly support reforms to allow more multi-family housing so we can build neighborhoods that reflect the real needs of New Jerseyans—not outdated policies rooted in exclusion. Among others, I would strongly support in the Assembly the Desegregate New Jersey Act (S-1156, and previously A-1985 in the prior session), authored by our district’s Senator and my running mate Raj Mukherji, which would accomplish this goal. 

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

ADUs are one of the most practical ways to create more housing in existing communities. They help families stay together, create income opportunities for homeowners, and increase housing supply without massive new development. See also above regarding the Desegregate NJ Act, which would override local bans.

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

• No

Please explain your position:

These types of buildings are safe, sustainable, and key to keeping mid-rise housing affordable. I support legalizing them up to six (6) stories, especially if it helps working families afford to live close to jobs, schools, and transit. If elected, I would immediately sign on as a sponsor to A4972. However, A4972 is permissive; if NJDCA repeals its administrative prohibition by regulation (as Jennie and I would call for), municipalities could choose to do this without the legislation. A Hudson senator requested in March draft legislation that would mandate statewide single-stair reform and enact a standard that municipalities would not have discretion to contravene and would not result in a patchwork of conflicting ordinances across our 560+ municipalities. I would introduce the Assembly counterpart to this bill, once it is dropped. 

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

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

Too many towns block housing near trains and buses. That’s holding us back. We need to unlock more affordable, mixed-income development near transit, especially in communities like ours where people rely on public transportation every day.

5. A developer has proposed 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

• No

 Please explain your position:

Projects like this that combine affordable housing, space for artists, and a new public school are exactly what we need. I’d like to see more of this – especially in transit-accessible areas – so our neighborhoods can grow without leaving people behind.

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

• Yes

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

Parking mandates are outdated and expensive. They drive up the cost of housing and hurt walkability. We should be building for people, not cars, especially in the 32nd District where mass transit (while unreliable) abounds.

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

• Yes

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

If a municipality steps up to create more affordable housing near transit, they should get state support. These types of incentives reward municipalities that are part of the solution.

Housing Affordability and Public Land Use

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

• Yes

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

 A 30-year exemption is too long. Rent control needs to be fair and effective, and that means closing loopholes that allow developers to sidestep affordability commitments for an entire generation. By the same token, we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently slow the construction of new units and expansion of housing stock by making financing unattainable. I am open to a solution that strikes that balance in consultation with progressive experts in this arena.

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?

• Yes

• No

• Depends

 Please explain your position:

My family has experienced economic hardship firsthand. We’ve struggled as part of our journey. I’ve seen too many families priced out of their own homes by landlords raising rent overnight by unreasonable percentages. We need clear protections and an unambiguous standard for what constitutes an unconscionable rent increase, which is missing from the current statute. I’d support capping increases based on inflation—plus a small, reasonable margin.

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?

• Strongly Support

• Support

• Oppose

• Strongly Oppose

Please explain your position:

Public land should serve public needs. If we have empty lots or unused buildings, let’s turn them into homes for working families and seniors—not luxury condos or storage.

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

• Strongly Support

• Support

• Oppose

• Strongly Oppose

Please explain your position:

Wall Street shouldn’t own our neighborhoods. While small landlords are part of the fabric of our communities, large investors turning homes into profit machines is something I believe we need to regulate tightly.

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

• Strongly Support

• Support

• Oppose

• Strongly Oppose

Please explain your position:

Vouchers can be life-changing for low-income families, especially in high-cost areas like ours. I support expanding access and making sure they’re accepted in more communities.

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?

• Yes

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

Every town should do its fair share. You can’t just say “not here” to affordable housing. We need state standards to make sure that working people are welcome everywhere.

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?

• Housing choice voucher

• Affordable housing production

Please explain your position:

Vouchers help, but they only go so far if there’s nowhere to use them. We need to build. More housing supply is the most direct way to bring down costs and give people real options.

