From WXXI news.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Well Governor Kathy Hochul budget is out and now the state legislature has to decide what passes.

What is prioritized?

What is not.

And part of our series of conversations brings state lawmakers to you at length talking about their priorities.

We've been talking to Republicans and Democrats in the state Assembly, in the New York State Senate.

And continuing with that today, we welcome to Assembly member from district number 133, in the New York State Assembly, that's Assemblywoman Andrea Bailey, who is back with us.

Welcome back.

It's nice to see you.

Thank you very much, Evan.

It's my honor to be here.

Is there any of your colleague who has to drive as much as you?

I was just looking at the district map.

I mean, it's a big map.

It's quite large.

Yes.

It's a large area.

How many miles on the car in the last year?

About 40,000.

About 40.

That's 40,000 miles.

The district covers all of Livingston County.

Part of Ontario County.

Part of Wyoming County.

Part of Steuben County.

Part of Monroe County.

Is that right?

Absolutely, yes.

Okay, so, it's a big wide range, obviously.

You know, you've got different population bases, but plenty of rural areas.

We're going to talk farms coming up here.

The governor has that something to say about that?

I know you've got some strong feelings about helping farmers, but before we get there, before the program began, you mentioned issue number one for you right now is what what's on the table most the number one call coming into the office.

It and it's a kind of a buzzword that you hear out right now is affordability.

But really tied to affordability is folks utility bills.

So that is a huge concern of mine.

My colleagues and I, we just submitted a letter to the governor requesting that she call an energy state of emergency because I really feel that we are at a critical state, when it comes to our utility costs for the ratepayer.

Some of that, I believe much of that is self-induced with with some of the legislation that has come forward.

When you look at it, I believe that there is funding that we should be able to tap into to give homeowners and ratepayers an immediate relief in their, monthly bills.

And I think that we need to look at every avenue that we possibly can to be able to help that, because folks should not be thinking about, am I going to feed my family or am I going to keep them the heat on in my house?

Who do you blame most for the cost of energy right now?

I guess when when you say blame, I look at it, I try to fly at that 30,000ft range and come down through the clouds.

I call that the noise.

And then we can really look at what's happening.

And that's kind of how I look at every issue.

And I think sometimes, although maybe well-intended, we put, laws or mandates into place, but we don't really think through what the, what the end result is going to be.

And I think we are absolutely living that right now with some of our CPA, initiatives.

They are quite aggressive, but there really was no plan set in place when that was initiated in, 2019 to actually achieve, the, the, the thresholds or the targets that were, that were put out there realistically.

So specifically, what's a what's a mandate that you say right now we should not be mandating X or Y or Z. So I mean, honestly, if one of the biggest concerns, if you look at it and it's been discussed at nauseum, but is EV busses, that is probably one of the single most, largest unfunded mandates that we've put onto our school districts.

We continue to put Band-Aids on.

You know, we have the two year where you could get a two year waiver and then an additional two year waiver, but all we continue to do is kick the can down the road.

We're not coming up with true solutions.

To help, whether it be our schools are municipalities, our residents, at the end of the day, that's impacting everybody's, pocketbook.

So you talk about these waivers, the two year waivers.

I don't I haven't studied this issue in depth.

I have heard of districts getting those waivers.

Are you hearing them?

Many denied the waivers.

So it's it's quite interesting you bring that up because I debated this portion, during the budget bill last year.

That's where the additional two year waiver came into play during last year's budget hearings, we talked we we discussed EV busses, at length to the point where I it's everyone understands it's a concern.

It's not it's not a a we and a they it's we understand as a collective group that there are concerns with this continuing just to put Band-Aids on it is not going to ultimately fix the issue.

The issue is it's not practical in some of our areas.

You mentioned my district.

It's extremely rural.

I've talked to many superintendents, where it's not feasible.

We don't have the no money in the budget.

There's no money in the budget.

You just have a school.

It's not in my district.

So I'm not going to necessarily talk about it.

But you just have a school recently here in Monroe County that that voted down to two bus purchases just within the last week.

So it's something that taxpayers have a true concern about.

And at the end of the day, that's who's going to the bear.

The cost of it.

So we really need to stop and think about is it feasible when you mandate that every school do this across the state, you're going to have a lot of pushback.

There are probably schools that would do it if it was an option that makes sense, where you have a smaller, more densely populated area where bus routes aren't 30, 40, 50 minutes long.

And then you have, you know, those schools would probably opt into this.

That's going to help the green emissions, you know, piece that we're we're pushing towards.

But once you put mandates out there, we're just setting everyone up to fail, especially if there's no roadmap to get there and there is no funding to achieve it.

Small districts, rural districts, not big tax bases.

