Niezgodski and Cotton answer questions in the State Senate race No. 10

The Tribune is partnering with the League of Women Voters of the South Bend Area and the American Democracy Project at Indiana University South Bend to publish candidates’ responses to questions on these issues. The League and IUSB’s ADP operate Vote411.org, a website that provides information about candidates and their positions on key issues. The website also includes other tools to help you navigate the voting process.

The Tribune has agreed to publish the candidates’ responses unedited, meaning any spelling, typographical or grammatical errors are the candidates’ fault. The Tribune only publishes some questions from selected notable races. Additional questions and answers can be found at Vote411.org.

Two candidates will appear on the ballot for Indiana’s 10th Senate District. The office is held by Democrat David Niezgodski. He is challenged by libertarian Tim Cotton.

Tim Cotton

Occupation: Quality Engineer

Education: Bachelor degree

E-mail:[email protected]

Website:www.CottonForSenate.com

Facebook:www.facebook.com/CottonforSenate/

Dawid Niezgodski

Occupation: State Senator District 10

Education: 1978 Graduate of LaSalle High School, Licensed Journeyman/Contractor, Completed Plumbing Apprenticeship 1986

E-mail:[email protected]

Website:niegodskiforsenate.com

Facebook:www.facebook.com/niezgodskiforsenate

What is the first bill you would advocate for during the 2025 legislative session? Why this one?

Cotton: The first bill I support is one that significantly reduces property taxes for Hoosier homeowners, reflecting my “Own Your Property and Ditch the Tax” campaign platform. Career politicians have allowed property taxes to rise unchecked, burdening families and threatening the American dream of home ownership. This bill isn’t just about financial relief; it’s about restoring true ownership – where you own your property, not the government. My goal is to ensure that every Hoosier can live safely without the fear of being taxed out of their home. This bold legislation directly improves quality of life by promoting honesty and financial freedom, in line with my “quality over quantity” approach.

Niezgodski: I have several important bills that I plan to file if the opportunity arises to serve the residents of the 10th Senate District for an additional term. One problem became glaring. Indiana’s current statute does not adequately protect tenants from landlords who have little or no concern for the health and well-being of individuals/families who are simply looking for suitable housing in exchange for their hard-earned rent money. I would introduce a bill to require security deposits to be held in a separate trust account. In the event of repairs or unsuitable conditions, tenants will also be able to place their rent payments in an escrow account until non-compliant landlords correct the unsuitable conditions. Tenants who pay their rent on time deserve healthy and safe living conditions. Good and honest property owners would remain unaffected.

What, if anything, would you change about how Indiana’s K-12 education system is funded?

Cotton: To improve K-12 education in Indiana, I support the “Your Child, Your Choice” platform that puts tax dollars directly to students in whatever school they attend, including home schooling. This will provide parents who homeschool their children with additional resources in the form of a variety of curricula and tools that may otherwise be out of reach. Increasing school choice through charters and vouchers and reducing reliance on local property taxes will promote equity. By simplifying administrative costs, more funding will directly benefit students and teachers.

Niezgodski: Indiana’s K-12 education system consists of traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online learning, and homeschooling. If these educational opportunities must remain, including scholarships (vouchers) of choice for students attending private schools, then all these systems must ensure equal transparency and individual funding. Traditional public schools must receive the necessary funding to provide adequate classroom sizes and modern equipment and learning supplies. Traditional public school teachers should have advanced degrees and be paid the dollars they deserve to educate future leaders. All children deserve the same opportunities for a top-quality education, with no barriers to success. Traditional brick and mortar public schools must be properly maintained.

Is Indiana adequately protecting our natural environment? Are additional regulations needed?

Cotton: Indiana’s environmental protections can be strengthened. Current enforcement often results in minimal penalties for environmental damage, which does not effectively address the damage caused. A more effective approach would be to focus on ensuring that any environmental damage is fully repaired or restored, rather than simply imposing fines. By prioritizing recovery and holding those responsible for damage accountable, we can better protect our natural resources and ensure lasting environmental benefits.

Niezgodski: Indiana should do more. Indiana’s wetlands legislation during the last legislative session did more damage. House Bill 1383 reduced wetland protections by moving some Class III wetlands – which are currently protected – to Class II, which have significantly fewer protections. It was the first bill to reach the governor’s desk, and he signed it on February 12. The session was barely halfway through. The importance of wetlands to Indiana’s water resources cannot be underestimated. We need to introduce stricter regulations to protect our most important resources, not less stringent ones. Rep. Maureen Bauer’s success in passing legislation calling for firefighters to be tested for PFAs last year revealed greater awareness that more field visits to these toxic chemicals will also be necessary.

The tragic death of six children living in a house that failed safety inspections before burning down has drawn attention to the problem of safe and affordable housing in our state. For example, Indiana is one of only six states that do not allow rent to be held in escrow unless security standards are met. Should the Legislature introduce similar legislation or other measures to improve housing conditions for Hoosier families?

Cotton: Yes, Indiana should consider a law that would allow tenants to hold rent in escrow if safety standards are not met. This would provide tenants with additional protection against negligent landlords by ensuring that specific complaints are addressed before full rent is released. Such a measure would also protect owners from potential abuses by requiring them to respond to legitimate concerns and meet safety standards. This balanced approach would help ensure that housing conditions are properly maintained and provide fair protection for both tenants and landlords.

Niezgodski: Indiana should allow tenants to deposit rent, triggering action by negligent landlords. Rent can be paid into a trust account. Negligent owners seeking simple profit would now have a reason to keep properties safe and habitable. I will also introduce provisions requiring a landlord to repair/replace essential items within 48 hours of receiving notice from a tenant that a tenant’s rental property is lacking basic services, including the possibility for a tenant to bring enforcement actions if the landlord fails to comply. To these measures, I would also like to add the content of SB 243, which I co-authored last session. This bill would provide further protection for tenants when landlords want to sell a property. I would also look for co-authors of all these measures from both sides of the conflict, because there are no political divisions on these issues.

How to balance local government with uniform decisions issued by higher-level authorities? Is your philosophy consistent when comparing state to federal and comparing state to local? Why or why not? (Please provide specific examples, such as a state repealing local tax rates or puppy mill bans, or the federal government establishing policy on immigration or marijuana.

Cotton: Balancing principles of self-governance with uniform decisions means prioritizing local control on community-specific issues, while ensuring consistency on broader issues. For example, Indiana’s Constitutional Carry Act ensures uniform Second Amendment rights across the state, preventing cities like Hammond, Gary, and Indianapolis from imposing restrictive gun regulations that conflict with state law. Local governments should handle issues such as zoning and local regulations, but state laws ensure consistency in fundamental rights. Federal oversight is necessary for national issues, while state control is preferred for local issues, reflecting social values ​​and protecting freedoms.

Niezgodski: Autonomy is the ability of local authorities to govern in the way they know best, without interference from higher authorities. The ability to make local decisions is needed because all counties and municipalities are not the same. What constitutes a good application of ordinances passed in South Bend or St. County. Joseph, does not necessarily mean it is a good ordinance in Jamestown or Boone County. Take, for example, local governments’ ban on the sale of dogs in pet stores. In this case, the local government should have the opportunity to make decisions, because it is best able to monitor its local ordinances. The state should leave justified cases of establishing self-government to local self-government. In the same way, Indiana should be able to create its own marijuana policy without the federal government imposing controls.

This article originally appeared in the South Bend Tribune: Candidates for Indiana State Senate District 10 answer questions