Beliefs & Behaviors
A city is made up of people and those people have two things that define the culture of the city. Those two things are beliefs and behaviors. In Stamford, our culture is driven by a belief I call anti-social — the idea “other people are bad” and they make the city worse. This belief leads to anti-social behavior including daily interactions between people in the community, but also the policies and laws that govern our city.
All of the biggest political issues in Stamford fall before this anti-social belief.
- Do you want more housing? Your government representatives opposes housing projects because other people are bad.
- Do you want new leadership in our government? Your political leaders don’t trust new leaders because other people are bad.
- Do you have a business and want to contribute to our community? Your government makes it difficult because other people (business owners) are bad.
- Do you want walkable community spaces? Your elected officials don’t invest in those spaces because it attracts people and other people are bad.
“Anti-social” is the belief that drives Stamford toward self-destructive policies leading to high housing costs, dysfunctional government, extreme risk aversion, and a culture of social isolation. This belief is ruining our community and the lives of people in it.
We need to replace this belief with something new. My policy platform puts forth a belief I call pro-social belief — the idea “people are our greatest resource.”
The value of pro-social beliefs and behaviors
Pro-social beliefs make the most sense if you already have a coherent understanding of why we exist in the first place. “Why do we exist” is not a question people need to consider in modern life, but when you’re considering how our local government should function it is worth asking basic questions like “what are we trying to accomplish here, exactly?” In other words, we need meaning and purpose in life.
Meaning is an explanation for why the world is that way it is and purpose is what we’re supposed to do with ourselves. Historically, meaning and purpose have been derived from religious belief, but a lot of Americans struggle to believe religious teachings. There is evidence religiosity is making a comeback — and some research suggests Americans are not “not religious” but rather create new religions out of things like fandom (Star Trek) or politics (environmentalism).
I’m not here to sell you on religion. I mean, I would recommend it, but that’s not the point. The point is if you don’t have a coherent understanding of why the world exists, then it is understandable your values begin and end with your own self-interest. In our modern culture, there is a lot of reinforcement of self-interest at the expense of community.
- Who cares about other people who can’t afford housing? This is my neighborhood?
- Who cares about other people feeling represented in Stamford? This is my city?
- Who cares about other people starting a business? What about my business?
- Who cares about other people getting around easier? What about traffic in my commute?
A worldview built on self-interest is not going to result in a strong community. The result is an affordability crisis, tribal politics, backroom deals, and social isolation.
In my longform policy video about pro-social policies, I provide a non-religious theory for existence. It’s actually just Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis. The hypothesis is intended to get people to consider the question if our existence is actually a simulation of reality — like The Matrix. The hypothesis poses this question in a way that asks people to prove it’s not true rather than question if it is true. Here’s the simplified version:
Do you disagree with any of the following statements:
- Human beings will continue to be interested in hyper realistic simulations of reality such as interactive video games.
- Human beings will continue to advance computing technology to enhance interactive simulations to be fully immersive and lifelike.
You may have a disagreement, such as “no, we will not continue to advance technology because we’ll run out of energy to provide it.” But if you don’t disagree with either statement, then we almost certainly live in a simulation right now.
Those two statements suggest at some point in time we will have the technology to make hyper realistic lifelike simulations like we see in The Matrix or Star Trek. If we ever get to that point in time, then we would immediately create billions of simulated realities. After all, why not? If we can predict all of our future problems by simulating the future based on the past, then wouldn’t it be logical to create these simulations? Why stop there? What if we could essentially double, triple, quadruple, etc. our creation of art, innovation, and research with each new simulation? If we did do this, then the likelihood you live in the one true reality would be literally 1 in several billions.
Whether or not you believe “simulation theory” doesn’t really matter.
What matters is any coherent understanding of why we exist results in pro-social policies. The simulation theory is a way of providing that understanding without religion. Religious people accept they exist because of a divine creator, which necessarily suggests your existence is for a purpose. Your life has value, because if it didn’t then the divine would not have created you. You can come to a similar conclusion without being religious through the simulation theory.
If we exist in a simulation — or if God created us — there is a reason we’re here. We’re here to solve problems.
We don’t know what problem we’re solving and we don’t know who will have the solution to a problem, but we do know more people will increase the likelihood we can solve more problems. That’s how we should structure our community, because we have problems to solve!