Budgets are tight to begin with.

So, you know, if the governor came back and said, look, I hear that that's why we're giving these waivers out, what do you say?

So here was my question on the assembly floor.

So the initial two year waiver school can apply for it.

I anticipate I ask the question, how many schools had applied for it?

It only started, I believe, this year that they can start applying for those two year waivers.

As you look to extend that, each school district then needs to meet with Nyserda to come up with a plan on how they're going to reach what the expectation is.

My question was, as Nyserda ready to be able to meet with every school district across the state, to be able to come up with that plan, do they have enough staff?

So although it's it sounds good on paper that we can continue to push these waivers and, you know, extend it out an additional two years.

What does that look like?

And then now we're putting another burden back on to our administration that they have to now come up with yet another plan, with another regulatory agency to move forward on something that really is not going to benefit everyone.

So your proposal to take the mandate off?

Absolutely.

Let districts that want to do this and think it's a good idea, do it.

Absolutely.

And don't force the districts that feel strapped to do it.

Absolutely.

I would definitely support that.

If nothing else, we need to realign time frames if if it needs to come into a measure.

But I would also put out there that once the state is 100% on EV vehicles, as they are pushing for other agencies to do it, then make that be the deadline, if that's what we want to do.

But the state's fleets aren't there either, so we're asking others to do it.

But yet we're not doing it ourselves.

What's been the response among your colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, and what do you have you heard anything from the governor's office on this?

So, I mean, I think we heard, you know, from the government or the governor's office when she, you know, when they came out in and we continue to see a pause on this, a pause on that.

You know, we had January.

It was supposed to be, you know, seven, story buildings or less.

We're all electric.

There's a pause on that until the end of the year, a pause on that's not going to fix the issue, that we don't have the power to be able to do that right now in our current infrastructure.

Just like, you know, the EV busses, schools can't have a fleet of EV busses because the grid can't handle them being able to do that.

So we have to really take a look, peel the onion back in.

What are the the answers to that?

I think that we can it is a bipartisan concern.

And I think there's I know there's bipartisan support to push back dates specifically in my mind.

I would like to just see it eliminated, the mandates eliminated and put it more out.

I don't know how much bipartisan support an elimination would get.

And in all honesty, why do you think the governor has agreed this year to a pause on a number of these green initiatives?

It's an election year.

Is it it is.

Believe it or not.

You don't think there's a substantive reason that's just in.

It's coincidental that it's an election year.

I find that I find it very interesting that it was at the beginning of the year, and it was pushed out until December.

So if we have to vote after voting, if we really wanted to make, a difference for folks, there could have been language in the budget if we really were serious about this.

And the governor, you know, we covered this about a month ago.

The governor is upset.

Some people who are I mean, environmental activists, people on the off and on the political left who pushed for some of these changes.

The governor's administration just, greenlit five more years over on Seneca Lake of the Greenwich facility and Bitcoin mining that upset a lot of people who've been activists.

And in the Finger Lakes.

So, you know, I mean, it it is an interesting moment.

I would like to talk to the governor about it.

I don't think she would say it because of an election.

I think she would say we want to be realistic.

She has said we want to be realistic about a cleaner energy transition while acknowledging, you know, if we go 100% full bore right now, some people will be in real, real trouble.

So you're just saying you don't see you see, that is politically convenient for the moment, I do, yes.

Personally.

Okay.

And she's got a serious opponent.

We haven't talked to Bruce Blakeman yet.

We're going to try to do that on this program.

Do you know her opponent?

I have met him.

Yes.

What do you make of him?

I mean, it was a short.

I was at an event and I, you know, had the opportunity to speak to him.

He has had great success in the county in which he's run.

You know, it's a big county.

He's a county executive, you know, well known.

Yeah.

It's a large county, you know, you know, taxes have come down.

He has you know, he supports law enforcement and.

They're doing good things.

They're under his leadership.

What I have heard about him, you know, from others, is if he believes in something, he stands behind that.

And I. I can appreciate that.

Well, we're going to see if we can have a conversation with him sooner than later on this program.

I want to move on to farms in just a second here.

But one other question I do have about energy is are you comfortable with the actions of RGV?

Do you think that they've managed things well?

So I'm not going to talk about any one company because there's there's multiple companies in which in which I cover in my district.

I would just at this point in time, I would say everyone needs to take a look in the mirror, whether that be a provider or whether that be a legislator looking at what is causing the crisis to where we are at this point in time is really what I'm going to say.

Because I think everyone probably has an area of opportunity to look inward and figure out how do we make this right for the ratepayer, because that's ultimately what we need to do.

And there is funding that I believe is available that has already been collected.

