Prince George’s County Council District 6

A: As a council member, my primary focus will be on expanding our commercial tax base. I believe there are opportunities that have not yet been leveraged to increase commercial tax revenue among existing businesses as well as to attract new businesses. Increasing our commercial tax revenue will provide additional funding for many of the county services residents need such as expanding food access, fully funding our education budget, keeping families in their homes and re-employing workers displaced by federal layoffs. In addition, expanding the commercial tax base will relieve the current residential property tax burden on homeowners.

A: The county’s funding commitment to the school system needs to be stabilized and segregated from the rest of the county’s budgetary priorities. I will ensure that there are funding sources solely for the school system and that they are reliable sources of revenue so that we can continue to expand the education budget to restore many of the programs that have been cut over the years. I believe that investing in education is essential to the success of our county. Quality education is a major driver for families’ decisions about where to move, for businesses’ decisions about where to open new locations and it is an important indicator for how we should invest in mental health, employment sectors and public safety.

A: I would begin with making sure it has the resources it needs and then I would implement regular touchpoints with the Board of Education and the school system community to ensure that there is transparency as it relates to how the investments that are being made are materializing into the desired outcomes. Too often, we implement laws and rules without “checking our work,” which, to me, means auditing these changes to assess them against the measured outcomes. I would also be intentional about collecting data and funding research to support decision-making in these areas.

A: One of my priorities as a Council member is to incentivize employers to hire federal employees and contractors impacted by the layoffs. In addition, I plan to create additional networking opportunities for those impacted that are interested in shifting to become business owners. Beyond that, I believe that the County has opportunities to hire residents that have been impacted for positions that are vacant and for services that are still needed where former federal employees have transferable skills.

A: I do support this approach and I think that the county could do more to protect immigrant residents by empowering organizations that assist undocumented immigrants and creating opportunities for them to establish legal citizenship.

A: Energy, environmental and community impacts should carry the greatest weight in decisions about data center development. The task force should explore requiring data centers to exist in industrial parks rather than residential areas and it should also make recommendations for how to require data centers to innovate their energy use. The task force should protect the community from increased energy costs and should be transparent about the potential value of data center development so that, the County Council can compare it to other sources of revenue that have greater benefits for the community.

A: In a word, no. The county is not in a position to consider data centers as a part of its economic development.

A: I would champion addressing the artificial demand that institutional investors place on our housing inventory. Our housing is not affordable because we continue to build housing at higher prices. Instead, we need to address barriers to affordability by using funding that we already have budgeted to help people buy down their interest rates, instituting a moratorium on foreclosures and enforcing more stringent requirements on the infrastructure development that accompanies new housing development. I believe that as we see opportunities to expand transit-oriented development and as we look to replace major county destinations, such as Six Flags and Northwest Stadium, it will be essential for the county to implement zoning changes that expand infrastructure and economic development to support the housing and residents we already have.

A: Tessa’s platform prioritizes affordable housing, equitable education funding, climate resilience, and transparent, accountable government. He will fight for tenant protections, increased funding for public schools and vocational programs, expanded pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and policies that support working families and small businesses. He believes in inclusive leadership — hosting regular town halls, creating youth advisory councils, and partnering with civic organizations to ensure residents’ voices shape policy. Tessa is committed to building a safer, fairer, and more prosperous District 006 where everyone can thrive. He asks for your vote in the Democratic primary to bring community-centered leadership to the council.

A: Prince George’s County’s funding commitment to its public schools should be stable, forward‑looking, and anchored in the county’s legal and moral responsibility to educate its children—while recognizing that the county must also meet public safety, infrastructure, and health needs.

First, the county must fully and reliably meet its Maintenance of Effort and Blueprint for Maryland’s Future obligations. These are not discretionary investments; they are state‑mandated requirements designed to close achievement gaps, strengthen early education, and improve teacher recruitment and retention. Beyond compliance, the county should plan school funding on a multi‑year basis, accounting for enrollment changes, inflation, and contractual costs so PGCPS can plan responsibly rather than lurching from one budget cycle to the next. Second, education funding should be treated as a core service, alongside public safety and critical infrastructure. When fiscal pressures arise, balancing the budget should not default to reductions in classrooms. Instead, tradeoffs should occur through prioritization within government, efficiency improvements, and careful use of reserves—while protecting the county’s largest long‑term investment: its children. At the same time, balance requires discipline and accountability. Sustained funding should be paired with transparency about results, administrative efficiency, and a focus on classroom impact.

