I’m an elected committee person for the 22nd Ward (Mt. Airy) and chair of the 4th Senatorial State Committee covering parts of Montgomery County and Northwest Philadelphia. I’m running for PA state representative in the 200th District to deliver the changes our neighbors want as a Different Kind of Democrat. I’ve lived here for years, raising seven children in Mt. Airy who attended John Story Jenks in Chestnut Hill. I coach with City Athletics Soccer at Mallory Playground. I will bring a business enterprise center, protect fair funding for schools, support labor and industry, ensure affordable housing, and improve nutrition for schools, seniors, hospitals, and prisons.

1. What can be done in the state legislature about the housing shortage/affordability?

In the PA General Assembly, lawmakers can’t build housing overnight, but they can change the rules, funding, and incentives that make housing more available and more affordable. Key actions include; Speed up and expand housing production by streamlining permitting and reduce unnecessary delays, while still protecting health/safety and RCO [Registered Community Organizations] oversight.

Legal and financial tools that increase supply. Create/state-expand programs that incentivize building. Low- and middle-income rental, workforce housing, requiring affordable mixed-income developments. Use tax credits for low-income buyers, grants, and low-cost financing to reduce developer costs.

Support renters and keep people housed. Strengthen tenant protections (e.g., anti-discrimination enforcement, fair eviction process supports). Ensure rental assistance is properly funded and targeted to households at risk of displacement. Expand right-to-counsel or eviction diversion resources in areas where available.

Preserve existing affordable housing. Provide resources to keep older affordable buildings from being sold, converted, or lost. Incentivize rehabilitation and long-term affordability covenants.

Workforce and operating costs. Housing affordability is affected by what it costs to run projects. Support skilled trades/workforce pipelines to reduce construction labor shortages. Tackle issues that drive utilities and operating costs for both renters and landlords (within legislative authority).

2. Currently, SEPTA is using capital funds for operations. What are the next steps in funding for transit?

Stop the raid on capital (get operations covered first). Implement a plan (with timelines) to reduce/phase out capital-to-operations transfers. Balance budgets by using a mix of: cost controls, service planning, labor/contract management, and dedicated operating revenue.

Lock in sustainable operating funding. In Pennsylvania, the typical levers are state operating support (formula or appropriations) for transit agencies. Dedicated transit revenue (e.g., fuel/vehicle-related revenues, payroll-based options, or other recurring sources where politically feasible). Federal operating assistance where available (often limited and sometimes tied to formulas, performance, or emergency conditions). Rebuild the capital program through capital streams.

Capital funding typically comes from federal capital grants (FTA) for heavy projects, modernization, rolling stock, accessibility, etc. State capital allocations (state budget line items for transit capital). Bonding/financing mechanisms that are serviced by reliable revenues (not operations). The goal is: capital pays for capital tracks, stations, signals, vehicles while operations are paid by recurring operating revenues. Use “formula plus performance” funding models. Many states and agencies move toward agreements where funding is tied to outcomes (reliability, safety, on-time performance, ridership targets). Agencies get flexibility in how to manage service but must meet measurable service standards. Create/expand dedicated sources specifically for SEPTA (regional coordination).

Because SEPTA serves multiple counties, coordinate with Southeastern Pennsylvania counties (often through county transit assistance, fees, or regional agreements). Encourage multi-year compacts so SEPTA can plan both operations and capital credibly. Capital planning that matches the budget reality.

3. Are you satisfied with the state’s school funding formula? If not, how would you change it?

Firstly, I’d propose we recenter the formula on real, current student need. Push for updates to inputs that drive funding (poverty measures, housing instability, English learner factors, special education weights), so they reflect today’s costs, not outdated assumptions. Sponsor or support legislation that requires more frequent recalibration of district need.

Secondly, strengthen the “guarantee” so Philadelphia reliably receives a meaningful share. Fair Funding includes a guaranteed level concept, but the key is whether the guarantee keeps up with what districts actually must spend. I’ll advocate for a stronger guarantee/weighting that prevents shortfalls in high-need urban districts.