You know, looking at a state, you know, could we could we forego some of the taxes and different things that show up on your bill currently?

Right now?

You know, when when we're looking at some of the clean EPA mandates, you know, a large portion of your bill is is to satisfy those regulations.

And we have to be realists about that.

You did mention earlier for the people really suffering under heavy energy cost, some kind of relief.

Where would that funding come from?

Is that federal government?

Is that state funding?

Where is it coming from?

So I believe, you know, there is funding right now that, is unallocated to the tune of about $2.4 billion.

That nice sort of has, that's kind of dormant.

Not sure how we could do it, but I think we need to look at avenues to potentially, get money out of there.

And then the, Regi fund, which has a northeast, state piece there is funding in there, that's collected close to $3 billion over the last 15 years that could go to specifically help ratepayers on their bills.

Talking to Assemblywoman Andrea Bailey from New York State Assembly, District number 133, and I want to talk about farms.

I know this is obviously a very rural district for you, and it's a big issue for you.

Reporting from my colleague Samuel King in Albany.

And I'm going to cite Samuel's reporting on some of this.

And, what the governor's proposing.

And I want to hear what you think about some of what the governor said.

And then I want to hear what what you think should be prioritized.

So, first of all, from Samuels reporting, Governor Kathy Hochul, push back against critics who have called her plans to provide tariff relief for farmers a political stunt.

The governor earmarked $30 million in her budget proposal for farmers affected by the tariffs that President Donald Trump has imposed.

That is part of a larger farm aid package that also includes money to help modernize the state's dairy farms and the governor said, if you want to be doing the political calculation, clearly these are not areas that tend to vote Democrat where there's farms.

Let's just put that out there.

My only interest is knowing that they have been hit hard by the Trump tariffs, end quote.

What do you make of that?

So I speak with farmers on a daily basis.

I actually live with farmers.

So, absolutely.

There's different, pieces and there's different parts of the agriculture, industry that have had a negative impact with the tariffs.

Some have been positive.

So I think that that's the biggest piece there.

I think right now tariff is, you know, one of those words that we, for whatever reason, you know, we're going to sit and argue about at the end of the day, the the thought process behind tariffs and the reason for that, you know, the long term return on investment, it's really about bringing things back into our country and utilizing our resources here.

So overall, conceptually, I understand that.

I believe that I think the other piece that we have to look at when we're looking at farmers, you know, when there's when there's aid given on a federal level or if it's on a state level, you often hear critics that say the farmers are always getting the aid.

I think what folks don't realize is that the prices that the farmers are receiving, whether it be for milk, whether it be for their cash crops, that's all regulated.

They don't get to dictate what they are going to, you know, sell their product at that value and as prices go up, those prices are not going up at the same rate that they're going up that you might see on the shelf in a grocery store.

So someone else is making that, getting that, that revenue loss, bump.

It's not the farmers.

And I think that farmers oftentimes get criticized or are an easy target because aid goes out to, to farmers.

But I think you really need to take a step back and look at what does that mean at the end of the day?

Because let's face it, you're not farming to get rich.

You know, my son wants nothing more than to continue to farm the crop farm that we have.

I've had the conversation with him.

It's got to be a hobby.

You're not going to be able to make a living doing that.

And a lot of that comes down to the pricing in the in the commodities.

So do you.

I hope so.

What does he grow?

He so we have corn and soybeans and then we'll, trade it up with we'd also winter wheat.

So yeah, soybeans is one that some critics of the tariffs have pointed to because China is a big buyer of American soybeans.

And that market went away when China responded to the American tariffs and said, alright, we'll buy from Brazil.

American soybean farmers kind of united and said, we're going to end up throwing soybeans on the ground.

In the Trump administration recently, the USDA said they're going to offer $12 billion for soybean farmers across the country to make them whole, because for those who were grown soybeans that they couldn't sell, all of a sudden, the Trump administration said, well, here's some money to to back you up on that.

Do you think that makes sense to you?

I do, from the standpoint that in the long term impact, I think it will benefit our farmers.

And why I say that is right now when we take a look at what's happening in New York State with agriculture, with agriculture land, you know, we have many individuals.

And I'm not one to tell someone what to do with their own property.

But when you are, if you rent out your farmland and you might be able to get 100, 200 on the top end to rent out your farmland for someone to farm it versus 800 to $1000 per acre to put up a solar field.

What are you doing?

You're probably looking if you're looking from a long term standpoint, in what are you going to do, what's best for your family.

And we are seeing our agricultur projects left and right.

We have prime farmland that we're losing for that.

What's that going to ultimately end up doing?

We're going to have, you know, no farm, no food.

Is is one of the comments that one of my colleagues says all the time.

And it is very true.

