City/Town: St. Paul

Legislative District: House District 67B

Party: Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party

Candidate responses in italics.

Q1: Housing plays a critical role in economic stability, health, and quality of life for individuals and families. However, disparities in housing continue to affect communities of color, people with disabilities, rural communities, and other historically underserved populations. What meaningful actions should be taken to acknowledge, address, and eliminate housing inequities and advance housing opportunities for all Minnesotans?

I know this issue from the inside — I was born and raised in public housing, and I’ve seen firsthand how stable, affordable housing (or the lack of it) shapes everything else in a family’s life: kids’ education, health outcomes, whether parents can hold down a job without the threat of eviction hanging over them.

Minnesota won’t close its housing gaps without deliberate, targeted action. That means:

Fund what works, at scale. Continue and expand investment in the Housing Infrastructure Bonds and Family Homeless Prevention programs, with dollars specifically directed to communities of color, people with disabilities, and rural areas that have been historically shut out of homeownership and quality rental housing.

Attack the root causes, not just the symptoms. That means enforcing fair housing and lending laws, funding down-payment assistance and first-generation homebuyer programs, and investing in community land trusts that build long-term, generational wealth instead of just temporary shelter.

Build where people already live. Rural and underserved urban communities need infrastructure investment — water, broadband, roads — that makes new housing development possible, not just subsidies for housing nobody can build.

Protect tenants. Strengthen renter protections and expand legal aid so families aren’t one bad landlord or one missed paycheck away from losing their home.

I carry my own experience into this work every session. Housing stability isn’t a luxury — it’s the floor everything else in a person’s life gets built on, and every Minnesotan deserves that floor.

Q2: Supportive housing combines affordable housing with support services that help people who face the most complex challenges to live with stability, autonomy, and dignity. Supportive housing provides better outcomes and is fiscally responsible. What will you do to ensure community members who are unhoused or unstably housed receive the support they need to obtain or keep their own homes?

Supportive housing works because it treats housing as a foundation, not a reward — and I believe that in my bones, having grown up in public housing myself. I’ve seen how much stability a safe home provides, and how quickly things unravel without it.

Here’s what I’ll keep pushing for:

Protect and grow supportive housing funding. The Housing Support program and Group Residential Housing rates need to keep pace with actual costs, not lag behind them. Providers can’t deliver stability for tenants if they’re underfunded to the point of instability themselves.

Integrate services, not just stack them. Housing without access to mental health care, chemical health treatment, and case management just delays the next crisis. I’ll keep backing funding models that co-locate those services with housing instead of forcing people to navigate separate, disconnected systems.

Address encampments with housing-first solutions, not just closures. I’ve had several conversations with the city directly in my own district with the Pig’s Eye encampment — the answer isn’t just clearing a site, it’s making sure people have somewhere stable to go before that happens.

Expand the pipeline. More supportive housing units means more capital investment dollars directed toward developments that pair units with services, especially in communities of color and on the East Side, where the need is high and the stock is thin.

Supportive housing isn’t just compassionate policy — it’s the fiscally responsible one. Every dollar we invest up front saves money in emergency rooms, shelters, and jails down the line. That’s a trade I’ll keep making.

Q3: Homeownership is a way to build generational wealth, provide family and household stability, and support community vibrancy. More and more Minnesotans are priced out of owning a home because of rising housing costs, including purchase price, homeowners’ insurance, and property taxes. What steps will you take to increase opportunities for renters and first-time homebuyers to purchase homes, condos, or cooperative ownership models?

Homeownership changed the trajectory of my own family, and I want that same shot at generational wealth-building available to every Minnesotan — not just the ones who already have equity or family money behind them.

Here’s where I’ll focus:

Expand down-payment assistance. Programs like Minnesota Housing’s First-Generation Homebuyer initiative should keep growing, with dedicated outreach into communities of color and immigrant communities like the Hmong families I represent on the East Side, where homeownership rates still lag badly.

Get creative on ownership models. Cooperative and community land trust ownership let families build equity without getting priced out by land costs alone. I’ll keep supporting funding and technical assistance that helps these models scale, especially in neighborhoods facing gentrification pressure.

Rein in the hidden cost drivers. Rising insurance premiums and property taxes are quietly pricing people out as much as sticker price is. I’ll push for insurance market oversight and property tax relief targeted at first-time buyers and working families, not just broad-based cuts that mostly help people who already own.

Protect renters on the path to ownership. Strong tenant protections and rent stability give families the breathing room to actually save for a down payment instead of treading water paycheck to paycheck.

