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:

This is precisely the aim of the Desegregate New Jersey Act (S-1156, and previously A-1985 in the prior session). While the bill has met with stiff opposition from the League of Municipalities due to New Jersey’s traditional deference to “home rule,” it is clear that the lack of adequate housing supply is a crisis that calls for land use reform.

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

Absolutely. See above answer, re: the Desegregate New Jersey Act. Notably, the current session ADU bill supported by Better Blocks NJ was originally the brainchild of Senator Mukherji as A1987 (2022), who has endorsed my candidacy. New Jersey’s longstanding tradition of “’home rule” must not stand in the way of solving our housing crisis. With too many families priced out and too little supply, it’s time for smart, statewide land use reforms – such as ADUs – to help meet the moment and give more residents a place to call home. Internal, attached, and detached ADUs can boost affordability, expand housing options, help seniors age near family, and optimize land use within existing footprints in established neighborhoods. While a compromise has been proposed to make an already watered down alternative ADU bill “permissive” for municipalities, I feel this is surplusage as municipalities already have this option. A statewide law that overrides local prohibitions is what is needed, even if it takes longer to enact.

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:

Yes. I unequivocally support single-stair reform, overriding local restrictions, with appropriate fire safety standards. This simple but powerful reform would unlock more housing choices and affordability by eliminating redundant staircases and improve urban design and walkability and include more ground-floor retail spaces and flexibility.

Although the antiquated International Building Code limits single-stair construction to three-story buildings as does the NJ Administrative Code provision promulgated by DCA, I support up to six stories, which aligns with safe design practices and is increasingly becoming the standard height limit in reform jurisdictions. I’m open to higher limits where appropriate, particularly near transit hubs, but would defer to fire safety data and building code experts to ensure that any height increases continue to prioritize fire safety and egress. This is exactly the kind of gentle density we need to address New Jersey’s housing shortage without radically altering neighborhood character. It’s also a common sense step toward equity, sustainability, and affordability.

However, given how long the legislative process often takes, I would not just sit idly while we wait for the bill to pass. I would rally my fellow Hudson legislators to jointly ask DCA to repeal and replace the existing antiquated NJAC provision, which is not supported by evidence.

Finally, I would sponsor and support an Assembly counterpart to the Senate bill that is pending introduction by a Hudson senator, which would override local restrictions for single-stair reform statewide. Therefore, no such bill has ever been proposed in New Jersey.

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:

I firmly believe in the potential for transit-oriented development to expand our housing supply while pushing back on carbon and car culture and fighting climate change. Where municipalities stymie the potential that TOD can unlock, such policies should be overridden. Tangentially, Crystal and I are the only Assembly candidates who have prioritized and publicly called for a constitutional convention to compel the consolidation of municipalities and shared services. So we are clearly unafraid of assailing home rule (the “third rail” of New Jersey politics) when it comes to sensible policies.

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:

Sounds like a great project that concurrently serves multiple policy goals of mine.

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:

Yes. I support eliminating minimum parking requirements near transit to reduce housing costs, encourage walkable development, and make better use of our land (especially in communities like ours where car ownership isn’t a necessity, or at least shouldn’t be if NJT and PATH got their acts together). I am a regular user of mass transit, and I can say dispositively that transit-oriented development is key to addressing our housing crisis and meeting our climate goals.

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:

I am supportive of “carrot” measures to achieve several of my shared aims with Better Blocks NJ in addition to the “stick” measures and bills that would supersede home rule, given the potentially longer road to persuading other lawmakers in the majority caucus of the latter approach. While many of the Assembly candidates in the 32nd District primary probably share the same position on most of these questions, the ability to be effective, work pragmatically while always speaking truth to power, and accomplish these goals – with the necessary party and leadership support when many of our colleagues won’t always share the same priorities as urban lawmakers – is what I believe distinguishes Crystal Fonseca and me from the other candidates in the field.

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:

I support reforming the 30-year rent control exemption to better balance tenant protections with the need to incentivize new construction. I will always fight the displacement of tenants and am a fierce proponent of rent control generally. However, I favor a data-driven approach and would consider tailored solutions (such as shorter exemptions or means-tested rent caps) rather than completely ending exemptions for new construction, which the evidence shows could have an adverse impact on housing supply (thus driving up rents). Any changes should be carefully crafted to preserve affordability for tenants without undermining the financial feasibility of building new housing, especially in areas with high development or financing costs or where we need to increase supply. In this regard, I would be guided by – among others – advocates such as Better Blocks New Jersey who possess subject matter expertise, a high emphasis on evidence, and share my ideological perspective on these matters.