You know, we have different programs in New York State to try and get, you know, fresh homegrown farm products into our schools, you know, working with different agencies to make sure that, you know, working with the food pantries and, you know, food links, so on and so forth.

And we need to be doing more of that.

But unfortunately, some of the regulation to get there, it's too much red tape to get through.

So then you have farmers that that choose not to take part in those programs.

So.

The regulations that we have in this state, I think are part of our biggest obstacle to move forward, kind of, you know, going back to the affordability piece, we have over 300,000 regulations on the book.

I made a comment at a at a breakfast a couple weeks ago that I said, you know, one of my colleagues, in the minority has a bill that for every regulation you want to put in place, we need to remove two.

And we need to continue to think that way because regulations in New York State are hurting our farmers as well.

And I don't think we talk enough about that.

So if there's all these regulations, I mean, I take the point.

There's a lot of regulations.

But I mean, is there a a dirty dozen that you'd love to see get rid of right away, or there are 5 or 6 that stand out, is there.

You know, how would you describe.

So I guess it depends on what subject matter you're talking about specifically.

A great example is, you know, I brought up solar fields.

You know, we we as a, as a state have gone in or as you know, the, Office of Renewable Energy, you know, can go in and fast track large solar projects.

Now, I have a constituent who's trying to put residential solar on their property so that they can be self-sufficient and help, you know, help, you know, help themselves, but also, you know, help the grid.

And they're coming up against roadblock, over roadblock over roadblock because of the red tape in order for them to be able to do it.

But yet within a very short period of time, conceptually, we have large scale solar being approved.

Okay.

So there's no do you want to see less large scale solar in general?

It's a it's a good question.

I believe that we need to be realistic when we're looking at large scale scholar, solar.

We we are pushing large sales, large scale solar in the name of clean green energy, saving the environment moving forward.

But what are we doing in order to get those panels in the ground?

That's what concerns me.

We have a large project going in on prime farmland.

We have a project that is going to horizontally drill underneath the Genesee River to put electrical lines to get it over to the transfer station that it needs to get to.

We have a project that is clear cutting 114 acres of forest.

So we have to talk about what is ultimately really happening when these large scale projects are coming into an area.

The problem is they're not being put down where where many of the folks who are advocating for this reside.

It's happening in my district.

It's happening in the 1/33 district to a large degree, and it's happening in rural upstate New York.

So it's a location question.

I would say I asked this on on the floor.

I watched, you know, talk show.

They had just moved into a new building down in New York City.

They were up on a fake green grass.

Rooftop area.

That would have been a great place to put some solar panels.

You know, I did hear during the budget hearings that they're looking to put solar panels.

I think it was on JFK, parking garage.

That's a good use of where we could utilize solar panels, putting it on prime farmland over 3000 acres of farmland.

To me, that is not a good use of that agriculture space.

So again, what are your colleagues in Albany say when you bring this up?

It crickets kind of like right now.

You don't feel a lot of momentum on this.

There is.

Well, it depends on which side of the aisle you're talking about.

I think part of the concern is the pushback.

I, you know, in my, in, in the minority conference, there is a large, you know, vocal spot for it.

And what is happening to our, our agricultural, land.

But unfortunately, some of my colleagues in the majority, I don't feel that there was a bill last year that went through on how farmland is going or how solar projects, wind projects, how that property, it's going to be assessed for tax purposes.

And at the end of the day, it is hurting municipalities and that bill that we debated is a result of a lawsuit that's happening right now.

And the municipality, based on the equation is losing upwards of $3 million in tax revenue.

So those are the real things that are happening on the ground.

You know, you have these projects go in there, fast tracked, moving forward.

And then at the end of the day, from an assessment, process, now we're saying we have to stay within this formula.

Well, the formula is giving every credit possible and then using decommissioning as an expense.

So when you're looking at the value of that land, it's it's hurting our local municipalities.

All right.

Farming a couple of the things from the governor.

It is true that the $30 million that's been proposed to help farmers has not really been specifically described.

How that's going to be is agricultural Commissioner Richard Ball said he doesn't have a lot of specifics about that money yet.

He says the idea of larger operations may have suffered more than others, said ball, who owns a, a farm in Schoharie County.

But he says, I think the point is we're dealing with kind of a real time, chaotic federal government that's already proven to be uncertain in this regard.

So, $30 million for farmers.

Would you vote for it?

Is that something you'd want to see pass.

So absolutely.

The problem with that is it's going to be in the budget.

And, you know, I get asked often, you know, when when the budget bill comes up, I can I can tell you after, you know, going through my first budget last year, you know, digging into it, there absolutely are good things that are in the budget.