Homeownership shouldn’t be a lottery based on what family you were born into. It should be a realistic, achievable path for any Minnesotan willing to put in the work — and I’ll keep legislating like that’s true.

Q4: In the last several years, bipartisan action to streamline building of new homes and apartments has passed in several states, including: allowing for multifamily buildings in select commercial areas, limiting parking requirements, allowing smaller homes on smaller lots, and more homes per lot in residential areas like duplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units. What reforms do you support to modernize zoning to both enable homes to be more affordable statewide and improve city tax bases?

I support modernizing zoning because I’ve watched the East Side and communities like it get squeezed by housing costs that outpace what working families can afford — and outdated zoning rules are a big part of why.

Here’s what I back:

Legalize more housing types by right. Duplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units should be allowed in residential areas without a lengthy variance fight every time. Letting a homeowner add an ADU or a family build a duplex creates affordable options without waiting on a single big developer.

Cut parking mandates. Minimum parking requirements drive up construction costs and eat land that could be housing. Cities should have the flexibility to right-size parking based on actual need, not blanket rules from decades ago.

Allow smaller homes on smaller lots. Reducing minimum lot sizes gives builders room to create starter homes at price points first-time buyers can actually reach, instead of every new build defaulting to the largest, most expensive option on the market.

Open up commercial corridors to multifamily housing. Underused commercial strips are a real opportunity for missing-middle housing near transit and services — and it grows the tax base without sprawl.

Done right, these reforms aren’t just about affordability — they strengthen city tax bases by adding density and value without adding proportional strain on existing infrastructure. That’s a win for renters, first-time buyers, and the cities themselves. I’ll keep pushing for that balance.

Q5: Despite housing being the largest cost in the average household budget, housing receives only a small fraction of the total state budget at just 0.3%. A lack of ongoing reliable funding for housing in Minnesota’s state budget has resulted in an undersupply of stable homes affordable to our workforce, our elders, and our families. In recent years, a constitutional amendment for housing, which would dedicate revenues from a sales tax increase to housing, has gained momentum at the legislature. What revenue options will you champion to more adequately meet our need for reliable funding for homes we can afford?

A state that spends 0.3% of its budget on housing while housing eats the largest share of every family’s paycheck has its priorities backwards. I grew up seeing what happens when housing funding is treated as an afterthought instead of infrastructure — and it’s long past time we fix that at the source: reliable, dedicated revenue.

Here’s where I stand:

I support a dedicated housing revenue stream. A constitutional amendment tied to a sales tax increase gives housing what it’s never had in Minnesota — predictable, ongoing funding that doesn’t disappear or get renegotiated every biennium. Housing production and preservation take years to plan; funding that swings with each budget cycle makes that nearly impossible.

It has to be paired with accountability. Dedicated revenue should come with clear targets: units built, families housed, and priority for communities of color, rural areas, and other communities that have been chronically underserved.

I’ll keep pushing existing tools harder too. That means fully funding Housing Infrastructure Bonds, protecting Housing Support and Family Homeless Prevention dollars, and making sure new revenue supplements — not replaces — what’s already working.

Housing needs the same kind of steady, dedicated funding we give roads and schools. Families can’t build stability on a budget line that’s first on the chopping block every session. I’ll champion revenue options that finally treat housing like the essential infrastructure it is.

Q6: If you have other housing policy priorities, especially specific to your district’s housing needs, please share them here.

Yes — and these come directly from what I hear on the ground in Mounds Park, Dayton’s Bluff, and Swede Hollow.

Housing stability for our Hmong elders and multigenerational households. Many East Side families live in multigenerational homes by necessity and by cultural choice. Our housing policy needs to stop treating that as an edge case — zoning, unit sizing, and subsidy programs should support larger and multigenerational units, not just studio and one-bedroom models built for a different kind of household.

A real plan for encampment residents, not just closures. I’ve seen what the city has done with the Pig’s Eye encampment in my district, and I know that clearing a site without a housing-first plan just moves the crisis, it doesn’t solve it. I’ll keep pushing for dedicated funding and coordination so encampment closures come with real housing offers attached.

Veteran housing, backed by real investment. As DFL Chair of the Veterans and Military Affairs Division, I see how veterans on the East Side are unstably housed despite being eligible for support. I’ll keep directing capital investment and supportive housing dollars toward veteran-specific units and services.

Investment in Ramsey County’s aging housing stock. A lot of East Side housing is older and in need of rehab, not just new construction. Preservation funding — weatherization, code compliance, rehab loans — keeps existing affordable units livable instead of losing them to disrepair.

These are the priorities I carry into every housing vote, because they’re my neighbors’ priorities first.