Amy Sangiolo and Vladislav Yanovsky Debate Climate, Education, and Public Safety

In the “Taxpayer Talk” debate, Newton State Representative candidates Amy Sangiolo and Vladislav Yanovsky presented contrasting visions for the 11th Middlesex District. The candidates clashed on key issues, including climate change, education, public safety, and taxation.

On climate policy, Amy advocated for maintaining Massachusetts’ push for clean energy, arguing it is crucial for the state’s future. Vlad challenged this view, emphasizing that immediate human needs like infrastructure and economic growth must take precedence over what he described as the costly and questionable benefits of clean energy initiatives. He argued for a balanced approach that doesn’t undermine the economy under the guise of addressing an existential threat.

Education was another area of disagreement. Amy pushed for stronger accountability measures within public schools, while Vlad saw school choice as a means to raise standards. He questioned why many parents turn to private institutions for supplementary education, suggesting that it reflects a failure of the public system. “School choice and competition can drive the quality of education up,” he stated, advocating for more parental involvement and accountability.

The debate over public safety was equally contentious. Vlad opposed the inclusion of social workers in the police force, arguing that “Police are best equipped for de-escalation, not social workers,” and highlighted the role of illegal immigration in contributing to crime. Amy, meanwhile, called for broader criminal justice reform, focusing on systemic changes rather than individual measures.

Their views on taxation underscored their ideological differences. Amy supported raising the real estate transfer tax to fund affordable housing, emphasizing the need for investment in public services. Vlad countered that lowering taxes would boost economic growth and ultimately increase revenue. “We need to think economically,” he argued.

The debate revealed a stark contrast in their visions for Massachusetts. Amy championed government intervention and social investments, believing that “The high quality of life in Massachusetts is due to our investments in public services.” Vlad, on the other hand, pushed for economic freedom and fiscal responsibility, stressing the importance of prioritizing taxpayer dollars effectively. Their discussion underscored the fundamental divide in their approaches, offering voters a clear choice between two distinct paths for the district.