Asm. Paula Bologna

Expressed concern that restricting only state-chartered institutions creates an uneven playing field disadvantaging them against federally-chartered banks, and raised fairness issues with exempting EBT users from fees while other consumers must pay them.

Questioned why the bill applies only to casinos and colleges when other venues like sports stadiums also create captive audiences with no reentry.

Raised concerns about filter maintenance compliance, noting that one-third of dryer fires result from uncleaned filters. Also questioned the actual cost increase to consumers for washing machines with built-in filters and expressed concern about affordability impacts on everyday residents.

Raised concerns that the bill places creditors in an impossible position by requiring them to determine coercion without investigating the accused party, relying on potentially hearsay evidence, and facing potential litigation costs. Noted the bill contains contradictory language and questioned whether lenders might respond by tightening credit standards, making loans harder to obtain.

Stated the bill fixes an OCM mistake but does not address surging marijuana use, drugged driving, mental health impacts, or addiction concerns; noted other cannabis-related bills remain in committee.

Voted no based on dismissive treatment of questions during debate and bill's failure to address meaningful issues like affordability and child care facing constituents.

Raised concerns about leaving the definition of "developmentally appropriate" to State Education without explicit guidance in the bill. Noted that in small districts with K-12 in one building, the same book may be appropriate for high school seniors but not younger students. Questioned what safeguards exist and what exactly the legislation accomplishes.

Argued the bill would hyper-politicize local town judiciaries. Noted that in his district, judges traditionally run on every line to maintain optics of neutrality. Cited trusted party and judicial leaders opposing the bill as evidence it harms judicial neutrality.

The bill creates security gaps by not exempting State law enforcement investigations into fraud, terrorism, and money laundering. It may tip off criminals and burden State-chartered banks, which are already endangered species competing with Federal institutions. The language is ambiguous about what constitutes adequate notice and lacks clarity on law enforcement carve-outs.

Raised concerns about lack of exemptions for State law enforcement investigations into fraud, money laundering, RICO, and terrorism. Worried the 60-day notice could tip off criminals to flee. Also expressed concern that the bill disproportionately burdens State-chartered banks and credit unions, which are already endangered species in New York, while Federal-chartered banks face no such restrictions.

Raised practical concerns about ambiguous grounds for denial, including electrical capacity limits, plumbing modifications, and garbage disposal specifications. He questioned whether the bill adequately protects landlords from liability and infrastructure damage.

Noted that senior landlords relying on rental income for retirement may not be aware of the new written lease requirement, creating an unfair burden; also questioned whether the $20 cap adequately covers bank fees like M&T's $35 charge.

Questioned whether the Code Council has sufficient geographic diversity and whether local municipalities have meaningful discretion. Expressed concern that an appointed board will override local building inspectors and that the bill's flexibility language is vague.