A: First, accountability starts with shared, publicly defined goals. The County Council should work with the Board of Education and the superintendent to set a small number of countywide benchmarks tied to student success—such as early‑grade literacy, middle‑school math proficiency, attendance, graduation rates, and workforce or college readiness. These should be tracked over time, with regular public reporting so residents can see whether investments are producing results.

Second, funding increases should be connected to strategic plans, not just baseline growth. When the school system requests new resources, it should explain how those dollars advance specific outcomes, what success looks like, and how progress will be measured. That does not mean punishing schools when challenges persist, but it does mean expecting clarity on what is working and what needs to change. Third, the county should strengthen oversight and collaboration, not control. This includes routine joint work sessions with education leaders, data‑driven budget reviews, and independent evaluations of major initiatives—especially those funded through Blueprint dollars. The goal is to support course correction early, rather than reacting years later. Finally, accountability must be matched with stability. Schools cannot improve if funding whiplashes from year to year.

A: With a large share of Prince George’s County residents employed by the federal government or federal contractors, economic diversification is no longer optional—it is a resilience strategy. The county should pursue a two‑track approach: immediate support for affected workers and long‑term structural diversification.

First, the county must be ready to support residents impacted by federal layoffs or budget cuts. That means strengthening rapid‑response services such as workforce retraining, career counseling, and short‑term income and housing assistance. The county should partner with community colleges, universities, and the private sector to help displaced workers quickly translate federal skills—project management, IT, cybersecurity, finance, engineering—into private‑sector opportunities. Streamlining access to retraining grants, apprenticeships, and credentialing programs can shorten unemployment spells and stabilize families. Second, diversification requires intentional, long‑term investment in growth industries. Prince George’s County is well positioned to expand sectors such as life sciences, healthcare, research, clean energy, logistics, advanced manufacturing, and technology. That means aligning land use, infrastructure, workforce pipelines, and incentives around these sectors—while ensuring benefits reach local residents, not just outside firms. Economic development should also prioritize small businesses and entrepreneurship, particularly among residents transitioning from federal employment.

A: I support the county’s decision to limit ICE activity in county‑controlled spaces so long as it is done within the law and focused on public safety, civil rights, and trust. Local government’s primary role is to serve residents—regardless of immigration status—and policies that ensure people feel safe accessing county services are both practical and humane.

When residents fear that routine interactions with schools, health clinics, libraries, or social services could lead to immigration enforcement, the entire community suffers. People avoid seeking medical care, parents hesitate to engage with schools, and witnesses are less likely to report crimes. Clear limits on the use of county spaces for civil immigration enforcement help preserve trust between residents and local institutions while maintaining cooperation on serious criminal matters where legally required. That said, limiting ICE access alone is not sufficient. The county should also invest in education and clarity, ensuring residents understand their rights and county employees understand what they can and cannot do under the law. Confusion benefits no one. Beyond this legislation, the county should expand legal support and community‑based resources for immigrant families, including access to immigration legal aid, language services, and trusted nonprofit partners.

A: The data center task force should serve as a decision‑making foundation, not a one‑time advisory exercise. The County Council should use its findings to establish clear, consistent standards that guide where, how, and under what conditions data centers are approved—so future decisions are predictable, transparent, and tied to the county’s long‑term goals.

First, the task force’s work should be translated into policy guardrails: zoning criteria, infrastructure prerequisites, and performance expectations that apply countywide. This includes clarity on appropriate locations, minimum setbacks from residential communities, and requirements for coordination with energy providers before approvals are granted. The goal is to avoid ad‑hoc decisions driven by individual proposals rather than a coherent strategy. Second, energy and environmental impacts must carry substantial weight—on par with economic considerations. Data centers are among the most energy‑intensive developments, and unchecked growth can strain the power grid, undermine climate commitments, and limit capacity for housing or job‑rich uses. The council should prioritize projects that demonstrate strong energy efficiency, meaningful use of renewable power, responsible water management, and minimal environmental disruption. Third, community impact should be central to the review process. Residents deserve early engagement, clear information, and real influence over siting decisions—especially when projects affect nearby neighborhoods.

A: Yes—data centers can play a role in the county’s economic development, but only as a limited and carefully managed part of a broader strategy, not as a standalone solution or dominant land use.

