Sen. Jack M. Martins

Opposed the bill as bad public policy, arguing it subsidizes affluent Battery Park City residents (median household income $228,000, average $355,000) while ignoring genuine affordability crises in lower-income areas like the Bronx ($50,000 median), Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Questioned why the state would make exceptions for wealthy neighborhoods.

Expressed concern that DHCR lacks sufficient resources and personnel to effectively implement the bill, noting the agency's current $5.6 million budget with only $2.7 million in personnel costs supports approximately 20 people handling inspections statewide. Argued the bill would require resource diversion from NYC enforcement and called for broader policy reconsideration regarding landlord-tenant laws that he contends have made it difficult for property owners to maintain buildings.

The bill is not an open government measure since local residents already know what's being built in their communities; it was prompted by one housing group in Onondaga County that wanted faster information assembly. It diverts resources from villages and towns to serve a special interest group and increases costs without addressing housing affordability.

The bill's definition of "beneficial owner" is overly broad and ambiguous, potentially capturing anyone from owners to property managers with check-signing authority, creating compliance uncertainty. Combined with existing DHCR penalties of $500 per day per unit for incomplete filings, property owners face significant financial risk for misinterpreting unclear requirements, and the bill's exclusion of NYCHA and other ownership structures undermines its stated goal of ensuring safe housing conditions.

Expressed concern that the bill fails to account for property maintenance disputes and neighbor impacts, noting that overgrowth on one property can affect adjacent properties and bring unwanted creatures to communities. Argued that local communities should retain decision-making authority rather than allowing individual property owners to unilaterally determine yard conditions.

Criticized the SEQRA provision as undermining local zoning and environmental review by presuming no impact for multifamily infill projects. Expressed concern about immigration provisions being removed from the budget.

Argued that corporate taxes are passed to consumers and that adding costs to propane companies will inevitably increase prices for consumers. He stated the bill ignores basic economics and that constituents are already struggling with spiking energy costs.

Argued the bill lessens protections for children by measuring from building entrances rather than property lines, and questioned why the legislature should cover for agency errors rather than enforce the original law.

Voted no, expressing concern that the chamber should consider policy impacts on ratepayers' ability to pay for energy before passing bills, citing consistent warnings about costs from policies like the CLCPA and noting that solar subsidies and infrastructure costs are not fully accounted for.

Martins raised concerns about potential job losses, questioning whether the bill might incentivize companies to relocate headquarters from New York to other states. He also sought clarification on how the revenue threshold applies to different business models and whether passive revenue counts toward the $1 million threshold.

Argued the bill undermines S1069 by allowing continuation and transfer of existing drilling leases on state forestland and wildlife areas, contradicting the original bill's intent to prohibit such activity. Called the amendment wrong and urged preservation of forests and natural areas.

Opposed the bill citing New York's extraordinarily high recidivism rate, arguing the measure is counter to facts despite supporting rehabilitation in principle.

Allowing patients to exclude information from medical records undermines decades of state investment in portable, accessible medical records and could prevent doctors from seeing complete health histories, potentially leading to harmful treatment decisions for unconscious or incapacitated patients.

The bill's subjective definitions of unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices lack clear standards, and the Attorney General's broad unilateral power to investigate and bring actions—including anticipatory actions under Executive Law Section 63—creates due process concerns and places unfair burdens on defendants to prove negatives.

Environmental review should not be compromised for housing goals. SEQR ensures proper evaluation of impacts on water, sewer, air quality, traffic, and parking. While the process can be tedious, it should be reformed holistically rather than cut for specific projects, especially in unsewered areas.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Argued the bill violates Article VII, Section 8 of the State Constitution, which prohibits gifts of state property to any private entity, including not-for-profits. Contended that agency discretion to determine value and select recipients is problematic and that the Constitution provides specific carveouts for political subdivisions and certain organizations that should be followed instead.

Contended that board appointments should reflect the three groups financing community colleges (students, state, local government) and that adding a collective bargaining unit member creates conflicts of interest. Noted opposition from the Association of Counties and Community College Association.

Opposed the bill as inhumane, arguing it would require children to remain in prison for up to 18 months with no clear incident justifying such a policy.

