Planet Detroit Candidate Survey
What are the three most pressing environmental issues facing the communities you seek to serve? Please rank them in order of priority and briefly explain why you chose each.
1. Clean Water and Water Protection
Water is Michigan's greatest natural resource. Every family deserves safe drinking water free from contaminants like PFAS and microplastics, and we must protect our lakes, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater from pollution. Once these resources are damaged, the costs to communities can last for generations.
2. Sustainable Agriculture and Protecting Farmland
Agriculture is a cornerstone of our district and Michigan's economy. We need to help small and medium-sized farmers remain profitable while protecting soil health, water quality, and open space. Good environmental policy should work with farmers, not against them, because they are some of our best stewards of the land. Protecting farmland also strengthens local food systems and helps preserve Michigan's rural communities.
3. Energy Independence and Climate Change
Climate change is creating real challenges through stronger storms, changing growing seasons, increasing wildfire risk, and greater strain on infrastructure. Michigan should continue transitioning to cleaner energy while giving homeowners, farms, schools, and local communities more opportunities to generate and store their own power. Building a cleaner grid should also mean giving people more energy independence—not simply shifting dependence from one energy source to another.
Michigan law requires utilities to reach 100% clean energy by 2040. If elected, would you support maintaining this law, or would you support revising or repealing it? Please explain your position.
I support maintaining Michigan's goal of reaching 100% clean energy by 2040, and I would like to see us get there sooner if we can do it while keeping energy affordable and reliable.
But I don't want us to focus only on how utilities generate electricity. I want Michigan families to have more control over how they generate, store, and use energy themselves.
That means expanding access to cleaner energy options that work for individual homes and communities. Depending on the location, those options could include solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale hydropower, and energy storage. We should also expand community energy programs so residents who cannot install their own systems can share in the benefits.
It also means helping families improve the efficiency of their existing homes so they're using less energy and spending less money each month.
We need to hold utilities accountable throughout this transition. Families shouldn't be asked to continually absorb higher rates while waiting for the benefits of new energy investments.
For me, reaching our clean-energy goals and achieving greater energy independence go hand in hand. We should be building an energy system that is cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable while giving Michigan residents greater control over their own energy future.
More than two dozen Michigan communities are considering or have approved large-scale data center developments. These facilities can consume as much electricity as a small city and place significant demands on local water and energy infrastructure. What role should state government play in overseeing data center development, and what guardrails should the state legislature enact to protect communities where data centers are proposed?
I support a temporary pause on new hyperscale data center approvals until Michigan establishes clear, enforceable statewide protections. We need to establish the rules before projects are approved, rather than trying to fix problems after they're built.
Those statewide standards should cover water use, wastewater, noise, air quality, energy demand, infrastructure, environmental monitoring, emergency preparedness, and the long-term impacts on surrounding communities.
Statewide protections should be the minimum, not the maximum. Local communities should have the authority to establish stronger safeguards and determine whether a proposed development is right for their community.
Developers and operators should be responsible for the full costs their projects create. That includes additional energy generation and grid capacity, water infrastructure, emergency services and specialized equipment, ongoing environmental monitoring, and eventual decommissioning and land restoration. Residents and existing businesses should not be left paying those costs.
I would also end Michigan's special sales and use tax exemptions for data centers. Companies proposing multibillion-dollar developments should contribute their fair share and demonstrate lasting value to the communities where they operate.
Oversight also needs to continue after construction. I support independent environmental monitoring, publicly available results, and meaningful penalties when companies fail to meet their obligations. Enforcement needs to be strong enough to ensure that following the rules is less expensive than breaking them.
Communities deserve complete information about a project's impacts before decisions are made, including how it could affect their drinking water, utility bills, property values, public safety, and quality of life.
Michigan can pursue economic development while establishing clear expectations for companies that want to operate here. The people who already live and work in our communities deserve a meaningful voice in those decisions and protections that last throughout a project's lifetime.
PFAS contamination has been detected in drinking water, groundwater, and surface water across Michigan. Cleanup efforts are underway, but many affected communities are still waiting for action. What is the single most important step the officeholder in this position should take on PFAS in the next term?
My first priority would be establishing a fully funded, statewide plan to ensure communities affected by PFAS have access to safe drinking water while we identify and clean up the contamination.
We need to know where the problems are, which communities are at risk, and what it's going to take to fix them. That means expanding testing, making the results easily accessible to residents, and establishing clear timelines for cleanup.
Most importantly, families shouldn't have to wait years for a permanent solution while worrying about the water coming out of their taps. Where contamination is discovered, we need to provide safe drinking water immediately while long-term cleanup moves forward.
