1) Campaign Email - Aj@driverforchange.com
2) Your Platform: Link to your website about housing - www.driverforchange.com
3) Your Community: Is your district suffering from a housing shortage?
Yes
4) Your Record: Are there pro-housing policies or specific housing developments you have supported in the past that you would like to highlight?
Yes. I have consistently supported policies that increase housing supply, expand affordability, and create mixed-income, transit-oriented communities. As a labor leader, I fought for economic policies like raising the minimum wage and expanding workers’ rights that help families secure stable housing. I have backed developments that add both market-rate and affordable units, especially near transit and job centers, and I have opposed efforts to block needed density through exclusionary or NIMBY politics. My record reflects a simple belief: we must build more housing of all types to lower costs and prevent displacement.
5) What are the primary hurdles facing building new housing in Illinois, and what are the best ways to resolve them?
Illinois faces several hurdles that slow or block new housing: restrictive local zoning, lengthy approval processes, high construction and financing costs, and persistent NIMBY pressure that stops needed density. These barriers limit supply, keep prices high, and push working families out of opportunity-rich neighborhoods.
To resolve this, we need state and federal incentives that encourage communities to legalize more housing types, especially near transit. We should streamline permitting, modernize zoning codes, and reduce unnecessary delays that drive up costs. We also need stronger public investment in affordable and workforce housing, paired with tools that make it easier to build mixed-income developments. Finally, we must push back against exclusionary practices and ensure that decisions about land use center the needs of renters, workers, and families who are being priced out.
6) If elected, what kind of policies would you propose or support at the federal level to increase housing production, including using federal preemption?
I would support federal policies that expand housing supply by tying federal funding to local reforms that allow more homes near transit, job centers, and high-opportunity areas. This includes using federal preemption to encourage states and municipalities to legalize multifamily housing, streamline permitting, and remove unnecessary barriers that restrict density.
I would also back major federal investments in affordable and workforce housing, incentives for mixed-income development, and financing tools that lower construction costs. The federal government should set clear standards that promote more housing of all types and ensure communities cannot block needed growth through exclusionary practices.
7) What is your position on the ROAD to Housing Act?
I support the ROAD to Housing Act because it takes meaningful steps to increase housing supply, reduce regulatory barriers, and expand financing for affordable and workforce housing. The bill promotes zoning reform, accelerates production, and invests in preserving existing homes. It is not a complete solution, but it moves federal policy in the right direction by prioritizing housing growth, stability, and affordability for working families.
8) The Build Now Act creates a carrot-and-stick system to modestly reallocate CDBG grants from high-cost-of-living municipalities that are blocking new housing to those that are facilitating it. Do you support tying federal infrastructure, housing, or transportation funds to local zoning and permitting reform? Why or why not?
Yes. When communities receive federal dollars, they should also take steps to allow the housing needed to meet local and regional demand. Tying certain funds to zoning and permitting reform is a reasonable way to encourage cities to legalize more housing types, reduce unnecessary delays, and prevent exclusionary practices that drive up costs. This approach helps ensure federal investments actually expand opportunity, support growth, and make housing more affordable for working families.
9) When it comes to increasing housing supply, what is the correct balance between local control and federal preemption?
Local governments should guide the details of land use, but the federal government has a responsibility to step in when local policies block needed housing and drive up costs. The right balance is to preserve local planning authority while using federal standards, incentives, and limited preemption to ensure communities allow enough homes near transit, jobs, and high-opportunity areas. Federal action should set a clear baseline for access, fairness, and adequate housing supply, while giving local governments flexibility in how they meet those goals.
10) Would you support a change to the allocation of Department of Transportation funding between public transportation and highways? What would be the optimal allocation between the two?
Yes. Federal transportation funding should better reflect how people actually move today and support growth in walkable, transit-rich communities. Public transportation has been underfunded for decades, while highway spending has dominated the budget.
An optimal balance would shift a larger share of federal dollars toward transit, rail, and multimodal infrastructure, while still maintaining essential highway repairs. A roughly 50–50 split between transit and highways would create a more sustainable, efficient system and support housing near reliable transportation. This shift would reduce congestion, lower emissions, and expand access to jobs for working families.
11) Other than CDBG grants, what are some other enforcement mechanisms the federal government can use to ensure state and local governments are building enough new homes to reverse the national housing shortage? How would you support these mechanisms?
The federal government can tie a portion of transportation, infrastructure, and competitive housing funds to local zoning and permitting reforms. It can also set baseline federal standards that require communities to allow more homes near transit, job centers, and high-opportunity areas. Strengthening fair housing enforcement and prioritizing federal financing for jurisdictions that expand supply are additional tools.
I would support these mechanisms because they create clear incentives for communities to remove barriers to new housing, boost production, and ensure federal investments translate into lower costs and more options for working families.