Stated the bill isn't ready, citing concerns about doctor-shopping, lack of mandatory mental health evaluations, and insufficient protections despite personal sympathy for the issue.

Argued the bill unconstitutionally interferes with private contracts entered into at arm's length decades ago. Contended purchasers knowingly bought discounted units (30-50% below market rate) with limited lease terms and should not receive state protection. Questioned why the state should create winners and losers by subsidizing affluent residents in high-cost districts.

Argued the bill undermines local licensing and regulatory authority over tow operators, which provides consumer protection and allows communities to discipline bad actors. Contended that preempting local control removes an effective system and shifts enforcement burden to the Attorney General, which would be slower and less effective.

Expressed concerns that the bill would allow depositors to shield funds from creditors by depositing money in accounts for the benefit of others, preventing creditors from collecting on debts. Voted against the measure but indicated willingness to work on addressing these concerns if the bill returns to the floor.

Argued that utilities only receive money from ratepayers, so any penalties imposed will ultimately be passed to ratepayers through rate increases. Contended the bill imposes obligations based on undefined terms and increases costs to constituents rather than addressing affordability.

The bill introduces dangerous legal uncertainty by relying on undefined intent standards, threatening New York's status as the world's largest repository of sovereign and corporate debt. It will drive business to competing jurisdictions like Texas, reduce state revenue from the $20 billion annual financial industry contribution, and ultimately harm the poorest countries seeking financing by making credit more expensive and difficult to obtain.

While supporting the transparency goal, Martins expressed concern that the PSC lacks jurisdiction over municipal utilities and water districts, and that municipalities may face unintended burdens and costs from reporting to an agency they don't normally interact with. He urged inclusion of municipal stakeholders in the process before passage.

The bill improperly strips municipalities of their ability to regulate nuisances and maintain community standards in suburban and urban areas where residents live in close proximity. While sponsors claim communities can pass individual regulations, this creates an undue burden and fails to account for differing aesthetic standards.

Questioned why Regional Cost Index still relies on 2006 data when other formula components were updated. Noted New York spends highest per-pupil nationally (~$36,000) but outcomes don't match spending levels. Expressed concern about Westchester-only Regional Cost Index increase.

Questioned the allocation of $55 million to the Fordham Landing South private development project, sought clarification on regional transportation funding distribution, and raised concerns about the $385 million CREST discretionary capital fund allocation process and whether it benefits Republican-held districts equally.

Questioned why $35 billion in uncommenced capital projects from 2010 onward have not been reviewed before committing to a new $64 billion capital plan. Argued the MTA should improve fare collection and management before receiving additional revenue authority.

Expressed discomfort with writing a 'blank check' for up to $10 million before conviction, noting this precedent has never been set in New York State. Criticized that the provision covers crimes outside official duties and questioned the integrity of relying on the Governor or Attorney General to later recoup funds from convicted individuals.

Criticized the lack of clarity on MTA debt service obligations and capital plan funding, noting that the chamber cannot explain how a $58 billion capital plan will be funded. Called for accountability before imposing new taxes on constituents.

Strongly opposed Part RR, arguing it disenfranchises defendants prosecuted by the Attorney General by preventing access to basic information about charges. Criticized the provision as fundamentally unfair to small businesses and individuals sued by the state.

Strongly opposed Part LL as a state takeover without local consent, arguing the Governor withheld DSH funding to create crisis, and criticized the process of excluding Nassau County representatives from negotiations.

The bill inconsistently targets only college students when other groups like commuters also support local economies and pay taxes. He argued that historically, poll workers have been residents who know their communities and constituents, and the Legislature should either maintain that standard or expand eligibility consistently to all non-residents who work in an area.

Opposed the bill as prioritizing criminals over law-abiding citizens, expressing concern that individuals with records of alcohol abuse, DWI, or sexual offenses could apply for sensitive licenses like liquor or daycare operations, contrary to decades-old licensing requirements.

Questioned whether the bill addresses an actual problem of retail worker-on-worker violence or external criminal violence. Argued the bill creates a false sense of security and that best practices involve 911 calls rather than panic buttons, and that the real solution is supporting law enforcement to address repeat offenders.