Stamford’s problems
Stamford has a lot of problems. We have a housing affordability crisis. We have dangerous and unfriendly infrastructure, and we have decades of debt we need to pay off. Our biggest problem is we have this belief other people are the real problem. As if we’re Thanos from The Avengers and the only solution to this problem is to wipe out half the galaxy. We’ve got things backwards. People are our greatest resource because they bring solutions to our problems. In fact, solving problems is why we’re all here. We may not know what problem we’re solving, but we know more people means more solutions. It means greater prosperity and opportunity for everyone.
At the same time, the people in our community should meet the standards of our community. It doesn’t make sense to support pro-social policies, if we’re not willing to punish anti-social behavior. I think that’s something only conservatives can do effectively and it’s the topic of my final policy deep dive. This article is focused on pro-social policies to bring more people to Stamford to solve more of our problems.
My proposals are focused on two major areas of public policy: housing and infrastructure.
Housing
The problem with housing policy in Stamford is our city’s financial position does not allow for a conservative housing policy. Stamford owes more than $100 million dollars in fiscal obligations like pension debt and union benefits. For years, mayoral administrations have underfunded these debts which gave the illusion we didn’t need to pay them, but the bill is coming due. We owe too much and don’t make enough in taxes to pay it off. The only alternatives to growing are tax base are charging higher taxes to current residents or accepting financial suicide (Hartford chose the latter option when it declared bankruptcy).
The political problem for this debt is Stamford residents really don’t like development. Stamford’s development has been large-scale – favoring large apartment buildings and rapid growth. This can lead to a fiscal trap where we’re taking on more debt than we’re providing in tax revenue. Many residents focus on the risk of this fiscal trap as an argument to oppose development, but those arguments don’t make our $100M debt disappear.
The reality is there is no way to get out of this debt, and we haven’t been keeping up with payments because of budgetary games played by Democrats for decades. The only solution to our budget problems is to grow. Every plot of land we don’t develop means higher taxes for the families that already live here. We can’t afford to have an anti-social housing policy that blocks all development and demonizes “new people” moving into town. We can change our system so Stamford homeowners directly benefit from the increased demand for housing.
Enshrine property rights for property owners
The alternative solution to large-scale development is gradual development and we need to change our zoning laws to enable gradual growth. Stamford has a paradoxical situation where you can be a property owner, but you need the government to give you permission to house your own family.
For example, if you’re an adult and discover your aging parents need daily medical assistance, you may want to move your 80-year-old mother into your own home. You want to give your mother some privacy, so you renovate your property into a duplex. To do this you add a separate entrance and split the house in two. One side for your family, and the other side for your aging mother.
Adding a new entrance and installing some drywall is not a significant renovation, but in Stamford it’s illegal. It’s illegal, because the government – who does not own your property – has control over how you use what you “own.” The thing about this policy is it means property owners don’t have property rights. If your property is only yours at the approval of government bureaucrats then you don’t actually own it. Current homeowners are experiencing higher property taxes, but are denied the right to increase the profitability for their property.
As mayor, I will propose a change to Stamford’s zoning laws to allow single-family homes to convert to a duplex or triplex by right. You won’t need a special approval and can’t be blocked by neighborhood petition. Your property belongs to you.
This policy not only allows property owners the ability to provide for their family, but it also gives Stamford a path to gradual growth. Instead of adding 100 new residents to a single building in a day, a neighborhood can grow gradually over time. This development strategy enables property owners to double or triple their property value, while steadily increasing housing options across the city.
My policy will automatically apply to all residential zones close to major transportation arteries (such as train stations or arterial roads like Bedford Street, Summer Street, and Main Street), but I will provide the option for more isolated neighborhoods to choose to implement this policy in their neighborhood (such as North Stamford and Shippan).
One final point: I’m running as a Republican and it is worth noting there is a faction within the party that is against both large-scale development and gradual development. This faction will talk about the pains of development of any kind, but what they won’t talk about is how to pay out $100M+ in debt. They don’t talk about the debt, because they don’t have a plan for anyone but their own personal comfort. Anyone arguing against all development is essentially arguing for financial suicide. As both a candidate – and as mayor – I will not tolerate this dishonest and self-destructive policy. I will not allow the “heckler’s veto” to rob our community of our future.
