1. I supported the temporary halt on data center applications because Suffolk must establish strong protections before any applications are considered. Based on the information currently available, I am not persuaded that data centers provide enough value to justify their electricity demand, water usage, infrastructure requirements, environmental effects, and potential costs to residents.

The burden of proof should rest with the industry. Projected tax revenue and broad claims of economic development are not enough. The data would have to demonstrate a substantial net benefit to Suffolk, meaningful permanent employment, protection for residential utility customers, sufficient grid and water capacity, enforceable environmental safeguards, and full developer responsibility for infrastructure and decommissioning costs.

Without compelling evidence that overcomes these concerns, I support prohibiting data centers in Suffolk to the fullest extent permitted by law.

If data centers are not prohibited, they should never be permitted by right. The UDO should require individual legislative review, extensive public notice, meaningful setbacks, enforceable noise limits, environmental protections, independent technical analysis, and financial assurances. Each application should disclose its electricity and water consumption, infrastructure requirements, emergency response demands, permanent employment, environmental effects, and decommissioning plan.

Suffolk must also defend its local authority. The General Assembly has enacted requirements affecting energy development and considered other proposals that could restrict local land use authority. Proposals that did not pass may return in a future session. When the state restricts local authority, it also restricts the ability of Council members to advocate for their residents.

The next Council will make consequential decisions about data centers, so residents should examine every candidate’s employment, financial interests, public positions, and ability to exercise independent judgment. My opponent is employed by the energy industry, whose business includes serving large energy users such as data centers. Employment alone does not determine how he would vote, but the relationship is relevant and deserves transparency.

My position is established. I voted for the temporary halt on data center applications. Without compelling evidence that overcomes the risks to Suffolk, I support prohibiting them to the fullest extent permitted by law.

2. Bridge Road must be treated as one coordinated transportation priority. I will continue advocating for regional, state, and federal funding, reliable engineering and cost information, and appropriate developer contributions toward the improvements their projects make necessary.

Adding roadway capacity without addressing the two bridge bottlenecks will not provide the relief residents need. If widening those bridges is not feasible within a reasonable period, Council must account for that limitation when considering additional density.

Rezoning decisions should be based on existing and funded infrastructure, not improvements that are merely anticipated. When roads, bridges, schools, utilities, and emergency services cannot accommodate additional development, I am prepared to vote no, require reduced density, or defer consideration until a reliable solution is identified.

I support a safe and dependable replacement for the Kings Highway Bridge. The City must evaluate cost, environmental consequences, agricultural preservation, emergency access, traffic patterns, and effects on surrounding communities. Residents must be included before an alternative is selected. A replacement should meet a demonstrated transportation need and should not primarily be used to justify additional development.

1. I do not support data centers in Suffolk. My priority is protecting our neighborhoods, farm lands, water resources, and residents’ quality of life. Promised tax revenue does not outweigh my concerns about electricity and water demand, constant equipment noise, and infrastructure costs.

I would oppose UDO changes that allow data centers and work with the city attorney to pursue the strongest legally defensible restrictions, including a prohibition wherever permitted by law.

Suffolk should focus on development that meets community needs, supports local businesses, and creates lasting opportunities without placing additional burdens on residents. Data centers are not the direction I want for our city.

2. Widening a road without addressing its bridge bottlenecks does not solve the entire problem. I would push for a coordinated corridor plan that evaluates the bridges, intersections, evacuation needs, and traffic from developments already approved but not yet built.

I would work with regional transportation partners, VDOT, and our state and federal representatives to pursue funding. Residents should receive clear information about feasibility, costs, funding gaps, and realistic construction schedules. A project appearing in the CIP is not enough; we need to know how it will be delivered.

If the bridges cannot be widened and no credible alternative can accommodate additional traffic, I would oppose rezonings that add density beyond the corridor’s capacity. Lower density or phased development should be considered only when supported by reliable analysis and enforceable conditions.

I support pursuing a replacement for Kings Highway Bridge, subject to a transparent funding and environmental review. It should improve connections for existing residents, without becoming an excuse to approve more growth than surrounding roads can support.

1. When looking at rezoning we should be aware of the current comprehensive plan and its intended long-term use.  Then we need to look at what benefit the rezoning will be to the area around it.  That MUST include the citizens already living there and the infrastructure in that area.  We need to ask if rezoning makes life better or worse for the residents.  Does it cause stress on schools, first responders or roadways?  We must have a clear and concise vision within the comprehensive plan.

2. Staff should include all pertinent information available for every rezoning request.  Council must ask questions about all aspects of rezoning and direct the City Manager to make sure staff provides this information so that a well-informed decision can be made. 

1. Changes in zoning can significantly impact community dynamics and quality of life.  The criteria I would use in evaluating rezoning applications will include an analysis of the potential impact on local infrastructure, environmental considerations, and community feedback.  I believe these factors play a crucial role in ensuring that any changes align with the needs and values of the community.

2. I would advocate for research to provide comprehensive data to the Planning Commission and City Council.  I believe that accurate information about community needs, and potential impacts is essential for making informed decisions.