I would also work to make sure the companies responsible for contamination pay for the damage they've caused rather than leaving Michigan taxpayers to cover the bill.
Clean drinking water shouldn't depend on where you live or how long your community has been waiting for help.
Michigan residents in some communities face disproportionate exposure to air pollution, contaminated water, and industrial waste. Do you support requiring Michigan regulators to assess cumulative environmental and health impacts on overburdened communities before approving new permits for polluting facilities?
Yes. We cannot continue evaluating each new development as though it's the only source of pollution in a community.
Before approving new permits, Michigan regulators should be required to consider the combined environmental and public health impacts of existing facilities and the proposed development, particularly in communities already dealing with high levels of pollution.
That means looking at air quality, water contamination, industrial waste, and the potential effects on residents' health and quality of life.
We need to understand the full impact before granting approvals, not wait until additional pollution creates problems that families and communities are left trying to fix.
Utility rate cases directly affect what Michigan residents pay for electricity and gas. DTE and Consumers Energy have requested frequent significant rate increases in recent years. Should elected officials play a greater role in holding utility companies accountable for rate hikes and rising energy costs?
Yes. Michigan families shouldn't have to keep paying more for electricity and gas without seeing meaningful improvements in reliability and service.
We need to get utility money out of politics. Companies shouldn't be able to use political contributions to gain influence over the same elected officials responsible for overseeing them. I support stronger restrictions on utility political contributions and greater transparency around utility lobbying.
I would also push for stronger oversight of utility spending, including independent reviews of major investments and clearer reporting on how approved rate increases are being spent. We need to distinguish between investments that actually improve reliability and infrastructure and expenses that should be the responsibility of shareholders.
Utilities should be held accountable for delivering the improvements customers have already paid for. When they fail to meet their commitments, there should be meaningful consequences.
We also need to give Michigan families more control over their energy costs. That means expanding access to cleaner energy options, household and community energy generation, energy storage, and programs that improve the efficiency of existing homes.
Every rate increase should be justified, every dollar accounted for, and every investment should deliver real benefits to the people paying the bills. Our elected officials have a responsibility to represent those families, not the companies collecting their payments.
Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline runs through the Straits of Mackinac and carries crude oil and natural gas liquids between Wisconsin and Ontario. A proposed tunnel beneath the lakebed to house a replacement pipeline has faced legal and regulatory challenges for years. What is your position on the future of Line 5?
Michigan's fresh water is one of our greatest natural resources, and protecting the Great Lakes needs to come first.
I believe we should prioritize finding a safer long-term alternative to Line 5 that doesn't put the Great Lakes at risk of an oil spill. That includes examining alternative routes and continuing to invest in cleaner energy and greater energy independence.
At a minimum, we need to get the existing aging pipelines off the lakebed as quickly and safely as possible.
If the proposed tunnel moves forward, it needs strong independent oversight, environmental safeguards, and accountability throughout construction and operation. We also need to fully consider alternatives rather than assuming the tunnel is our only option.
Any transition needs to account for the families and businesses that currently depend on the energy Line 5 transports. We should be planning ahead to meet those needs without continuing to put our freshwater resources at unnecessary risk.
Our long-term goal should be an energy system that meets Michigan's needs while protecting the Great Lakes for future generations.
Drinking water is becoming increasingly unaffordable for Michiganders in both rural and urban areas, leading to water shutoffs. Would you support legislation that caps water bills for low-income Michiganders and adds shutoff protections?
Yes. Access to clean drinking water is a basic necessity, and families shouldn't lose that access simply because they're struggling financially.
I support legislation that limits water bills for low-income households based on their ability to pay and establishes stronger protections against residential water shutoffs. Families experiencing financial hardship should have access to affordable payment plans and assistance before losing an essential service.
We also need to address why water bills are increasing in the first place. Aging infrastructure, contamination, and necessary system upgrades can create significant costs. I support greater transparency in water rates, investments in maintaining our existing infrastructure, and funding that helps communities make essential improvements without placing the entire burden on residents.
In rural communities, we also need to recognize that many families depend on private wells. Those households deserve access to affordable water testing and assistance when contamination threatens their drinking water.
I would also work to hold companies responsible when their activities contaminate our water supplies. Residents shouldn't be left paying to clean up pollution they didn't create.
Whether you live in a city, a small town, or a rural community, you should have access to safe, affordable drinking water. Protecting that access is a responsibility we share across Michigan.
Michigan is home to more than 18,000 contaminated sites. Do you support or oppose legislation to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up these sites?