All residential zones have a right to build a backyard cottage
In local politics, housing that appeals to lower income residents tends to get abstracted into initialisms — like BMR or ADU. This alphabet of impersonal letters achieves the goal of devaluing the people who live there. This depersonalization of other people is so effective people now associate these housing options as threats to a neighborhood. I understand the concern of adding a housing unit that dramatically increases the local population, but that’s just not relevant to a backyard cottage – or as it’s known in local policy “an ADU.”
A backyard cottage means residential property owners can benefit from Stamford’s growth by choosing to rent out part of their property. This is distinct from large housing developments which have financial incentives to fill the building as quickly as possible.
Stamford technically allows backyard cottages, but the rules for having one are so restrictive it’s essentially impossible to provide this type of housing.
As mayor, I will deregulate the requirements for building accessory dwelling units in Stamford and make it possible to build one in all residential zones in the city.
This policy will not only provide more housing, but it will benefit current homeowners. A city’s growth has a lot of intangible benefits, but deregulating backyard cottages will provide a tangible benefit for homeowners. If you’re on a fixed income and feel the squeeze of rising property taxes, renting out a backyard cottage can give you the financial security you need as our city grows.
Legalize starter homes and starter apartments
One of the reasons I registered as a Republican is because Democrats often let lofty ideas overtake practical solutions. In housing policy you’ll hear Democrats say housing is a “right” and that “right” frequently comes packaged with luxuries like large square footage and a lot of amenities. Some Democrats seem to believe anything less than a subsidized luxury condo is a human rights violation.
For example, in 2022 a viral video showed a woman who lived in 120 square foot apartment. This “apartment” didn’t have a window, air conditioning, laundry, or an in-unit bathroom, but she said in an interview she could’ve lived in a luxury apartment and chose not to specifically because of the cost of housing.
I don’t think Stamford should build tiny apartments with no windows, but part of the reason housing is so expensive in Stamford is because it’s illegal to build lower cost housing. This is the direct result of a Democrat-dominated city intent on nannying every decision a person might make. People should have the option to build and live in lower cost housing, partly because we need that housing for our economy to function.
If you’ve ever been to the 2.2 star-rated Chipotle on High Ridge, you know a lot of businesses have difficulty finding workers. That’s because the people who might work these jobs would live in the housing Stamford has made illegal. Every new apartment is luxury and every new home is more than a million dollars. We are selling our city to wealthy out-of-towners and pushing out the people who grew up here.
As mayor, I will deregulate zoning laws such as minimum dwelling size, setbacks, lot coverage, and maximum unit per lot to lower housing costs in Stamford.
If you’re a college student or early in your career, you need lower cost housing to live here. Stamford needs to incentivize housing for every layer of our economy, not just luxury housing for the wealthy.
Streamline the approval process
Stamford’s land use approval process is ridiculous. While it makes sense to be skeptical of projects submitted by large developers – it doesn’t make sense to subject our own residents to this same scrutiny. A lot of land use permits like duplex conversions or backyard cottages do not need to be manually approved by a department that’s overworked and underfunded.
More importantly, Stamford’s permit process has been slow to adapt to the modern era. As recently as 2018, permit approvals in Stamford were exclusively done by paper. That meant you couldn’t just email your documents. You had to go to the Government Center between 9am and 5pm on a weekday and physically hand in paper documents to receive an approval. The city has made advancements in digitizing this process, but it’s not for all permits or project types.
As mayor, I will bring Stamford’s permitting process into the future.
There’s no reason permits for residential zones can’t be possible through a 24/7 digital portal.
Eliminate parking mandates for housing.
By some metrics, Stamford spends more resources on parking for cars than it does housing for people. This isn’t the result of the free market valuing parked cars more than living people, it is mandated by our government.
For example, if you want to build a backyard cottage for your medically infirm mother who can’t drive — you can only do that if you build a parking space for her too. These mandates are built on the assumption travel is only possible by car.
There are certainly parts of Stamford that are only accessible by car, but removing a mandate for parking doesn’t remove the ability to build parking – it just means the government doesn’t force you to build it. If a developer wants to provide 3 parking spaces for every one housing unit in their building, they are free to spend their money doing that if they think it’s a good idea.