Data centers offer certain fiscal advantages. They can generate significant property and business tax revenue, require relatively little demand on schools and social services, and signal that a county has the infrastructure capacity—power, fiber, and transportation—to support advanced technology. Used strategically, they can help stabilize the tax base and support other public investments. However, data centers are not job‑rich development. Once constructed, they employ relatively few workers, meaning they do little on their own to address employment, wage growth, or economic mobility for residents. They also consume large amounts of land, energy, and infrastructure capacity, which creates real opportunity costs if they displace housing, mixed‑use development, or industries that generate more jobs. For that reason, the county should treat data centers as a supporting asset, not the centerpiece of its economic future. Their role should be clearly defined—appropriate locations, firm limits, and expectations that they contribute to broader county goals. Approvals should be tied to strong energy efficiency standards, alignment with climate commitments, and meaningful community benefits.

A: Housing affordability is one of the most urgent challenges facing county residents, and addressing it requires intentional action to increase supply at every affordability level. As a council member, I would focus on policies that lower barriers to building affordable homes while ensuring growth is equitable and well‑planned.

First, I would champion zoning reforms that allow more housing in more places. That includes permitting higher‑density development near transit corridors, job centers, and commercial areas; expanding by‑right approval for mixed‑income and multifamily housing; and legalizing “missing middle” housing such as duplexes, townhomes, and small apartment buildings in appropriate neighborhoods. Zoning should reflect today’s housing needs, not lock the county into outdated, low‑density patterns that restrict supply. Second, I would strengthen and fully fund inclusionary housing policies that require or incentivize affordable units in new developments—especially those benefiting from rezoning, higher density, or public investment. Public value should yield public benefit, and affordability must be part of the deal. Third, the county should accelerate production by reducing delays and costs. Faster permitting, clearer rules, and predictable approvals can significantly lower development costs, which directly affects affordability. I would also support public‑private partnerships that use county‑owned land for affordable and workforce housing.

A: Maryland is facing an 800% spike in capacity market costs, and Pepco is pushing for double-digit rate hikes. I will fight the Public Service Commission to stop these “data center surcharges” from being dumped on District 6 families.

A: We spend a fortune on the “Blueprint for Maryland’s Future,” but District 6 parents deserve to see those results in the classroom.

Parental Rights: You are the primary stakeholder in your child’s life. I will ensure transparency so you have a seat at the table regarding curriculum and standards. Vocational & STEM Focus: Not every student needs a four-year degree, but every student needs a skill. I will push for trade schools and cybersecurity programs that lead to high-paying jobs right here in Maryland.

A: District 6 residents deserve a school system that reflects the high taxes they pay. We must stop confusing “input” (spending) with “output” (learning).

Parental Authority: Parents, not the state, are the primary stakeholders in a child’s life. I will champion transparency and the right of parents to guide their children’s upbringing. Standards: Our schools must move past social promotion and refocus on equipping students with the skills—reading, math, and analytical thinking—required to compete in a global economy. Competition: We should encourage any educational model that produces results, whether it is traditional public, charter, or private. Monopolies rarely serve the consumer well, and education is no exception.

A: Focus on the Trades: We need to stop acting like every job requires a desk. Whether it’s the technicians maintaining our new regional medical centers or the tradespeople building our infrastructure, we must respect and promote the “Blue-Collar Tech” worker.

A: There is no “social justice” without public safety. From our shopping centers to our residential streets, the primary function of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

Deterrence: Criminals respond to incentives. When the cost of committing a crime is low, crime increases. We will ensure that the cost of crime in Prince George’s County remains high. Supporting the Shield: I will oppose any council measure that compromises the ability of our police to do their jobs effectively or reduces the presence of law enforcement in our communities. Individual Responsibility: A safe community is built on the foundation of personal accountability, not excuses.

A: We were told data centers were a “get rich quick” scheme for our tax base. Instead, we got a strained power grid and utility bills rising faster than inflation.

No More Subsidies: I oppose using District 6 tax dollars to “incentivize” multi-billion dollar tech companies. If they want to build 100-megawatt facilities here, they pay for the infrastructure—not the senior in Westphalia trying to keep the AC on. The “High-Energy Surcharge”: I support a surcharge on hyperscale facilities that goes directly toward lowering the “delivery charges” on your Pepco bill. Reliability First: No new high-draw projects will be approved until the Public Service Commission guarantees our local grid can handle the load without brownouts or price spikes for residents.

A: No, the residents do not want them here.

A: I am for expanding the supply of mixed‑income and affordable housing through providing incentives for developers, including density bonuses, tax credits, or reduced fees when projects include units affordable to low‑ and moderate‑income households.