Alina Bonsell
RepublicanQ1 Data centers are a controversial part of America’s growing AI industry, supporting cutting-edge innovation and potential job creation, but raising issues of resource use and utility costs. New York now has a moratorium on data center construction. At the same time, state tax law grants tax exemptions to equipment and services used by data centers, which some proposed legislation would repeal. What do you see as the right balance of costs and benefits for new data center construction in New York, and how would your policies accomplish that balance?
I oppose a blanket moratorium on data centers. New York should be leading in AI, innovation and job creation, not pushing investment and jobs to other states. At the same time, taxpayers and ratepayers should not be subsidizing the enormous energy demands of these facilities. Data centers should pay their fair share of the infrastructure and energy costs they create. We also need more reliable energy, including nuclear power, to meet growing demand without driving utility bills even higher. Tax incentives should be tied to real investment and real jobs in New York. We can protect ratepayers while still keeping New York competitive and open for innovation.
Q2 New York currently generates about 47% of its energy from low carbon sources including nuclear, hydropower, and wind and solar, with the remainder coming from combustion sources (natural gas, oil, biofuel, and solid waste). While New York committed to shifting to low-carbon energy sources and emissions reductions in passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), Governor Hochul recently moved to delay implementation of several components of the state’s climate law to December 31, 2028. As concerns about energy costs, reliability, and emissions grow, what energy sources would you prioritize, under what timeline, and what evidence would guide that decision?
I support an all of the above energy policy focused on affordability and reliability. I would prioritize expanding nuclear power, which provides reliable, zero emission energy around the clock, while continuing to use natural gas as needed to keep the grid reliable and costs manageable. I support solar, wind and hydropower where they make economic sense, but they cannot replace reliable baseload power on their own. New York should not shut down dependable energy sources before adequate replacements are actually operating. Our timeline should be based on grid reliability, consumer costs and measurable emissions reductions, not arbitrary political deadlines.
Q3 Young adults say that social media is their top source of science information, but acknowledge that it is less trustworthy compared to other sources. In addition, the widespread usage of social media and other sources of scientific information has resulted in the spread of misinformation that has spurred public education policies to curb it, such as a NYC vaccine misinformation legislation. What role should public education play in combatting misinformation and disseminating trustworthy, up to date scientific information to students and their families?
Public education should teach students how to think critically, evaluate sources, understand scientific evidence and distinguish credible research from something they see on social media. Schools should provide families with current information from qualified medical and scientific sources, while being transparent about where that information comes from. I do not believe schools should become political gatekeepers of information. The goal should be education, transparency and critical thinking so students and parents have the tools to evaluate information and make informed decisions.
Q4 Pesticides are widely used in food production to help manage pests and support crop yields, but ongoing debates over their safety have raised questions about their long-term use and led to proposals to restrict certain pesticides. What data and evidence will you use to weigh the role of these products in food security against safety concerns when shaping policy on their use in New York agriculture?
I don’t think we should treat every pesticide the same. We should look at the science behind each active ingredient—its toxicity, actual exposure, effects on workers and consumers, environmental impacts, and whether there are practical alternatives. I would work with farmers and agricultural organizations to find a common sense solution. This may mean reducing sprays of certain pesticides near environmentally sensitive areas or restricting the amount of treatments annually to ensure there are no unintended consequences. However, we need to make sure that farmers can yield their crops and properly make a living without the government getting in their way. Additionally, we should consider the effect that the reduction of pesticide sprays will have on our grocery prices. If farmers only yield half of their crop due to an aphid infestation, then we are only making it harder for New York farmers to support their business and for families to put food on the table. Further, the state should work with farmers to find alternatives to pesticides whether it be beneficial bugs, companion and trap crops, or less harmful pesticides.