I support legislation that holds polluters accountable for cleaning up the contamination they create.
Michigan families and communities shouldn't be left paying to clean up pollution they didn't cause. Companies need to be held responsible for the environmental damage their operations create, including the costs of cleanup, long-term monitoring, and restoring affected land and water.
We also need a plan for contaminated sites where the responsible company no longer exists or cannot be held accountable. That's where I would explore a dedicated environmental protection fund, supported in part by industries whose operations present significant environmental risks.
That fund would help Michigan address existing contamination and respond to future environmental emergencies without leaving affected communities waiting indefinitely for action.
Our goal should be to prevent pollution in the first place, hold those responsible accountable when it happens, and make sure Michigan communities aren't left dealing with the consequences for generations.
Data center proposals have multiplied across Michigan since the spring, and it is by far the most common topic readers have asked candidates about. Would you support a pause on new hyperscale data center approvals until state guardrails on water use, noise, utility rate impacts, and local approval are in place? Please explain, including whether data centers should keep their state tax breaks, whether local communities should be able to reject them, and whether they should pay the full cost of the grid and water capacity they require.
Yes
Yes. I support a temporary pause on new hyperscale data center approvals until Michigan establishes minimum statewide protections for water, noise, energy, infrastructure, environmental impacts, public safety, and quality of life. We need to establish the rules before these projects are approved, not try to fix problems after the damage is done.
Those statewide standards should be a starting point, not the limit. Local communities should have the authority to establish stronger protections and, ultimately, decide whether a proposed development is right for their community.
Developers and operators should be responsible for the full costs their projects create. That includes additional energy generation and grid capacity, water infrastructure, emergency services and specialized equipment, environmental monitoring, and restoring the land when the facility is no longer in use.
Our residents and existing businesses shouldn't be left paying for these costs, whether that's through higher utility bills, increased local taxes, or expenses left behind after a facility closes.
I would also end Michigan's special sales and use tax exemptions for data centers. Companies proposing multibillion-dollar developments shouldn't automatically receive decades of special tax treatment. They should pay their fair share and demonstrate lasting value to the communities where they operate.
If high-energy-demand projects want to come to our towns, we need to make sure we're protecting the health, property values, natural resources, and quality of life of the people who already call these communities home. Economic development should strengthen our communities, not leave them carrying the costs and risks.
Communities near heavy industry see frequent air quality alerts, wildfire smoke now adds unhealthy-air days statewide, and EGLE has limited staff to inspect facilities and enforce permits. Do you support stronger air pollution enforcement, such as higher penalties for repeat violators or emission limits on unhealthy-air days? What specifically would you do to protect vulnerable residents, including those in the most polluted zip codes, on those days?
Yes. Having air quality standards means very little if we don't have the resources to enforce them. I support giving EGLE the staffing and tools it needs to monitor facilities, respond to complaints, and hold polluters accountable.
I also believe repeat offenders should face stronger penalties. We cannot allow companies to treat fines as just another cost of doing business.
When our air becomes unhealthy, we need a plan that protects people, especially those who already live near heavy industry. That includes requiring facilities to reduce emissions on unhealthy-air days when those reductions would actually improve local air quality.
We also need to do a better job of monitoring the communities facing the greatest risks. I'd support expanding local air monitoring, providing timely and easy-to-understand alerts, and working with schools, health departments, and community organizations to make sure vulnerable residents know what's happening and have access to safe indoor spaces.
And we need to look at the bigger picture. When multiple industrial facilities operate in the same area, we can't evaluate each one as though the others don't exist. We need to consider the combined impact on the people living there.
Protecting our air shouldn't depend on your ZIP code. Whether you live near an industrial facility or in a rural community dealing with wildfire smoke, you deserve to know the air you're breathing is safe and that your government is taking meaningful steps to protect you.
Michigan is already seeing more extreme heat, storms, and flooding, and households pay some of the highest electric rates in the Midwest for some of the least reliable service. What specific steps would you take in your first term toward the MI Healthy Climate Plan goals, and would you support community solar and expanded weatherization so residents can own or share in clean power and lower their bills?
Yes. I support expanding community solar and weatherization because I believe Michigan families should have more control over how they produce energy, how much they use, and what they pay for it.
For me, energy independence starts at home. We have an opportunity to lower household expenses, improve our existing housing, and move toward cleaner energy at the same time.
During my first term, I would focus on three areas.
First, give Michigan families more freedom to generate and store their own energy. That means removing unnecessary barriers to rooftop solar, battery storage, and other household energy technologies. I also support community solar so renters, families who cannot afford solar panels, and homeowners whose properties aren't suitable for solar can share in the benefits of locally generated energy.