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

• Yes

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

Hidden fees are just another way to squeeze renters. We need statewide rules to stop this kind of exploitation and make the rental process transparent and fair.

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

• Yes

• No

 Please explain your position:

Tech companies shouldn’t be allowed to game the system and push rents higher. Rent should reflect the local market—not an algorithm designed to boost profits.

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

• No

• Depends 

Please explain your position:

As long as it’s done equitably and meets the needs of the neighborhood, I support trading density for meaningful community benefits like parks and open space.

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

Caven Point (and all of LSP) should be preserved—full stop. I support keeping it off-limits to commercial or private development. Public land should stay public.

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

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

Our parks are not for sale. I would absolutely vote to protect them from stadium deals or other private development that puts profit ahead of people.

Street Safety and Highway Policies

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

No one should die just trying to walk or bike in their neighborhood. I support a statewide Vision Zero plan to redesign our roads with safety—not speed—as the top priority.

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

• Strongly Support

• Support

• Oppose

• Strongly Oppose

Please explain your position:

I’ve stood with community members to oppose this project. It’s reckless, wasteful, and only makes traffic and pollution worse. That money should go toward public transit and sustainable infrastructure.

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?

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

Dynamic, demand-based variable tolling on I-78, the GSP, and the Turnpike could help with congestion and emissions reductions and spread the financial burden more equitably based on those who make use of express lanes. However, I would include a requirement in the legislation that revenues generated from HOT lanes be statutorily dedicated to NJ TRANSIT as one of several recurring funding sources.

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

It’s a smart policy that reduces gridlock and helps fund mass transit while reducing emissions. However, New Jersey should see its fair share of the revenue.

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?

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:
This is a joint response from my running mate and me.

The framing of this question, particularly the “indirect” component, is built on a false premise because the law strictly prohibits coordination between candidate committees and any political committee making independent expenditures or spending “soft” money. We cannot return money we never received, nor can we direct or influence how it is spent. The question appears to stem from a recent op-ed published on HudsonCountyView.com by one of the founders of Better Blocks — someone we deeply admire and respect despite his announced opposition to our candidacy — with which op-ed we take exception for reasons outlined below.

It’s true we have earned the endorsement of the Democratic Party organization, a distinction we are proud of as two women of color and daughters of immigrants who worked hard to ascend to our respective leadership roles in public service, running on a ticket backed by the first Indian-Bengali state legislator in American history. This ain’t your momma’s HCDO. We are not the type of candidates who would be handpicked by the old political boss caricatures of white men in backrooms full of cigar smoke. And unlike the cultish uniformity that defines today’s Republican Party of MAGA extremists, the Democratic Party is not a monolith. It is an expansive and inclusive coalition of people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and viewpoints – and yes, sometimes divergent opinions. Its leaders do not issue marching orders or dictate our beliefs. The party organization raises funds from a wide range of donors without our knowledge, let alone our blessing or approval, and in turn supports candidates in different districts who sometimes have conflicting views.

We are two women who boldly took an enormous risk by defying our own bosses and running against the tickets of the very mayors who employ us. To imply we would compromise our values or soften our stance on opposing the ill-advised Turnpike expansion project because donors we’ve never met contributed to a political party or independent expenditure fund we don’t oversee is an enormous stretch.

The op-ed’s author attempts, through a series of tenuous connections, to link the four candidates in this race he does not support (including both of us) to a labor union, an engineer, a law firm, etc. that are either affiliated with the Turnpike Authority or support the expansion. These entities, the argument goes, have supported either the HCDO or an independent expenditure (IE) committee that has invested in negative mailers against Mayor Bhalla. In one particularly bizarre mailer, they attack his running mate based on nothing more than her association with Mayor Bhalla. We have no involvement whatsoever with these ads. The reporting shows that it is not even being financially supported by any of us or any donors remotely connected to us. Do we disavow the mailers? Yes. As underdogs and the only Assembly ticket in this race where both candidates are concerned citizen-activists and neither is an incumbent elected official, we have focused our campaign on substance and positive ideas to remedy the disadvantage of our lower name ID. These attack ads detract from the real issues facing voters. Ultimately, we feel all six candidates in this race share broadly similar progressive values and would serve our district earnestly and defend it against the threats of Trumpism if elected.