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:

Yes, of course. Renters deserve stability, and I will do everything possible to fight skyrocketing rents. Superior Court judges should not be forced to arbitrarily decide what constitutes “unconscionable,” creating different standards across different vicinages. To improve the prospects of actually passing a bill addressing this longstanding problem with the statute, I would support tying “unconscionable” to the lesser of 5% or a percentage tied to inflation – such as CPI + 3%  – with safeguards to allow occasional departures from the increase cap for small landlords with capital expenditure needs or other sudden unforeseen expenses so that we don’t disincentivize keeping buildings in states of good repair.

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 good. Transforming underutilized lots into housing helps address homelessness and affordability.

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:

Corporate ownership drives up rents and pushes families out. While we must be careful with implementation, I support guardrails that prioritize residents over speculation.

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:

Expanding vouchers empowers families to live where they choose and promotes socioeconomic integration across our state.

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:

Local control should not mean local exclusion. Statewide targets are essential to ensure every community contributes to solving our housing crisis.

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:

We need more housing stock. Vouchers are a useful tool for rental assistance and to prevent homelessness, but without units to rent, they fall short. Production addresses the root issue, and its reach extends far beyond the income-eligible population assisted with vouchers (which rely almost exclusively on federal funding).

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

• Yes

• No

• Depends 

Please explain your position:

Renters shouldn’t be hit with hidden costs just to move into a home. Transparency and fairness in rental agreements is long overdue.

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

This has been a central component of my affordability platform since announcing my candidacy. Rent-price algorithms have been shown to artificially inflate prices, and I also believe these practices violate antitrust laws. I support legislation that prevents data manipulation and collusion from driving housing unaffordability.

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:

Density and green space are not incompatible. Smart growth means linking development with community benefits.

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

Crystal and I are passionate about protecting Liberty State Park and Caven Point. My family has been going to the park for years. I bike at LSP all the time. We launch our kayaks there. When Senator Mukherji first interviewed me in an effort to persuade me to run for office – after witnessing my passion in advocating for legislation over the years – he asked if I had ever read JFK’s Profiles in Courage, and he warned about the types of pressure I would face if elected to the Legislature. It was important that I triple-confirmed that nothing and nobody could ever sway me in our zealous advocacy for LSP. When Crystal and I participated in a recent cleanup at LSP, Mr. Pesin remarked that we were the first legislative candidates to do so in his memory.

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 should be for people, not profit. I unequivocally support safeguarding them for future generations.

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 death or serious injury on our streets is acceptable. Vision Zero is not just a policy – it’s a commitment to safety, equity, and justice.

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 spoken out against this misguided and costly project and attended rallies calling for its cancellation. It undermines our climate goals and prioritizes cars over people. The funds should be reallocated to NJ TRANSIT, not more traffic.

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:

As a librarian and policy wonk, this question required some research and reflection on my part. Admittedly, I was unfamiliar with HOT lanes before completing this questionnaire. On the one hand, dynamic tolling might reinforce inequality by privileging those who can pay. But I support most concepts that would discourage driving. I would sponsor the above-referenced legislation, which I couldn’t locate on the NJLEG website, because it seems that dynamic, demand-based tolling on key corridors could manage congestion, reduce emissions, and generate dedicated funding for public transit and infrastructure improvements. It could encourage mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles and is fairer than flat tolling since those who use express lanes pay more, and those who don’t would no longer be subsidizing them. HOT lanes, when implemented equitably and with transit investments, can help shift our state toward a more sustainable and efficient transportation future. 

However, I would insist that such legislation require the revenue generated from dynamic tolling to be statutorily dedicated to NJ TRANSIT so we could feed two birds with one scone.

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

• Yes

• No

Please explain your position:

Generally, congestion pricing reduces traffic, improves air quality, and funds transit. I would advocate for NJ’s receipt of its fair share, which was on the table before the litigation between the state was commenced.

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:

Of course. The $12B from the Turnpike expansion should be reallocated to NJ TRANSIT. Transit moves more people, reduces emissions, and boosts 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:

BRT offers fast, efficient service and can transform mobility in the 32nd District. I strongly support BRT lanes, especially along JFK Boulevard, and will advocate for state dollars to subsidize bringing them to fruition in Hudson County.

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:

Major corporations benefit from enhancing our mass transit infrastructure and should contribute to its funding. This fee is fair and necessary. It should not have been allowed to sunset.

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

• Option 3

Please explain your position:

It generates revenue without burdening working families and shifts responsibility to those best positioned to pay.

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?

As a public library leader, community advocate, and regular user of mass transit, I’ve spent my career building inclusive public spaces and fighting for those left out of traditional systems. In the Assembly, I will be a fierce advocate for housing affordability and expansion of supply, smart land use policy, safer streets, better transit, and vibrant green spaces.

Candidate Information

Candidate Name: Jennie Pu

Campaign Name: Crystal Fonseca and Jennie Pu for Assembly