Republican Dan Stec represents New York’s 45th Senate district, which stretches from the Canadian border south to Saratoga Springs and from the St. Lawrence River east to the Vermont border.
He refers to himself as right of center and has been critical of Governor Hochul and state Democrats’ fiscal policies. Stec, who ran unopposed for re-election, tells WAMC North Country Bureau Chief Pat Bradley that a key concern in his district is affordability:
Certainly Albany has an impact on some of that. Obviously through taxation, through things that we spend. The federal government has more monetary policy. They move the inflation needle a lot more than Albany does. But you know how Albany spends money, how much our budget is, things that we mandate and regulate, you know the direction we're going in energy policy hasn't necessarily had the impact it's going to yet, but that's coming. But people are very concerned about affordability. Outside of that our education is a large part of our budget and it seems like that dominates a lot of the discussion. Maybe not individual voters but the schools and the school districts. In this past year when Governor Hochul wanted to fundamentally change foundation aid and get rid of hold harmless, that hit the North Country particularly hard, rural school districts, certainly hard. Half of my 48 districts would have lost money due to that change in formula. She backed off of that. But, you know, it's still on the table as far as for discussion. So you know, I'm sure that coming up that's going to continue to be another issue. But then infrastructure. You know, cell service, broadband is better than before. You know, I mean, you know, I don't want to say, oh, we haven't done anything or I won't even say we haven't done a good job. But it's not done and there are still people that are frustrated by the lack of service. And so I continue to focus on that, because I do know that the closer we get to getting that done, other leaders in Albany will start to pivot to other issues, and there are other issues, so I'm trying to push this while they're still focused on it. But cellular service and broadband are certainly an infrastructure, roads and bridges. Again, not sexy stuff. But you know, those are the things that affect all of us and those are the things that I hear about from people.
So about a week after the session starts on the 8th you'll hear the governor's budget address. What do you anticipate versus what you would like to hear and have in that budget?
So you know, in the last year certainly since session ended in June, I think the Governor has had a rough go with members of her own party and some issues going on in New York City. And I think that some financial realities are starting to come home to Albany. So she's going to have an interesting tight rope, I think, to walk where the fiscally responsible direction to go is going to be met with resistance from the majorities of her own party, predominantly from New York City, pushing her to spend more. I also think, and again the budget presentation will spill over to other non-financial matters, there has been and there will continue to be the talk of Trump-proofing. You know, it seems like a lot of blue states and blue cities are obsessed with Trump-proving themselves. I'm not sure I understand 100% what that means. I got an idea. You know, this is going to translate to crime policy, illegal immigration and sanctuary city policies. We're going to continue to see that. Although, you know, there's been some tragedy in New York City on the subway involving illegal migrants, and most recently a woman that was burned alive in the subway system by somebody that was here illegally. So it'll be an interesting debate. And I think that Governor Hochul is going to try to, she'll be, she'll be more to the center than I think her two majorities in the Senate and the Assembly will be. You know, I mean, my conference, we've got positions staked out on a lot of this stuff, too. We'll welcome a partnership if the governor wants to see things our way or if we can help each other and making sure that we correct this course that we're on. But I suspect that, you know, a lot of resistance to any moderation of fiscal policy or sanctuary state policies is going to be opposed by the Democratic majorities.
Do you see the Republicans having any sort of inroads into any sort of crack in the Democratic majority?