And I wholeheartedly support, wholeheartedly support, but unfortunate lately, it's lumped in with some other measures that may not be good for the district in which I, I, represent and, you know, so you have to weigh the good with the bad because that's what happens with the budget.

And then you throw, legislation in there on top of it.

And it's, it's it's it makes for interesting reading and interesting reading and an up down vote.

So, you know, a hard sell for the minority conference.

I think, Governor Hochul finally, from Samuel King, my colleague Samuel King, and Albany Governor Hochul also wants to extend tax credits for another five years to offset some cost for farmers to make investments on their farms.

It's something that dairy farmers say have been vital to help take advantage of the industry's growth in recent years across New York State.

What do you make of that one?

I would agree with that.

You know, we have a farm in the district that actually they have a digester.

They take scrap, food from, you know, they work with different, agencies.

They've worked with Wegmans, they work with Food Link in foods that can't be done.

They put that into their digester, you know, with with the manure that's, produced on, on site.

And they are able to, power their farm and then also move power out on to the grid.

So that is where some of that, that funding has been utilized and it's being utilized in a positive, resourceful way.

And those are the true solutions that I think we need to work together and figure out how do we get more of that going on?

We gotta get our only break of the hour in, and we'll come right back.

With Assembly Member Andrea Bailey from district number 133, in the New York State Assembly, talking about not only the governor's proposed budget, but what she would like to see prioritized in Albany this year.

We'll come right back.

Coming up in our second, our our colleagues from the city newsroom join us talking about some of the hottest stories of the week, including Brian Sharp story about the drop in international student enrollment that's happening here, the University of Rochester and RIT, and what is behind it.

Our colleague Gino Fanelli, reporting on the Rochester Police Department overtime and what we know about that.

And we'll also talk about how Super Bowl commercials have changed over the years.

That's next hour.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from the prospect fund announcing the film, The voice of Hinder, a job based on the true story of a six year old Palestinian girl and efforts to rescue her in war torn Gaza.

Screening at the Little Theater February 6th through 12th.

Details on tickets at the little.org and Bob Johnson Auto Group.

Believing an informed public makes for a stronger community.

Proud supporter of connections with Evan Dawson.

Focused on the news, issues and trends that shaped the lives of listeners in the Rochester and Finger Lakes regions.

Bob Johnson, Auto group.com.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Let me grab a few listener questions.

And Jack in Greece is first up.

Hey, Jack.

Go ahead.

Oh, oh, thanks for having us, representative.

Appreciate you coming online talking with us.

You don't represent my district.

I live in the town of Greece.

But I appreciate you coming online.

You I look at your site quickly, and I know you had commented that you thought the budget was too big for New York State.

But, but what I would be interested in hear from you is how much would you cut it if you had the ability to cut the state budget?

What percentage would you take out and then what areas would you target?

What are the primary areas you think should be cut?

And and and I guess, you know, I appreciate you know, from a taxpayer standpoint has been very difficult for me to understand what's in the budget.

I know what the numbers are that I have.

Hey.

And they're very they're very high.

So what would you do and what would be the trade offs that you think should be made if you make cuts to certain areas?

What would be the what would be the negative of that.

What would be the impact of that?

You mentioned there were good things in the budget and that's what I asked.

Well, represented by representative to do is represent the whole state, not just our you know, I hope you look at the whole broad perspective and say what's good for the whole state from because we are we still out is a very, very expensive place to live.

All right, Jack, I appreciate that.

Some of them are.

Bailey.

Yeah.

That's actually a loaded question right there.

I think the one piece that I would kind of hone in on and not to skirt an answer, but in all transparency, you got to peel back the onion.

And, and when you're looking at the budget, it's, it's so convoluted when you're looking at all the different, line items where money is allocated.

I think what we really need to do is look at how that funding is being utilized and in any given budget proposal.

You know, the numbers are there.

You can look and, you know, yep, that sounds good.

That looks good.

But let's reflect back to previous budgets where money has been allocated.

And, you know, being laser focused in on how do we manage that.

And you know, the comptroller Tom DiNapoli is office.

You know, does does various reports and audits when it goes, you know, into different departments looking at different funding.

You know, Medicaid is is one thing that's, you know, being talked about hotly.

This year, do we spend too much on Medicaid?

So when you look at the report from, Comptroller DiNapoli, there are areas, the one report is indicating $1.2 billion that we have, spent on individuals who no longer reside in the state.

And then additional funding to the tune of, a few hundred million dollars.

That was allocated and used with Medicaid funding that individuals should have been transitioned over to Medicare.

So if you look at just note those two examples right there, you're at 1.5 billion, close to $2 billion of funding in a program that should not have been administered to the individuals that it was administered.

It's the full Medicaid budget for the state.

