The two Democratic candidates for state Senate went head-to-head Thursday afternoon at a virtual debate hosted by the Charles River Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Though questions focused partly on Watertown, Sen. William Brownsberger and challenger Daniel Lander also addressed support for small businesses, housing and development, and the transparency and urgency of legislative business.
The two candidates will appear on the Democratic ballot for the primary election on Sept. 1. The seat represents the Suffolk and Middlesex District, which includes Belmont, Watertown, Allston, Brighton, parts of the Fenway neighborhood, and West Cambridge.
The debate was moderated by Greg Reibman, president of the chamber.
Reibman kicked off the debate with a question for Lander: if Brownsberger had voted in support of Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s property tax proposal—which would have shifted the tax burden onto businesses—would he still be running against the senator?
“Yes, I actually decided to run for this a couple years ago,” he responded. “I started thinking about running for this office at the end of the legislative session two years ago in 2024; that was essentially a five-car pileup. A huge number of essential bills that I had been following and working [with] coalitions on basically didn’t get a vote.”
Those bills included one that sought to tax luxury real estate, he said.
“I said, it’s time for new leaders, leaders who want to tackle how expensive it has gotten in this state; the cost of housing, health care, energy, everything has skyrocketed. And we have, unfortunately, on Beacon Hill, the least effective and least transparent Legislature in the country, where good ideas go to die.”
His remarks signaled a key divide between the two candidates.
“All those things got done by the end of the year, and you know, that was a tough year,” said Brownsberger, responding to a question about efficiency in the Legislature. “There was a lot of conflict, and … that’s the nature of the legislative process. There is conflict. … This is a herd of 200 cats, and from time to time, there’s conflict. That’s the way it works.”
Responding specifically to why immigration legislation took so long, Brownsberger said: “I view it as an urgent matter, too.” In early August, Gov. Maura Healey signed the PROTECT Act, which keeps Immigration and Customs Enforcement out of schools, hospitals, and courts.
“When… the woman from Tufts got picked up, I was screaming for action,” he said. “I’m a force for moving things. You know, it’s not like one guy gets to decide when things happen.”
Reibman also asked the candidates about the value of experience versus a fresh perspective.
“There’s the local benefits; I’ve been able to deliver huge benefits for the town of Watertown as well as the other communities that I represent,” Brownsberger said, pointing to dollars he’s brought to his constituency for education. He touted his track record, including creating two new minority seats now occupied by immigrants and building a consensus to change non-compete laws.
Lander, however, pushed back.
“I don’t think taking 10 years to do a non-compete reform that didn’t actually work… [is a] track record of success,” he said. “I think that’s a record of accepting the status quo that continuously lets good ideas be left on the cutting room floor.”
The two candidates also disagreed over certain housing issues. On rent control—a ballot question that has been removed from the November ballot—Brownsberger was against; Lander, in favor.
“We cannot subsidize our way out of the affordable housing problem,” Brownsberger said.
Lander said he would have supported it, noting the Legislature would have had the opportunity to put in place a better compromise that would serve both renters and builders.
“There are so many people in this district who are renters, who are struggling, who face–regularly—hundreds and hundreds of rent dollar increases,” he said.
Both candidates did agree, however, on the starter home ballot question, which would reduce the minimum required lot size for a single-family home in a residential district. They also agreed on a duplexes-by-right proposal in an economic development bill, and the Yes in God’s Backyard bill, which would allow multifamily housing by right on unused land owned by faith-based organizations.
Continuing on the topic of housing, Lander said building code reforms could be made and that “sensible upzoning” could unlock new places for development.
Brownsberger said there is a “thicket” of regulations that need to be “cut away at.”
After an hour of debate, the candidates had 90 seconds to ask attendees for their vote.
“I’m a humble public servant; I’ve come up through the ranks,” Brownsberger said. “… I’ve grown through the process, serving at every level. … I listen carefully to my constituents, day in and day out, and they’ve made me a better leader.”
Both he and Lander thanked the Chamber for hosting the event.
“Over the last 15 years, it has gotten impossible to build or hold onto a life in our state as the housing and health care and child care have skyrocketed,” Lander said. “We deserve a Legislature that’s going to work with urgency to solve those problems.”
The winner of the state primary will advance to the general election on Nov. 3.
This story was first published in The Belmont Voice and is republished with permission.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.