Well, so, the in the Assembly, the House or the Assembly Republicans lost one seat in the election and in the Senate we gained one. So it was more or less the status quo. I mean, if you're going to look at the election, you'll also see that President Trump did better than he had previously or better than any other recent Republican presidential candidates. So I think Republicans have made progress, particularly in New York City. Our new member in the state senate is a Senator Steve Chan and he's from New York City. He's a Marine Corps veteran. Nice guy. But, you know, he's from one of the five boroughs. And you know, so I think that we've made inroads there. But, you know, certainly there's inroads and then there's wins, you know, and we need to make some wins. I do think, though, that with the incoming Trump administration, and, you know, Senate and House in Republican control, that that puts Republicans, I think, in a better position. That we do have federal partners backing us up on their agenda. But you know, certainly their agenda that we would support, or, you know, argue for here. So, while we may not have the leverage ourselves having President Trump saying, hey, this is what I'm doing with immigration. This is what's going to happen whether you like it or not. I mean, I hope it doesn't come to that, but, you know, he's got strings and levers that he can pull that I think will help Republicans in Albany fight for what we think is a moderation in some of the policies that we've seen lately.
A lot of your criticisms are fiscal, things like Governor Hochul’s plan to send $500 refund checks to...
I mean that's a gimmick, you know, that's politics and that's a gimmick. And the cost of doing that is just, you know, I mean individual checks and, I mean, it's just, how about we just cut some spending somewhere? There's other ways to do this. This is a campaign gimmick. But, you know, she's already looking to two years from now and on the one hand, she's got to worry about a Republican opponent but she also, frankly, has to worry about a challenge from the left.
But that's typical.
Oh yeah.
I mean, everybody is looking two years out almost as soon as they're in office.
Two years, two years goes by so fast. It sure does.
One of the other things: you wrote to NYSERDA asking for the true cost...
Yes.
...of implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. For people who are not familiar with that, that's the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law. You cited an Empire Center Report saying that it will cost between $280 and $340 billion. Is the cost the only concern that you have about that law?
Well, I mean, certainly again you know, you led with questions about what am I hearing out there? People are concerned about the cost of energy. You know, the Public Service Commission’s considering rate increases for National Grid. And these are preliminary moves that National Grid is doing. This is tip of the iceberg stuff as far as what they're going to be asking from the Public Service Commission and the public's already reacting to that. So you know affordability and the cost versus benefit. And what is the atmosphere gained by our energy law versus what does our individual rate payer, taxpayer, the health of the state suffer? Regardless of whether my skepticism is warranted or not, the state of New York ought to be able to answer a simple question: what is the price tag on this? I've asked the Public Service Commission at budget hearings each of the last two years about that Empire report and that estimate and what is the your estimate? And the answer I get from them is, well, we don't have a precise dollar amount but the cost of doing nothing is greater. Next time they pull, well first of all, I wrote them a letter saying I'm tired of that answer. I'm telling you now in November that I'm asking this question in February so be ready for it. I mean, that was the gist of the letter that I sent them. I worded it nicely like that but that the plain read of that is stop hand waving and give me a real number and I'm going to give you a three months head start on it. But if I get that answer, well, the cost of doing nothing, I'm going to stop them and I'm going to say that implies that you know what those two numbers are. Because if you're going to say one is greater than the other then you must know what those numbers are. But at the end of the day, you know, we're 4% of total carbon emissions. New York State is. If we went cold turkey and didn't emit any more carbon, we don't move the needle on the atmospheric composition. And you know, my colleagues on the other side will quickly say, well, but we're going to do the right thing and we're going to lead. Pennsylvania and Ohio don't care what New York's energy policy is and if they don't I guarantee you Russia, China and India don't either. So again, I'm not saying bah-humbug on the environment. I'm a son of a forest ranger. I'm a 46er. I got a child on this planet as many of us do. I care about being a good steward to the land. I don't want to be wasteful. You know, I don't want rivers on fire and I mean all those messages that I grew up with seeing on television, the public service. None of us want that. But what I want is an honest conversation and an assessment: what are we doing? What is it going to cost and