Asm. Michael Durso

Local school boards are elected by parents to protect children and are the closest elected officials to schools. Granting all power to the Commissioner circumvents local control and elected representation.

Questioned why the requirement was reduced so drastically and raised concerns about fraud risk in online-only transactions without brick-and-mortar verification of licenses, insurance, and age. Argued that higher insurance is necessary to protect the public when companies cannot verify driver qualifications or vehicle maintenance.

Argued the bill amounts to false advertising and gives party bosses gatekeeping power over judicial candidates. Contended judges should represent all parties and people, not be restricted to one party's values. Questioned why judicial candidates—who should be apolitical—would be prohibited from running on multiple lines.

Questioned whether corrections facilities would be included under the broad 'law enforcement' definition, raised concerns about realtime reporting creating public danger by drawing crowds to incident scenes, and questioned the enforcement mechanism for determining what constitutes sensitive information.

Raised concerns about officer and public safety, arguing that the bill is too broad in its definition of law enforcement and does not adequately specify what constitutes sensitive information. Expressed concern that discretion is left to individual officers with Department of State review coming after the fact.

Argued the bill fails to protect riders because notifications lack specificity (no train car numbers, times, or dates), effectively giving the MTA legal cover while leaving riders unprotected. Compared it to a weatherman announcing a storm without saying where it will occur. Stated the bill protects the MTA rather than riders.

Questioned the bill's readiness, citing concerns about doctor shopping and the definition of terminal illness. Noted the contradiction between the state's $1 billion annual investment in suicide prevention and passage of this bill, and referenced the Senate sponsor's separate Suicide Prevention Act.

Pointed out that New York has 39 not-for-profit and 2 for-profit hospice providers but severe shortages of care, with patients waiting months for services. Argued the bill discourages expansion by good-performing for-profit providers without evidence that new for-profit entrants would provide poor care. Questioned why the legislature would shrink the pool of potential providers.

Voted against the bill, stating the state has no clear plan for how many facilities will open within the year and that the program misses the mark because the state is not properly set up with facilities to handle food scraps.

Raised concerns about costs to individual homeowners, the exemption for affordable housing projects receiving State funding and tax breaks while requiring private homeowners to comply, lack of utility company feedback on grid capacity, and the inconsistency of requiring individual builders to install infrastructure while exempting large projects.

Questioned feasibility and cost impacts, particularly regarding electrical infrastructure requirements and whether utilities were consulted on grid capacity.

Durso opposed the bill on consistency grounds, noting it requires single-family homeowners to install chargers but doesn't require multi-unit building developers to do so, and argued the market should determine adoption rather than mandates.

Durso raised concerns about costs to homeowners for electrical work, questioned the exemption for affordable housing projects receiving State funding and tax breaks, and argued that private homeowners should receive the same tax incentives as contractors building affordable housing.

Questioned feasibility and whether utilities and grid can handle the infrastructure demands, suggesting a feasibility study should precede the mandate.

Criticized inconsistency in the bill, noting it requires single-family homeowners to install charging but does not require multi-unit apartment builders to do so, and argued the market should decide rather than government mandates.

Expressed concern that projects under $25 million lack adequate labor protections, questioning what specific labor standards apply when PLAs are not required and Wicks is exempted.

Raised concerns that the bill limits access for roughly half the state's population due to distance, time, and financial constraints, and noted the bill's language is ambiguous regarding which legislature and which maps are covered.

Questioned the independence of the redistricting process, noting that final maps closely resemble the previous year's maps despite being substantially different from draft maps, and argued the state should develop a better mechanism for creating truly independent districts.