It is it's 30, I guess 3030, 30 some billion billion.

Yes.

Okay.

So it's 30 plus billion dollars.

Okay.

So you're finding maybe two there.

Two there.

Absolutely.

But when the talk is out there about, you know federal cuts coming in, we need to laser focus on how the funding that is in any one given budget being utilized in the state currently.

You know, if we've allocated funding, there was another report that came out.

And it has to do with, replacing Waterlines for lead in the majority of that funding had not been utilized yet.

So why is the funding not being utilized?

Because I think when you're looking at a budget, that's probably a line item that needs to be in there, because that's a concern.

If we have if we have infrastructure underground, you know, going into our neighborhoods that have contamination, we need to exchange that out.

It goes back to mandates.

It goes back to regulations.

It goes back to the hoops that folks need to jump through in order to secure that funding.

And that's really where I would like to take a look at.

I don't have a necessary number that, you know, $200 billion is the right number for current budget proposals to 62 six.

So you don't look at that and say, well, it should be 200.

It should be 220.

Not necessarily.

I think you have to I mean, you have to deep dive into where that money is actually being allocated.

And how is it being utilized.

And one other thing on Medicaid, I mean, certainly I take the point that, you know, if people have moved out of state, why are we still funding their Medicaid or if people should have been transitioned Medicare?

What's going on there in general?

Do you think the state is too broad in what it offers Medicaid recipients?

I think where my biggest concern comes into play is how, you know, how we define what residency is.

It's very, lenient.

I don't I don't know the answer, but, you know, what is it that we're looking at?

What are we how do we establish residency?

And that's probably the first place that I would look to see if there's an opportunity to, to bring that in there.

Joel writes in to ask.

And by the way, thank you, Jack.

Joel writes in to ask, do you support the state investing in nuclear, energy?

I do, I, I've said it for years.

Nuclear is clean energy.

The word nuclear is scary.

But where technology has gotten us to this point, I think it is.

It is a good investment for the state to continue to look in there.

Unfortunately, it's the time frame in order to get new projects up and running.

You know, you're talking years out and, you know, talking with the Department of Energy, you know, at the federal level, you know, what's the fastest we could we could move something through.

You're looking close to seven and a half upwards of ten years to get something.

Moving.

So is that the short term fix?

Absolutely is not.

But I think that where technology has brought us, I. I do support nuclear energy.

Kristen says, can you you talk about China buying up large amounts of U.S.

farmland, please?

I saw a New York Times story on that.

Is that happening here in New York State specifically?

Yeah.

I'm not sure you know where in your own district of that happening.

I am not okay.

I, I can tell you that foreign, foreign countries, if you want to look at it from that place, have bought up farmland to put solar projects.

Investment companies, from, from out of the country have bought land to put solar on.

Okay.

And Greg wrote in to ask, if you're concerned about how Ice is behaving in New York State or if you're concerned about what you saw in Minneapolis with ice.

So, you know, this is I'll be completely honest with you.

You know, folks have said, you know, the videos this and that.

I didn't watch many of the videos or even look at them because they go to Alex pretty.

You have to, I saw them, but I didn't continuously watch them.

If people are saying, you know, did you see the latest video that came out?

I can honestly say, no, I didn't, because at the end of the day, when I look at New York State and what's happening here, Ice was established coming out of 911.

Yeah, ice has been around, give or take 25 years.

And they have been partnering in our localities.

Right.

You know, for the last 25 years with without large concern.

Is it concerning to see what happened, what's happening in, Minnesota?

Absolutely it is.

It's concerning for me.

Any time we get so polarized as a as a nation, as a community to where you have us versus them, and you have individuals who are, you know, degrading their neighbor.

Or, and I just think at the end of the day, I'm not in Minneapolis.

I can't tell you what's actually happening.

I can tell you what's happening here.

What I see here, firsthand and.

I want to make sure that the individuals of New York State are protected.

Okay.

And I also take the point, by the way, that nobody should.

I don't think anybody should be watching videos on a loop of people getting killed.

And that's what social media sometimes becomes.

Absolutely.

But I so granting you that you have seen some of the videos, does it look to you like the the shootings of Rene.

Good.

And Alex were justified?

I'll be completely honest with you, Evan, I don't know.

I was not there.

I, I am not stating that I think one is right and one is wrong.

I it's absolutely devastating.

Any time that you have a death and any means, it is to me personally.

That's devastating.

And I think that we need an investigation into how that was handled.

Yeah.

What is being done?

How do we do things differently?

And I think we've seen that even in New York State, with various things that have happened in our own state.

You know, something happens, and then we have to have the investigation go on.

You know, that that that due process piece of things, I think should be, you know, entitled to everyone.