what do we gain if we spend that? And right now, from what I've seen, I don't think that the benefits override the cost. But if I'm wrong, prove to me that I'm wrong. Don't just lecture me in saying well I'm doing right by the planet. The voters and the people that are paying the bill deserve a better answer. And so I do have legislation that would mandate that they have to come up with a cost analysis and it would also delay the implementation 10 years. Because, frankly, from everything that I've read from Comptroller DiNapoli’s report to other independent reports, we are way behind on the timeline. So there's no way we're going to make the timelines on the CLCPA. That's human nature. That's the nature of bureaucracy. Driving up here to Plattsburgh, I get on the Northway at Exit 20, and that hill between Exit 22 and 23 going up between Lake George and Warrensburg, it took a year to rebuild those overpasses. That's one pair of overpasses on the interstate. It took a year to do it and it was a traffic disaster. What makes the people think that the state of New York is going to completely redo the electric grid and electric charging for busses and all that? Maybe with enough time, but not on the timelines where we're going to be in a position where all new construction is going to be electric only in the next couple years. We're not there. And so, you know, until they're realistic and honest with what can we do and what can't we do? What can we and can't we afford and what do we really gain as a planet in doing this? You know, again, I mean, I'm just not opposed because it's an idea from the left. I'm looking at this as an engineer, as somebody that's got an energy background and just somebody that lives on the planet and I know the nature of state bureaucracy. We don't do anything quickly, except maybe get ourselves into trouble. So we need to be honest with these costs and that's been my plea to the Public Service Commission.
Talking about other costs. One of the things I'm curious about is you've been opposed to congestion pricing. But that's down in New York City. Your district doesn't...
Sure.
...apply really to congestion pricing. So why are you so outspoken about it?
Well, it's a tax. It's a tax on working people, on a working class. It is a boondoggle. It will be crushing to people there. I mean, my colleagues from New York City get an awful lot of say so on Adirondack Park issues too, don't they? And again, this isn't a tit for tat here. This is my job. My responsibility is statewide. Of course, it's not a local issue for me. But I'm being asked do I see value in raising this tax in order to promote, what fewer cars entering New York City? And will that money be well spent? The MTA is black hole and it's a waste of money and a lot of state resources are going into the MTA. And if there's state resources going into MTA, guess where they're not coming. They're not coming to broadband and cell in the North Country. They're not coming to fix that overpass on the Northway between Lake George and Warrensburg that I like to talk about all the time. This is money that isn't being well spent. It's not being well audited or cared for. The MTA is a disaster. But this is going to be a crippling tax, a very regressive tax, on the working person that's trying to commute in and out of the city.
Dan Stec, you talked about a bill that you're planning to put forward requiring the cost analysis.
Well, it's in already. I don't have the bill number memorized, but I do. It's in already.
What other bills are you planning to introduce, reintroduce or sponsor in the upcoming session?
Yep, certainly. You know, representing six counties, 84 towns, 20 villages and two cities there's always a routine and this is the time of year where we're collecting those bill requests. One that's new and very relevant here is the Town of Plattsburgh. Supervisor Michael Cashman and his town board has asked for an occupancy tax bill that requires state legislative approval. So Assemblyman (D. Billy) Jones and I and Michael Cashman had a conversation a couple weeks about that, and we will be carrying that bill. That's a new. But there's a lot of the routine extenders for various property taxes, mortgage tax, sales tax kind of thing. But the main thrust, I think, of the legislative session always falls around the budget, and you know what is and isn't in the budget. And so where it might not be sometimes individual bills get rolled into. I've got another bill that we're continuing to struggle with getting passed, but it'll likely if it happens, it'll be part of the budget. Boquet Valley Schools. So they voted to merge a few years ago and they were going to build a new building. There was some sort of confusion somewhere between the school and State Ed department and their consultants as to what was and wasn't aidable by the state for the new building. We are trying to help them figure that out. And really what this is going to translate to is additional funds for the school to build the building that they are looking to build. So that's a bill that I've put in. I will put that in again but that's also something that we're trying to work into the budget conversations. So we've been talking to State Ed and the Department of Budget. Those are probably the two of the more significant local bills that we'll be working on.