As mayor, I will eliminate all parking mandates for housing.
Parking mandates brings us to our next doctrine of policy: Infrastructure.
Infrastructure
More and more, we’re seeing people who choose to live a car-free lifestyle. Some people may not be making this choice because they don’t want a car, but rather because they can’t afford a car – but that distinction doesn’t really matter. Stamford’s mayor can’t influence the global automobile market, but we can make our city more accessible to people without cars.
We can provide travel options for all residents without pitting pedestrians in a war against people who own cars. There are internet communities that have a homicidal hatred for cars, and these movements are just as anti-social as anything else I criticize. We need a pro-social vision for our infrastructure, and it begins by making this issue about families.
Family Friendly Infrastructure
The topic of infrastructure can quickly feel elitist, because a lot of the conversation is driven by technical experts. Traffic engineers and city planners have their own words like “bioswale” or “stroad” that normal people don’t understand.
Additionally, local Republicans have been really weak on infrastructure issues and as a result this doctrine of expertise is dominated by Democrats. This means infrastructure conversations often have partisan views on environmentalism or racial equity inserted into conversations about how to design a road. Infrastructure is one of the few areas where our community can find bipartisan solutions, but to do that we need new language about these ideas that doesn’t smuggle in divisive and irrelevant politics.
As mayor, I will pursue an all-encompassing vision of family friendly infrastructure.
Family Friendly Infrastructure means evaluating all infrastructure from the perspective of a typical family. Families include parents, kids, and grandparents. Each member of the family has different needs when they travel by foot, bike, public transit, or motor vehicle.
Parents are the most capable travelers. Our infrastructure is designed around the healthy adult traveler, so unsurprisingly it works for them even if there is a heavy preference for motor vehicles.
Kids are the least capable travelers, because they can’t use motor vehicles at all. Additionally, the parents of kids are pretty protective, so they may restrict their ability to use bikes or public transit out of safety concerns. This means kids can really only get around by foot and potentially by bike if we have protected bike lanes. Our current infrastructure is not designed for kids and unsurprisingly you rarely see them in public around Stamford.
Grandparents are somewhere in between the rest of the family. A lot of grandparents have the same capabilities as adults, but a lot of them have increased health and safety concerns. You’re simply not going to see grandma biking to Stop & Shop to pick up her groceries. Grandparents may be able to travel by foot, but they’ll need protection from the elements like tree shading, wide sidewalks, or at the very least a bike lane to prevent bicyclists from colliding with the elderly.
Finally, there is the whole family unit which often travels together for things like holiday celebrations. There’s simply no practical way to travel longer distances with all members of the family in anything other than a car. The family unit is a reminder that as we make our city more friendly to other methods of travel, we still need it to be accessible by car.
The family unit shows what Stamford needs in our infrastructure. We need sidewalks, bike lanes, and roads to provide a way for each family member to get around safely. Family Friendly Infrastructure is a positive vision for Stamford’s infrastructure.
Prioritize Sidewalks
Residents across Stamford – both downtown and further north – reliably say they want Stamford to be more walkable. Stamford’s infrastructure investments have never prioritized sidewalks. In fact, they are often cut during budget season. This has largely been because Stamford’s roads have been so bad that repairing them takes priority over all other infrastructure.
But our city’s budget is an expression of our values. Sidewalks connect our neighborhoods and provide a method of travel for kids or teenagers. In fact, Stamford Public Schools doesn’t provide a bus stop for any families within walking distance of their school, but a lot of schools don’t have sidewalks on these routes.
As mayor, I will prioritize providing sidewalks within a square mile of all our schools.
If we want our youngest generation to get outside and touch grass, they need a sidewalk to get there.
Connected Bike Lanes
For more than a decade, Stamford’s Board of Representatives has cut funding to expand our sidewalks and bike lanes. As a result, all of our current bike lanes are not the result of planned implementation, but rather our transportation department sneaking it in whenever they could get away with it. This is why Stamford bike lanes seem to be placed randomly with no connection between them.
This has become the worst of both worlds. Bicyclists don’t use our bike lanes because they’re not practical. Meanwhile residents who don’t like bike lanes say we shouldn’t build more because the ones we have don’t get used. Which is true, because they’re useless.