And I, I'm a firm believer on that.

So I, I have not made a statement and and nor will I. Yeah.

And I also take the point to for people who are feeling really agitated in the moment or thinking that this is a brand new thing.

Ice has been around since post 911, and I think the question that is relevant for state lawmakers is, is what we are seeing a departure of the norm in the last 25 years, you know, in other words, you know, you have a pretty conservative judge.

You clerked for Scalia in Minneapolis, saying he's got 96 instances of Ice agents taking phones away, knocking phones from people hands when they were lawfully filming police or not, police, Ice officers, Ice agents, you know, knocking people down, escalating to that judge, this looks like a an escalation, a departure of what we've seen from Ice for 25 years.

And so the question I think becomes is, does it look like an escalation you in are you comfortable with Ice operating in this state or in your district?

They're operating in our district right now.

Of course.

Yes, they already are.

Yes.

So from that standpoint, I, I would say yes because we have not, you know.

You mentioned social media.

You know, social media is a is a big piece to all of this.

I, I honestly feel it's, you know, everybody needs an instant answer.

They need, you know, cell phones in general.

You know, if you don't get back in touch with somebody, they're like, hey, where are you?

Where are you?

It's like, well, I'm in, you know, doing something.

But so I think it's just that instant gratification.

We want the answer now.

I'm going to be there.

I need to do this.

I need to do that.

At the end of the day, I think we need to take a step back.

And we need to look at what we're doing.

Okay.

And last point is, you're someone who knows a little bit about gun permitting, right?

I mean, I know people know your career before the Assembly, but you know very well what it takes to get a permit, what the laws are.

What surprised me after the shooting of Alex Peretti was how many people in the administration indicated that the fact that he had a gun on his person at all was a either a justification of the of the shooting of him or an indication that he was de facto dangerous or a problem, or it was a bad decision when he has a concealed carry permit, a legal permit, and he's got the gun on his person, he doesn't brandish it, he doesn't waive it.

And, you know, I mean, this is an example.

I think we've got a piece of sound from Gregory Bovino Megan, is that right?

The the head of Customs and Border Patrol talking about it.

And I want to listen to what Bovino said about that.

What I'm saying is, we respect that Second Amendment right.

But those rights don't.

Those rights don't count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers, and most especially when you mean to do that beforehand.

Yes.

So in a sense, what he says is not wrong.

You can't riot and attack police with a gun.

Everybody agrees with that.

It's a question of whether you think that's what I was doing.

And, Kristi Noem said, you just can't bring a gun to a protest.

Kash Patel said, you can't bring a gun to a protest.

President Trump said, you can't have a gun in that situation.

But the law says you can.

Do you think the administration's right or wrong on that one?

So in.

I guess that's going to be an opinion for each individual at that point in time.

So the federal law, as it's written right now, does not say you can't do that.

New York state law, the way it's written right now, says you cannot do that in this.

If that happened in New York state law, it would be accurate.

You can't do that.

That's the way in which the law they know the laws in Minneapolis.

No, the laws in Minnesota are not the laws of New York.

So but at the end of the day, I don't know what the laws are in Minnesota or Minneapolis or I don't even know what law they're referring to.

So I can't speak to that.

But to be completely honest with you, New York state law, as it pertains to, you know, Second Amendment and various, bills on that, I'd be more than happy to discuss that.

I don't know what law they're referring to.

I assume.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that given your experience and and given the work that you do in the Republican Party, you'd like to see laws offer more rights to gun owners in the state.

Is that a general?

Is that generally true?

I think what we see each and every day.

So yes, I in in and I say that with with the caveat of this, we we take knee jerk reactions.

We have a situation, you know, say it's gun violence.

We're going to, you know, impose new legislation because of gun violence.

We saw, you know, when when the Supreme Court came out with the the ruling that, you can't ask for a reason why you want a concealed carry permit.

And that prompted back in 22.

Right.

You know, the CTIa, what we saw was additional red tape for our law abiding citizens who already have a pistol permit.

Yeah, that in my mind, the individual who is, you know, in a gang or driving down the road who has a, you know, a filed off, serial number on their weapon or getting it through the black market.

They're not going to the county clerk to register the pistol permit or, you know, their pistol.

They are not going and taking any gun safety course.

So what?

At the end of the day, did we do to help, stop gun violence by doing those measures?

And I think that that's where it is, is we, we, we take knee jerk reaction.

But at the end of the day, if we want to talk about gun violence and we want to talk about how do we get the guns off the street, it's not necessarily piling on to penal law.

400 additional steps that someone has to go through in order to get a law abiding citizen to get a pistol permit.