Q5 New York has the second largest international student population of any U.S. state, the majority of which study in STEM fields. The federal government is pursuing largescale changes to student visa approval, including increased visa denials, revoking existing visas, restricting travel from certain countries, and decreasing student visa durations. How, if at all, should New York respond to federal visa changes affecting international STEM students and researchers, and the resulting projected changes in the scientific workforce supply?
I would base pesticide policy on current scientific evidence, including data from the EPA, New York DEC, Cornell and our agricultural community. We need to look at human health, environmental impact, crop yields, food costs and whether farmers have effective alternatives. I do not support banning agricultural tools simply because they are politically unpopular. When credible evidence shows a product creates an unacceptable risk and safer, effective alternatives exist, we should act. The goal should be protecting public health and our environment while making sure New York farmers can continue producing an affordable and reliable food supply.
Q6 Extreme weather events are increasingly impacting farmland and food supplies across NY, including up to 30 million dollars in damages to farmer livelihoods. This has prompted the USDA to designate 30 counties in New York as Natural Disaster Areas. What policies, if any, would you support to help farmers adapt to and prepare for increasingly erratic weather?
New York farmers are dealing with increasingly unpredictable weather, and we should focus on practical solutions that help them protect their farms and our food supply. I would support targeted assistance for irrigation, drainage, water storage, crop protection and other infrastructure that makes farms more resilient. We should also make sure farmers can quickly access disaster assistance and crop insurance when major losses occur. Farmers know their land and their businesses better than Albany does. Our role should be to give them the tools to prepare, recover and continue producing food without adding unnecessary mandates or costs.
Q7 Law enforcement agencies across New York have contracted with Flock to install Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras as a public safety tool. The technology is receiving pushback over concerns over privacy and data sharing, resulting in city councilors in Syracuse voting to remove Flock cameras. What are your views on accessibility and utilization of ALPR data by local and federal law enforcement, and what legislation, if any, would you propose governing how ALPR data is collected, stored, shared and retained?
I strongly support ALPR technology as a public safety tool. It can help law enforcement find a kidnapped child, identify a vehicle involved in human trafficking, locate a stolen car, find someone who fled an accident or connect a vehicle to a serious crime. The public safety benefits are significant, and I believe they outweigh the privacy concerns when the technology is being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes. I support sharing relevant data between local and federal law enforcement when it can help prevent or solve crimes. Technology should help law enforcement identify vehicles and evidence, but decisions about guilt, arrests or penalties should remain with human beings. Used responsibly, ALPR technology can save lives, solve crimes and make our communities safer.
Q8 Smoke from Canadian wildfires in recent summers has pushed New York air quality to unhealthy levels. The long-term consequences, if any, of these wildfires are unknown: Short-term data show a rise in asthma-related emergency department visits during smoke events, though some studies suggest the increase is comparable to that seen on high-pollen days. With extreme wildfire seasons projected to become more frequent as global temperatures rise, what measures, if any, do you think New York should invest in to prepare for future smoke events?
believe New York needs a better early warning and public information system for wildfire smoke events. People should receive clear information as early as possible about expected air quality, health risks and appropriate precautions. When air quality reaches dangerous levels, there should also be clear guidelines for schools, outdoor activities and outdoor workers to limit unnecessary exposure. The goal should be simple: give people accurate information early and have common sense protections in place when conditions become unsafe.
Q9 New York is the second largest recipient of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Proposed federal budgets would significantly reduce NIH funds going to New York hospitals, universities, and research institutions. Where do you stand on the proposed changes to NIH funding levels, and what steps, if any, would you take to address their potential effect on New York’s research sector?
I oppose significant cuts to NIH funding. New York is a national leader in medical research, and this funding supports our hospitals, universities, scientists and the development of new treatments and technologies. With my background in healthcare, I understand how important continued medical research and innovation are to both patients and our economy. As a State Senator, I would advocate for protecting New York’s research institutions and work with our federal representatives to preserve critical NIH investment. We should be finding efficiencies in government, but cutting productive medical research that can improve and save lives is not where I would start.