Next, prove or demonstrate and tie increases to inflation and the actual cost of providing instruction. Support indexing or escalation for major cost drivers (staffing, transportation, utilities, healthcare/retirement costs where applicable). The goal: avoid “formula catch-up” that lags behind inflation year after year.

Expand transparency and auditing of how funds flow. Push for reporting requirements so communities can see: What district receives, what’s restricted, and whether supplemental allocations are being used as intended. Require clear public dashboards for Philadelphia and other high-need districts.

Build Philadelphia-specific coalitions and votes. Urban districts are often outvoted; We can partner with other legislators representing high-need districts, coordinate with education committee leadership to make it a budget priority.

I’ll use committee power: hearings, amendments, and oversight. Prioritize Fair Funding in Education Committee hearings. Offer amendments during budget or omnibus education bills that correct specific formula shortcomings.

4. How best can the state spend money for crime prevention and abatement?

Pennsylvania can spend crime-prevention money more effectively by targeting the drivers of risk, using evidence-based programs, coordinating across agencies, and measuring results. As a state rep, you can push for these budget/practice improvements:

Fund “high impact” prevention, not only enforcement. We can use evidence-based community violence interrupters similar to how Chicago activists have successfully employed (credible messengers, street outreach, conflict mediation). Invest in youth development (mentoring, after-school, summer jobs, school-based supports that reduce violence exposure).

Through legislation we should target resources by “hot spots” and risk level. Prioritize funding for geographic hot spots and for people most likely to be victims/perpetrators (based on data).

Strengthen diversion and reentry (reduce repeat harm). Expand pretrial diversion and reentry services (housing navigation, employment training, ID recovery, treatment). Fund violent reentry programming with close supervision and case management.

Improve schools as a safety system by investing in school-based mental health, threat assessment capacity, restorative practices, and safe passage planning. PA should make programs accountable to outcomes (not just spending). For every grant/program, require that clear goals reduced gun violence, fewer assaults, improved school attendance, reduced recidivism.

We can legislate not to neglect fundamentals that prevent escalation by first addressing vacant property/blight, illegal dumping, and unsafe lighting via targeted state-funded partnerships. I would support community policing practices tied to trust-building and data sharing (not just staffing numbers). I would bolster recruitment for more minority police officers particularly from within the communities they police.

5. What other issues would you target during your first term in the state legislature?

One of my primary interests would be to serve on the House Human Services Committee which governs nutrition guidelines in the PA House. Especially for state funded programs. A workable path is to set nutrition standards and procurement rules that make lower-carb options easier and healthier, while avoiding a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Legislators can direct or fund PA agencies (like PA Department of Health, Dept. of Education, and nutrition programs) to update requirements for; school meals (state policy on menus, nutrition benchmarks, and procurement), state institutions (correctional facilities, senior programs, hospitals where state sets dietary standards). Assure the state contracts don’t purchase UPF (ultra processed foods) and foods high in fructose and sugar which many foods vendors offer.

Legislatively define “low-carb” as carb reduction to be more precise. Require evidence-based, medically appropriate meal patterns. Allow clinician-guided ketogenic or low-carbohydrate protocols for eligible patients but do not mandate it legislatively. We then would use measurable benchmarks to reduce added sugars; lower refined starch; offer low-carb meals for schools, senior’s homes, hospitals and penal institutions (youth and adult). We can form pilot programs to gradually introduce to public institutions. Then tie it to diabetes/obesity treatment access, not just labeling. Additionally, legislate diabetic food aisles in grocery stores and supermarkets.

Use procurement and menu changes instead of “chart” mandates.

• Default availability of lower-carb meal components

• Limits on sugar-sweetened beverages in state programs

• More whole-food options and fewer ultra-processed carbs

• “Choice architecture”: default meal includes low-carb option and swaps are easy/automatic