I was just surprised to see Republicans say what they said about pretty and gun ownership in general, or following the law in the state that you're in.

It was surprising to me, and it made me wonder if it's if we're ever going to see meaningful change in gun laws here.

If you want to see more gun rights in the state, if you've got Republicans looking at Minnesota gun, you can't have a gun at a protest.

It's like, well, I guess you I guess we never really believe this, but maybe I'm overreaching that or there's many times that I scratch my head when I hear individuals say certain things, but I don't necessarily I don't know why they said what they said, and I can't.

I got it is what it is.

All right.

Robert in Fairport wants to jump in.

Hey, Robert.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Thanks for taking the call.

The solar panels.

I just fail to see the, common sense and putting a solar panel farm up in one of the cloudiness places in the entire country.

But, you know, driving in first time out, you see a new one between Victor and Doom Field, and it's, you got a you got a farm field that's taken over with these, ridiculous things.

Is there any room in the state, to create legislation that requires companies putting these in to create a sinking fund so that once these things are technologically obsolete, which is just a few years down the road, that they can be removed.

So right now that's, left to the local municipalities as far as decommissioning and what those, agreements are.

I'm glad you bring this up, because I actually have a bill that I introduced, or that I carry, and it would be the, the, renewable energy, the Responsible Renewable Energy Recycling Act, which would require the manufacturers to, be responsible for the recycling of wind turbines, battery backup or solar panels, because we, we know they all have an end of life cycle.

And in some of the early solar, projects that we saw, they're coming off, their life cycle right now, you know.

So what are we doing with those, solar panels?

There is nothing right now in statute that says how they need to be recycled.

That is extremely concerning.

So here's another measure where we're pushing forward on something.

But we haven't thought about what what are we going to do.

You know let's kick the can down the road.

We got 25 years.

We got 30 years.

Whatever the lifespan is of that is going to be.

But some of these panels have harmful materials that are in them.

The other thing that concerns me right now, we truck New York City's garbage up into our landfills here in our backyards.

So.

And a number of landfills.

Absolutely.

So, you know, where are these solar panels going to end up?

They're going to end up in our backyard, in our landfills.

If we don't take measures to move this, you know, to to move this forward.

I asked the, commissioner, during the budget hearings, this year from the DC, I mentioned my bill and I said I would like to speak with DC about that because they are charged right now with what that looks like, and it's still under review.

But I really think that we need to put some meaningful measures in place if we really want to take care of our environment, we have to do it for the folks you know, from the beginning to the end.

Before we let you go here, a question on taxes for you.

So within the Democratic Party, which is not your party, there's sort of an on a brewing little battle over a super wealth tax.

And the governor says she doesn't want it.

She doesn't think we need it.

A number of Democrats in Albany, in the state Senate, in the state Assembly, say we we should pass this tax.

It is the right thing to do now.

Do you want to offer any advice for your colleagues on that one?

I am not a fan of it, and I've had that conversation with groups who have come into my office, you know, in, in look at that as, as a revenue stream.

I honestly believe that taxes, increasing taxes, no matter where it is or who it's on, should be a last ditch effort.

And I think that there's probably areas that we could look at first and foremost.

My concern with that is we look at, you know, outmigration between that 24 and 44 year old age.

That's our workforce right now.

So, you know, if we if we look to tax the ultra rich or, you know, whatever, I've heard different numbers, I've heard, you know, different thresholds from that standpoint.

What does that do at the end of the day?

And and do we see that population leave New York last minute?

You came on this program when you were running.

Now you're in Albany and, you know, you knew what you were signed up for in the minority conference.

What is surprised you the most about the work?

I don't I don't know if it's anything that necessarily has surprised me.

I think what was eye opening was the beginning of session.

We're in session from January to June.

The beginning of session is pretty mundane.

You know, you might go into session, you're there for an hour, and then you're out and then, you know, we passed over 900 bills last year in the Assembly and probably 600 in, you know, 6 to 700 of them were in the last 7 to 10 days, you know, so that's the most efficient way to do it.

The absolute inefficiency that we see, that's probably the most the most frustrating on my because you're probably trying to review bills and all of a sudden you got ten days to review 300 bills.

And it's like, well, sometimes it comes on to your calendar that day because at the end of the day, the vote, the day of the vote, yeah, it goes into rules and then it comes out on the floor.

Well, I appreciate you coming in.

I know our audience does as well.

And I want to thank you for making the time, and I hope we can continue to talk, with routine here.

Assembly member Bailey, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

From district number 133, in the New York State Assembly, that is Andrea Bailey.

We've got more connections coming up in just a moment.

And.

I. Have.

To be.

This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management, or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience.

Any rebroadcast or use in another medium without express written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link.

At WXXI news.org.