Argued the bill expands the definition of those entitled to rent-stabilized apartments without means-testing, keeping affordable housing in the hands of the ultrawealthy rather than those who genuinely need it. Called for means-testing to ensure apartments go to eligible residents.

Argued the current system is standardized across the country and federally chartered banks. Questioned why the state should change an established system and suggested addressing fraud issues through Surrogate's Court instead.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

The bill prioritizes renewable energy requirements before the state has developed sufficient renewable grid capacity, which could slow rural broadband expansion in underserved areas. Martins argued the state should prioritize telecommunications connectivity until renewable energy infrastructure is mature enough to support it.

Argued the amendment lacks genuine local support, questioned why New York City—with the lowest voter participation—is excluded, criticized the sponsor for providing few specific examples of municipal support, and contended the measure prioritizes partisan advantage over fair elections and proper voter choice on local issues.

Voted against the bill.

Warned that provisions preventing hospitals from collecting certain revenues will undermine their ability to operate on already thin margins and create more distressed hospitals without state commitment to make them whole.

Voted no, arguing that budgets reflect priorities and this budget undermines healthcare system stability by preventing hospitals from collecting revenues without committing to make them whole.

Questioned why taxpayers should subsidize $825 million in NYCHA improvements over four years when privately-owned rent-stabilized housing maintains buildings without such subsidies. Expressed concern about lack of accountability plan and root cause analysis for NYCHA's maintenance failures.

Raised concerns about eligibility criteria, residency requirements, and background checks for migrants receiving benefits. Questioned whether the state should prioritize its own vulnerable populations and noted that 90 percent of asylum applicants don't complete paperwork.

Criticized the bill for not means-testing existing affordable housing units, arguing 300,000 rent-stabilized units are occupied by people earning over $100,000 annually. Advocated for freeing up affordable units for lower-income residents instead.

Voted against the bill, characterizing the claim that $8 billion in additional spending creates affordability as 'gaslighting.' Argued the state is being taxed and spent into oblivion.

Opposed raising minimum population requirements, arguing it undermines home rule and local democracy. Noted he represents nearly 50 villages, many with fewer than 1,500 residents that successfully govern, provide zoning, and budget. Contended that 100-year-old laws should be celebrated as foundations of governance, not criticized as archaic, and that residents should have the right to form villages regardless of population size.

While the chapter amendment is an improvement over the original bill by adding fraud elements, it fails to resolve uncertainty regarding deregulated apartments and retroactive application, leaving rent rolls subject to litigation and not providing the certainty property owners need.

Opposed the top-down approach as fundamentally undemocratic, arguing that property owners have a basic right to self-govern and form villages. Criticized the Legislature for imposing a one-size-fits-all solution to address a specific local issue in Orange County rather than allowing communities to resolve the matter locally.

Questioned the process of incorporating parkland alienation without the local senator's involvement, noting other offshore projects were handled collaboratively with local communities. Criticized the bill's use of monetary compensation rather than parkland-for-parkland substitution, the historical practice. Expressed concern that the developer benefits most from fast-tracking.

Contended the bill imposes unfair retroactive document retention obligations on landlords beyond what they were previously required to maintain, creating a default presumption of wrongdoing for missing records from periods before the HSTPA.

Expressed concern that the bill prioritizes criminals over victims and removes accountability. Argued adults should be held responsible for their actions and that people should know about convictions when making hiring decisions.

Raised concerns that the bill may inadvertently perpetuate separate voting experiences for people with disabilities rather than promoting universally designed voting technology that allows all voters to use the same equipment, citing concerns from the Henry Viscardi School and disability community leaders.

Contended the bill retroactively applies penalties foreclosed by the Court of Appeals decision and effectively substitutes legislative interpretation for judicial interpretation. Argued it creates liability for landlords who followed DHCR guidance and opens litigation avenues the court had closed, violating due process.

Contended the bill is politically motivated to benefit Democrats and lacks constituent support. Argued it imposes Albany's will on local communities without their consent, creates confusion by mixing local and federal issues, and doesn't address the real voter apathy problem which exists in cities, not suburban counties.

Opposed the statewide mandate, noting he represents 44 villages, many with fewer than 2,000 residents that have operated successfully for decades. He argued local communities and town supervisors should make zoning and incorporation decisions based on ground-level knowledge rather than Albany imposing a statewide fix.

