Q&A: Losquadro Targets Jobs, Taxes in New Role in Albany

Though state Assemblyman Dan Losquadro, R-Shoreham, was sworn in Jan. 4 in Albany and Jan. 7 at his new local office in Calverton, the freshman Assemblyman is no stranger to the challenges facing New York State. He served as county legislator, representing the sixth district, since November 2003 and acted as the minority leader since 2006. In November, he narrowly . Following his swearing-in ceremony at his Calverton office, Losquadro took some time to speak with Riverhead Patch about his new role in the area, how he thinks the state can bring jobs to the First Assembly District, and how much he – and other Republicans – appreciated new Gov. Andrew Cuomo's state of the state address.

What’s the first thing you would like to do – or try to do – for your constituents?

There are certain pressing issues, which were laid out by the governor, one of which is obviously being school aid. I think this is probably – after looking at the micro/macro, larger issue of jobs in New York State – something that needs to be dealt with immediately.

One of things the governor laid out in his State of State address is consolidation. I think in order to be successful, we absolutely can achieve savings by sharing of services. If Patchogue-Medford can have a central administrator that oversees five buildings, why can’t we do that in other areas? Why can’t we look at some of north shore districts? Let’s centralize some of the administrative functions.

I think there is way to do this by maintaining the individual identities of the school districts which really preserves the other things that makes school more than just academics.

One of things right now is that in order to share services, school districts have to be geographically contiguous with each other. The business world does not think that way. New York State is stuck back in 50s, 60s. Centralization is about savings, and making those savings through the use of technology.

One of things that encouraged me about the governor’s state of state address was the concept of budget targets: reducing overall spending. One of things he said was that it can’t just be a cost-to-continue type of game, where you’re just making cuts. Because cuts, pardon the pun, don’t cut it anymore. You have to re-think the way you’re doing it.

It sounds like took away some positive things from Gov. Cuomo’s address.

If you spoke to any political pundit, any analyst, anyone in government, they would tell you that probably 75-80 percent of the governor’s State of the State speech was a Republican platform (laughs). But it’s not necessarily about party affiliation with him – it’s about the reality of the situation the state is in.

I joke that the governor’s speech was like a 12 step program. The first step is acknowledging that we have a problem (laughs). And he did. He got up there and said, ‘We have a problem.’ We’re the worst state in country to do business, which I was saying throughout my campaign. We need to provide real tax incentives. We can’t just continue operations. We can’t keep protecting the facilities we have – that was something that surprised me. I was happy to hear that.

Anything in particular you disagreed with?

Certain philosophical items; his progressive agenda: I am not in support of a gay marriage amendment. I have no problem with the lifestyle – actually I have a number of friends who are gay and lesbian. I have no problem with a domestic partnership. But just as those on the other side of the aisle ask for tolerance and understanding, I think those who have the opposite viewpoint of mine should be tolerant and understanding of my viewpoint. I view this as a religious issue.

If we add a domestic partnership registry to formalize that relationship there would be nothing prohibiting those individuals of having rights they talk about  - visiting partner in hospital, hereditary rights with the state, etc. You can put that into legal contracts now. To me, marriage issue is one of religion to me.

Let’s shift gears: Riverhead Supervisor Sean Walter has said recently he would like to see a state authority involved with overseeing EPCAL. Would you support that?

I would not be averse to it, and I think one of the most important things the state can get involved with is the issue of access, which is the greatest hindrance to development there. Right now your primary access is William Floyd Parkway to Route 25, or going down the back end up off Wading River-Manor Road. Those roads can’t handle pumpkin traffic. Not to mention the fact that I have a real serious problem with jamming up Route 25 and interfering with a national cemetery.

I think a southerly access would be vital, which would require state legislation because it would have to come through what is now Pine Barrens. But I think there are ways to look at that. Technology exists to do precast, elevated road decks to minimize the impact. These are the types of innovative solutions we need to look at. If you look at the original plans for the LIE, there was supposed to be an exit to access that prop. But after the Pine Barrens Act was enacted, it never happened.

On the larger scale as you mentioned earlier, what do you want to do about jobs in the district?

We in the suburban parts of the state need reinstatement of a tax incentive package, which was taken away from us last year with one-party control in the form of the Empire Zone Program. The Empire Zone was a $500 million program and they took $450 million out and put into a film industry tax credit for New York City. It left the suburbs sucking wind. The governor and lieutenant governor, both of whom I met after the State of the State address, were very receptive to that.

It was also very encouraging to see one of his proposals was to have greater access to agricultural products throughout state into various markets in the cities throughout the state. This was obviously of great interest to me representing the North Fork and their thriving agricultural economy.

And job creation is not just about tax incentives – those are one of the few tools we have. It’s also about doing away with a lot of these regulations – or streamlining these regulations. We’ve created a situation in this state where have an unbelievably, highly politicized regulatory environment where it makes it extremely difficult for people to do business. You have situations where a law passed seems likes solutions in search of a problem. We need to change that.

The text of this interview was edited for the purposes of brevity and clarity.