Incumbent Judith Freedman did not respond to our Candidates' forum questionnaire. Below are the challenger Arlo Ellison's responses.

ELLISON: Our first priority in addressing the transportation problems that face our region is to get as many commuters off the road as possible. The Metro North rail lines constitute one of the most valuable mass transit systems in the United States. We are failing to get the most out of this asset through our failure to replace rail cars that are 30 years into their 25 year projected life. We must replace these cars now and expand our rail car fleet to restore reliability to the system and attract new riders.

Funding the purchase of new cars is an investment in the economic future of Connecticut that will be returned to the state many times over. We should fund that purchase with long term bonds that can be issued now in a very favorable interest rate environment.

We are also failing to get the most of our rail system by not providing adequate parking at train stations in many of our towns. There are waiting lists for station parking in almost every town on the New Haven main line as well as the Danbury and New Canaan branch lines. Connecticut should step in with bonding guarantees to help our municipalities expand local parking facilities. I favor garage construction on existing sites as the solution to this problem, but some towns may find a better solution to be remote parking with shuttle bus service.

I believe the multi modal transportation hubs that now exist on the Metro North line in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Stamford can be transplanted on a smaller scale in other towns. Quality bus service between train stations and town centers will further promote utilization of our mass transit systems.

ELLISON: I support adoption of California's automobile emission standards in Connecticut and additional tightening of diesel fuel qualities and diesel engine emissions. This standard is recognized as being the toughest in effect in our country. I would include in this standard future requirements to require better fuel efficiency in both automobiles and light trucks as well as additional incentives to promote the purchase of hybrid and electric powered cars.

Industrial air pollution in Connecticut is primarily related to the famed 'Sooty Six' oil burning power plants. HB 5209, which became law in 2002 as PA 02-64, requires that these plants burn a very low sulfur fuel oil and maintain much lower sulfur dioxide emissions than has historically been the case. The PA 02-64 standard is as tough on sulfur emissions as any in this region, but it leaves open the issue of nitrogen oxide emissions. I would like to see strict nitrogen oxide emission limits applied to the affected power plants.

I believe it is critically important that we never allow trading of air emission credits so that single point polluters can be allowed to legally operate in violation of our air quality standards.

ELLISON: SB 445 started out as a reasonably tough piece of legislation with solid definitions for wetlands and watercourse resources and clear legal definitions of what would constitute loss or damage to those resources. These clear legal definitions are necessary in order to avoid the type of unacceptable ruling made in Avalonbay vs Wilton. The original legislation made it very difficult for any municipal inland wetlands agency to approve a project near a wetlands area that would have an adverse impact on wildlife, plant life, drainage, or that might create pollution.

The bill that ultimately became law as Public Act No. 04-209 is not as strong as the original and leaves much to be desired in terms of environmental protection. I think the legislature has left a loophole that developers are liable to exploit. The current law states that a municipal wetlands agency shall not deny or condition an application to build "on the basis of an impact or effect on aquatic, plant, or animal life unless such activity will likely (my emphasis) impact or affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands or watercourses." We need something much stronger.

The state of Connecticut needs to go back to the drawing board and implement restrictions on Inland Wetlands Boards that embody the true intent and spirit of the original SB 445.

ELLISON: Open space in our towns is an important issue that relates not only to the preservation of beauty and recreational opportunities for ourselves, our children, and future generations, but also is fundamental to the economic well being of Fairfield County. Our region of Connecticut is the greatest economic engine in the state. If we are going to preserve and protect that engine we need to take care of the things that have made the area so important. Specifically, we need to maintain and expand our mass transit systems and protect and preserve our natural resources. I believe state support to preserve open space in this area is an investment that will be returned many times over.

We need to make this argument forcefully in Hartford and work hard to help our colleagues in the general assembly recognize that preserving open space and maintaining the fundamental 'New England' character of our towns is good for business and therefore good for the tax base. It follows logically that funding for long term investment in real property should come through long term bonding efforts. With market interest rates at historically low levels this is a great time to make intelligent investments in Connecticut's future. Open space preservation is smart not just for individual townships, but for the whole state.

ELLISON: I am fully behind the smart growth concept. Smart growth brings tremendous benefits to society in the areas of minimizing traffic congestion, fighting air and noise pollution, preserving open space and the character of our towns, and making our area a more attractive place to live and work.

The Connecticut State General Assembly did a lot of work this past session on smart growth initiatives. In particular, HB 5044 "An Act Concerning Plans of Conservation and Development" and SB 39 "An Act Concerning Community Preservation" were introduced this year. These bills contain provisions that promote smart growth across our state and require regional planning agencies to be consistent with smart growth principles as included in the State Plan of Conservation and Development. HB 5044 creates a process for the Office of Policy and Management to define priority funding areas and restricts state funding for growth related projects to those that are smart growth compliant.

I understand from discussions with Senate President Pro Tempore Don Williams that the best features of HB 5044 and SB 39 will be combined and the resulting bill introduced in the next legislative session. I believe the key to success will be the creation of incentives to induce municipalities to follow smart growth principles as opposed to disincentives if they fail. Although there is still much work to be done, I believe we are on the way to having viable legislation that will promote smart growth in the state of Connecticut and discourage development that is not consistent with smart growth principles.