Question 1:
The Regional Transportation Commission owns the rail corridor. The RTC has unanimously affirmed its commitment to institute high capacity public transit service on the Santa Cruz Branch Line. Do you support implementing electric passenger rail on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line?

Yes

Why or why not? How would this position be expressed in your work, should you be elected?

I support keeping zero-emissions passenger rail as part of the long-term vision for the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line. That is one reason I voted no on Measure D in 2022. I did not support giving up the right of way, because once that corridor is lost, the chance for future passenger rail is lost with it. At the same time, we have to be honest about where things stand. Rail must be pursued in a way that is financially and operationally realistic and fair to South County. If elected, I would support preserving the corridor and developing rail, continuing to build out the trail, and making sure Watsonville and the Pajaro Valley see real benefits now instead of being asked to wait indefinitely. My position is simple: keep the vision alive, protect the public right of way, make progress where we can today, and ensure future transit investment is grounded in equity, practicality, and service.


Question 2:
Construction has begun on the trail next to the tracks, but some segments have faced opposition and resulting delays. Do you support building a trail next to the tracks from Davenport to Watsonville?

Yes.

How would this position be expressed in your work, should you be elected? What will you say to your constituents about this project?

I support the vision of a connected trail next to the tracks from Davenport to Watsonville. But I also think we need to be honest that parts of the current plan have already moved away from that vision. In Watsonville, for example, the trail is planned to go out to San Andreas Road instead of staying alongside the rail corridor. If elected, I would support moving the project forward, while pushing for transparency, protecting the right of way, and making sure South County is not asked to accept a lesser version of the project. I’ll be clear with constituents: I support the vision, but I’ll also fight for a fairer and more faithful execution of it.


Question 3:
Neighborhoods with safe streets, bike lanes, and sidewalks create room for us to move freely without our cars. Do you support improved street infrastructure to protect pedestrians and cyclists?

Yes.

How would you support or prioritize projects, policies and funding to improve safety and infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists?

If we want safer streets, we need real infrastructure changes. That means better sidewalks, protected bike lanes, safer crossings, traffic calming, and road designs that put people first. Too many of our streets were built to move cars quickly, not to protect pedestrians, cyclists, or families trying to get where they need to go safely.

But this is also bigger than street design alone. We need to reduce the need for long commutes in the first place by bringing more services, amenities, and everyday destinations into South County. When people can get to childcare, groceries, parks, health care, and jobs closer to home, they are less forced to drive everywhere. If elected, I would support projects and funding that make our streets safer now while also pushing for smarter land use and investment that gives South County residents more chances to walk, bike, and live closer to what they need.


Question 4:
The June 2022 Greenway Measure D sought to “rail bank” and tear up the tracks for a trail only. Did you oppose the June 2022 Ballot Measure D?

Yes (opposed).

What do you think are the implications of the 73% defeat of measure D?

I opposed Measure D. I did not support rail banking and tearing up the tracks for a trail-only project because I believe preserving the rail corridor matters. Once that right of way is given up, the opportunity for future passenger rail is gone.

I think the 73% defeat of Measure D showed that the county still believes in preserving the rail corridor and, like me, wanted to continue down this path rather than close the door on future rail service. But that vote was not a blank check to move forward without scrutiny. Now that the costs of rail are coming more clearly into focus, we have to be honest with the public about what this project will require, what the tradeoffs may be, and how those decisions could affect affordability in the county. That is especially important for lower-income residents who may not directly benefit from rail but could still bear some of the financial burden. Going forward, transparency, accountability, and equity have to be central to every step.


Question 5:
The California Coastal Commission recognizes the value of both freight and passenger rail in the coastal zone for environmental and coastal access reasons. Freight rail capability is important infrastructure for disaster preparedness and recovery.

Will you commit to oppose any efforts to abandon or remove railroad infrastructure during your term?

No.

How would this position be expressed in your work, should you be elected?

I support protecting freight capability in Watsonville, where there are still active customers who rely on it. But we also need to be honest about the current situation. Freight use outside Watsonville is very limited, and we have already seen how hard it has been to keep the broader rail-and-trail project on schedule and within budget. As costs rose, the RTC warned it could lose major grant funding if it did not move to a buildable option, which is why it shifted mid-county segments to an interim trail approach. At the same time, preserving the corridor remains important. I still believe in rail, but the public deserves honesty about the fact that the path to completion may not be a straight line. We need transparency about costs, tradeoffs, and the practical steps it will take to make that vision real.