As mayor, I will prioritize connecting bike lanes downtown and evaluate further expansion.
Stamford could create a bike lane from Harbor Point to Bulls Head via Atlantic/Bedford Street and connect the largest population centers of the city with one bike lane. This would provide an opportunity to assess the value of Stamford’s bike lanes before expanding the network further to other parts of the city.
The Stamford Knock
Not every behavior is a public policy. Some behavior is simply what people do. In Stamford, we have a really disturbing trend of anti-social behavior targeted at other travelers.
For example, this crosswalk on Forest Street downtown is the most dangerous crosswalk in the entire city. The rules of the road give priority to pedestrians in this crosswalk — that’s why the intersection has 3 different signs indicating where cars need to stop. But a lot of motorists get confused by the green light and don’t yield to pedestrians.
I can understand a motorist might get confused by mixed signals, but what’s not acceptable is when their confusion turns to anger. Countless times every month a motorist will have a near-miss with a pedestrian, then honk or verbally berate the pedestrian – when the pedestrian didn’t do anything wrong. These instances of road rage happen all over the city and we need to organize push back on this anti-social behavior.
As mayor, I will push back against anti-social road rage and lead by example with the Stamford knock.
The Stamford knock is simply whenever a car is somewhere where it shouldn’t be – like a crosswalk – you communicate that error with a knock. The knock is not meant to antagonize a person or damage their property — it’s an instantly recognizable sound that says “knock it off.” Cars shouldn’t be stopping in crosswalks or driving into pedestrians. People who do this are breaking the law. They are in the wrong, no matter how loud they scream at other people.
At the same time, I don’t think it’s worth it to dedicate police resources to minor traffic infractions. This is something the community can do with a little coordination and commitment. As mayor, I promise to lead that movement.
Prioritize infrastructure over cameras
The crosswalk at Forest Street is so dangerous because its design is confusing. You have three different signs saying stop, but one light that says go. In some parts of the city, we have wide roads that encourage people to drive fast, but speed limits telling them to drive slow. These mixed signals are confusing, and we have a responsibility to fix the problem rather than punish people for our infrastructure’s failure.
In Stamford, there is a movement to increase safety by implementing cameras that automatically ticket people who violate the rules of the road, but I think this is a bad idea. I don’t like the idea of taking the human being out of law enforcement. Handing off the ability to fine people to a robot is not a path of public policy that ends anywhere good. More importantly, I believe most behavior is because of infrastructure design. A wide road will always result in faster speeds. If you want people to drive slower, then narrow the road.
As mayor, I will oppose efforts to automate traffic enforcement and instead champion infrastructure projects to increase safety.
Close Bedford Street
Since the pandemic, the city of Stamford has transformed Bedford Street every year to become more of a community space. On-street parking is replaced with outdoor dining and both businesses and patrons really love this seasonal change. A recent poll of Stamford residents found an overwhelming number of respondents would support closing Bedford Street and make it pedestrian only.
As mayor, I would listen to the public and permanently close Bedford Street to motor vehicle traffic as soon as Summer 2026.
Bedford Street has a lot of potential to be our marquee community space, but I do think it needs to maintain a single lane of road that would only be accessible by bicycles and busses. Busses would be able to access this road by lowering bollards that could be placed at Broad Street. This would ensure existing public transit could still function, while decreasing overall motor vehicle traffic by almost 100 percent.
Closing Bedford Street early in my administration could act as the reminder that the public can accomplish big projects quickly. That’s why I’m asking you to sign my petition to Close Bedford Street. It’s possible we could get this done before the election simply through consistent advocacy. This could be the jumping off point for other bigger projects in the future.
UPDATE: The City of Stamford has started taking feedback from the public for what they would like to see in a Bedford Street redesign.
Conclusion
Stamford needs more walkable areas with community spaces, but crucially we need to defend our community spaces from anti-social behavior. Our current culture is sometimes squeamish about trusting law enforcement to protect the public from anti-social behavior. The public also partakes in anti-social behavior that reinforces people’s fear of going out in public. In my final deep dive policy article, I will show how conservatism has the answer to many of these problems.
Stamford’s Republican Party needs to be clear its main priority is to protect the community from anti-social beliefs and behaviors. That starts with adopting pro-social policies on housing and infrastructure, and relies on defending conservative values.