He argued the state should trust local communities to make their own decisions and opposed requiring homeowners to register and provide information to the state simply to rent their homes occasionally, characterizing it as state intrusion into private property decisions.

Raised concerns about the lack of a specific residency requirement in the bill, questioning whether someone could arrive in New York and immediately access benefits. Pressed the sponsor on whether the bill would leave some undocumented individuals without coverage and whether the state would foot the bill through Emergency Medicaid.

Argued that if the state is providing broadband resources, they should be provided to everyone, not just those in temporary housing. Suggested the state should pursue universal policies that help all families and children across the board.

Voted against the bill.

Noted that the bill lacks a true statewide standard and instead leaves decisions to individual school districts, which will continue problematic practices. Argued that without statewide standards, the reduction in drills is arbitrary and won't solve the underlying problems.

The bill threatens public safety by forcing reliance on an unreliable electric grid before alternatives are ready. Long Island Power Authority cannot meet the timeline, and residents need natural gas access for heating during winter storms when above-ground electric lines fail.

Voted against the bill; no statement recorded.

Argued the underlying bill mandates only a public power model with no genuine alternatives, giving Long Island residents an illusion of choice rather than actual choice. Expressed concerns about higher costs, less accountability, and increased Albany control over local utilities. Questioned why November 30th deadline was chosen when the Legislature will not be in session.

As a former local official, he argued that elected officials like mayors and trustees have the best understanding of community needs and that some municipalities are required by state law to have elected representatives on IDA boards. He contended the bill paints with too broad a brush and unfairly questions the judgment of local officials.

Expressed concern the bill is too broad and will fund special interest groups and lobbyists at ratepayer expense. Argued that existing state mechanisms—the Public Service Commission, special counsel for ratepayer protection, the Attorney General's office, and the Utility Intervention Unit—already provide adequate ratepayer protection.

Expressed concern that electrification mandate proceeds without ensuring grid capacity, citing Sandy as example of power outages. Questioned whether new buildings should require backup generation and whether the grid can handle winter heating demands.

Objected to the eFMAP cuts creating $8 million hole in Nassau County this year and $30 million when fully phased in, arguing the Legislature has responsibility to stand up for taxpayers and that Medicaid policy is set in Albany.

Questioned the $2 million allocation for the Commission on the Long Island Power Authority, seeking details on staffing, employee count, and whether funds represented new money or reappropriated unspent funds from the prior year.

Criticized removal of $250 million in housing funding that was in the Governor's original budget, arguing this undermines stated commitment to building housing stock and supporting local communities with infrastructure needs for housing development.

While supporting rainforest protection ideals, the bill unfairly holds contractors and workers accountable rather than targeting importers and suppliers who actually bring tropical woods into the state's commerce stream.

Raised concerns about unintended consequences for family-owned businesses and permanent residents who may lose status, arguing the bill's broad application could prevent legitimate business owners from participating in the political process. Cited his family's Portuguese immigrant background as an example.

The bill adds unnecessary bureaucratic layers and regulatory burdens on volunteers and municipalities who already comply with local safety requirements and sex offender registry checks. Making volunteers subject to undefined future state regulations will discourage community participation in youth programs.

While supporting clean air goals, Martins expressed concern that property-line monitoring cannot accurately measure pollution attribution due to weather variables like wind direction, rain, and snow, making enforcement against specific emitters unreliable and potentially holding companies accountable to variable standards.

Highlighted that Board of Elections members may be unconfirmed holdovers, creating ambiguity about who could participate in removal decisions. Argued this undermines the bipartisan nature of the bill and suggested withdrawal to address the due process concerns.

Expressed concern about imposing reporting requirements on municipalities without board of elections oversight, such as villages, school districts, and special districts, which lack resources to upgrade computer systems and comply with electronic reporting mandates. Argued the state should reimburse these entities for compliance costs before passage.

Argued the bill violates the State Constitution's recognition of Supreme Courts in each county as courts of general jurisdiction. Stated citizens have a fundamental right to challenge laws in their local courts, and the Legislature should not decide which lawsuits are frivolous—that is the judiciary's role.