Second, invest in improving the homes we already have. Too many families live in older homes with inadequate insulation, outdated heating and cooling systems, and expensive energy bills. I support expanding weatherization and home improvement assistance, particularly for seniors and lower-income households. These investments should help families make lasting improvements to their homes rather than simply providing temporary relief from high utility bills.
Third, hold our utilities accountable for affordability and reliability. As we transition toward cleaner energy, we need to make sure families benefit from those investments. I support stronger oversight of utility spending and rate increases, investments in a more reliable electric grid, and greater opportunities for households and communities to produce and store their own power.
I also believe we need to prepare our communities for increasingly extreme weather. Improving home efficiency, strengthening our infrastructure, and expanding local energy generation and storage can help protect families when temperatures rise or storms interrupt service.
Michigan's climate goals should translate into real improvements in people's everyday lives: lower monthly expenses, healthier homes, reliable electricity, and greater control over their own energy future.
Federal cuts to EPA staffing, enforcement, and Great Lakes funding are shifting responsibility for air, water, and public health protection to the states. Should Michigan backfill that funding and enforcement, and how would you pay for it? What would you do to make Michigan's own environmental protections durable against future rollbacks?
Yes, Federal funding cuts shouldn't leave Michigan communities without the protections they depend on. We need to identify which essential programs are affected and make sure we can continue monitoring pollution, enforcing environmental standards, protecting our drinking water, and cleaning up contaminated sites.
I would explore establishing a dedicated Michigan Environmental Protection Fund to give our state a more dependable source of funding for these responsibilities.
Michigan already has a successful example in the Natural Resources Trust Fund, which uses revenue generated from our natural resources to invest in protecting them. I would explore a similar approach through a separate fund focused on environmental protection, monitoring, cleanup, and emergency preparedness.
Potential funding sources could include reasonable adjustments to environmental permit and inspection fees, along with contributions from industries whose operations present significant environmental risks. The fund should maintain reserves so Michigan can respond to future environmental emergencies without waiting for emergency appropriations.
This would not replace polluter accountability. Companies responsible for contamination should still be required to pay for cleanup and restoration. The fund would help address existing contamination where responsible parties no longer exist, support ongoing environmental monitoring, and provide resources when an immediate response is needed.
I also want to ensure that any new fees are reasonable and transparent. We should protect Michigan's environment while maintaining opportunities for responsible Michigan businesses to grow.
Our goal should be to build a system that protects Michigan's natural resources regardless of changes in federal funding. We need dependable funding, clear accountability, and the ability to respond before environmental problems become much more expensive to fix.
Michigan's forests, wetlands, and public lands support clean water, wildlife, outdoor recreation, and flood protection, yet the DNR estimates nearly a billion dollars in backlogged capital needs. What are your top priorities for protecting these lands over the next term, including wetland and floodplain protection, groundwater withdrawals by bottlers, and native habitat, and how would you fund them?
Michigan's forests, wetlands, lakes, and public lands are part of what makes our state such a great place to live. They protect our drinking water, reduce flooding, support our farmers and wildlife, and provide places for families to enjoy the outdoors.
We need to protect what we have and take better care of it.
During my first term, I would focus on strengthening protections for wetlands and floodplains. These are natural systems that help prevent flooding and keep our water clean. When we allow development to destroy them, it's often homeowners and taxpayers who end up paying the price.
I also want to take a closer look at how we manage our groundwater, particularly when companies extract large amounts of water to bottle and sell. We need stronger monitoring and reporting to make sure these operations aren't putting nearby wells, wetlands, or our long-term water supply at risk.
And I believe there's an opportunity here to help fund conservation. If a company wants to profit from Michigan's natural resources, it should also invest in protecting what makes this state great. I would explore a fee based on the amount of groundwater extracted for commercial bottling, with that money going back into water protection, conservation, and maintaining our public lands.
We also need to protect our native habitats by preserving forests, wetlands, and wildlife corridors, addressing invasive species, and working with farmers and landowners who want to preserve their property.
To help address the DNR's maintenance backlog, I would protect our existing conservation funding while exploring additional revenue from commercial activities that depend heavily on our natural resources.
Protecting Michigan isn't just about preserving the places we enjoy today. It's about making sure our kids and future generations have those same opportunities.
Campaign Money
- Ideal Core Pilates LLC$100
Transactions reported to the Michigan Secretary of State through Aug 18, 2026 (Post-election 2026 campaign statement), summed for the 2025–26 cycle. Search the state database →