Now, let’s examine the facts. The loudest labor supporter of the Turnpike expansion has been the Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local 825, a powerful construction union with a wide range of priorities. According to the op-ed, this union has apparently supported both the party organization and the I.E. But we question whether they knew the funds would be used to oppose Mayor Bhalla, given their longstanding close ties to him. Some would say he owes both of his mayoral victories in part to IUOE Local 825, which contributed over $70,000 to Mr. Bhalla’s initial mayoral campaign, again endorsed him for reelection, and was poised to invest heavily in and lend significant manpower to his latest (unopposed) mayoral campaign. In that most recent reelection, Mayor Bhalla said, “I am honored to be recognized by Local 825 and look forward to continuing to work together with this strong voice for working people on upgrading Hoboken’s infrastructure.” By contrast, despite Mukherji’s unwavering support for labor rights and collective bargaining (hallmark Democratic values), IUOE has consistently declined to endorse HCDO-backed Senator Mukherji (in 2019 and 2023) even while endorsing his running-mate, likely because of his unrelenting advocacy for the Liberty State Park Protection Act (which the IUOE opposed) and in the subsequent election due to his vocal opposition to the Turnpike expansion and attempts to persuade the Governor to veto the Turnpike Authority’s minutes.

Further, a politically powerful Sills Cummis partner (one of the law firms listed in the op-ed because they are apparently outside counsel to the Turnpike Authority) also contributed to Ms. Brennan and was an early supporter. Ms. Brennan’s campaign also received at least four contributions from an employee of the Tara Dowdell Group, the Turnpike Authority’s contractor known for spearheading the agency’s outreach sessions on the Turnpike expansion project that activists labeled disinformation sessions.

We are not accusing Mayor Bhalla or Ms. Brennan of being insincere in their opposition to the expansion simply because they have benefited from direct financial support from its proponents. Rather, we believe their opposition to be genuine, just as ours is. What we are saying is that political support often comes from a wide range of sources, and it’s unfair and hypocritical to imply via Instagram charts about fundraising sources that we would somehow compromise our values just because of the Democratic Party’s broad base of donors while ignoring similar connections in their own fundraising. This op-ed stung in particular because it was penned by someone whose thoughtfulness and intellect we deeply admire and whose progressive principles we share.

We always have and always will speak truth to power. While we will work with legislative leadership and party officials to deliver results for our district, we will never hesitate to tell them (or any donor) to pound salt when they’re wrong, just as other principled leaders have done despite enjoying the support of the HCDO.

 Public Transportation Access & Affordability 

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

• Yes

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

We’ve spent decades building highways—it’s time to invest in transit. That’s how we lower emissions, shorten commutes, and build economic opportunity.

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

• No

Please explain your position:

Bus riders deserve fast, reliable service too. BRT lanes—especially on major roads like JFK Boulevard—would make a big difference for working people.

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

• No

• Depends

Please explain your position:

Big corporations benefit from transit, and they should help pay for it. This fee would provide stable funding without burdening everyday residents.

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.

• Option 1

• Option 2 – Corporate Transit Fee

• Option 3

Please explain your position:

Big corporations benefit from transit, and they should help pay for it. This fee would provide stable funding without burdening everyday residents.

Commitment to Urban Vitality Issues

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

• Yes

• No

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

I’m running because our communities deserve leaders who won’t sit on the sidelines while people are priced out of their neighborhoods. As someone committed to tenant protections, clean air, safe streets, and public transit, I will fight for policies that put people—not developers or lobbyists—first. Together, we can build a more just and livable New Jersey.

Candidate Information

Candidate Name: Crystal Fonseca

Campaign Name: Crystal Fonseca and Jennie Pu