Editor’s note: This week, we provide detailed coverage of the recent debate between State Senator Ryan Fazio and his challenger, Nick Simmons. As part of our commitment to fair and balanced reporting, we have worked diligently to present both candidates’ views on critical issues affecting Connecticut. In the interest of transparency and serving the community, we have also published the full transcript of the debate—over 18,000 words—on our website for those who wish to read the entire exchange. Due to space limitations, we could not print the full transcript, but we encourage you to review it online for a comprehensive understanding of the candidates’ positions. Transcript link: https://www.greenwichsentinel.com/2024/10/18/local-candidates-debate-publics-questions-and-issues/
By Liz Leamy, Beth Barhydt, and Emma Barhydt
The October 15 debate between State Senator Ryan Fazio and his challenger Nick Simmons highlighted key differences in their visions for Connecticut’s future. While both candidates discussed issues such as affordability, gun safety, and transportation, the debate revealed distinct contrasts in how each would approach their time in office.
The Affordability Debate: Specific Tax Proposals and Political Realities
Connecticut’s high cost of living was the dominant theme in the debate as both candidates acknowledged the financial pressures faced by families in the 36th District, which covers all of Greenwich, most of New Canaan, and parts of Stamford. However, their solutions differed, revealing two distinct approaches to reducing the burden on residents.
Ryan Fazio opened the debate focusing on the practicalities of everyday expenses. “Every single day, I talk to working families and seniors who have to make impossible decisions about whether they’re going to afford to pay their electric bill, their kids’ school supplies, or their prescription drugs,” Fazio said.
Fazio’s tax plan centers on reducing the tax burden for Connecticut families through a combination of income tax cuts, property tax reforms, and broadening the tax base. Some key components of his plan are to reduce income taxes by $2,000 for the average family by simplifying and broadening the tax base, and to close special interest loopholes; to implement a property tax cap similar to those in other states; to extend Connecticut’s fiscal guardrails ensuring that any tax cuts do not result in larger deficits or increased debt for the state. Fazio also focused on what he called the “hidden tax” embedded in Connecticut’s electric bills.
Nick Simmons presented a broader approach. “For our generation [housing costs are more] like 30 to 35% of income,” Simmons said, sharing how the affordability landscape has dramatically changed since his parents purchased a house in 1981.
Simmons called for “Property tax relief” such as the car tax, a major source of revenue for local municipalities, describing it as an unnecessary burden on Connecticut residents. Additionally, he proposed reforms to the gift and estate taxes, stating that reducing these taxes would help keep wealthier residents and businesses in the state. “The estate tax is for a certain percent of the population, not for everybody, but if we cut it, we keep our highest earners here contributing to the budget,” he noted.
“A lot of us feel it every single day, remarked Simmons, “It is hurting families and it’s got to be a priority.”
Energy Debate
Energy costs took up a large portion of the debate, with both candidates agreeing on the need for action as Connecticut’s high electricity rates consistently rank among the highest in the nation. During the debate, Fazio explained that he has called for an immediate special session to address Connecticut’s high energy costs. “The cost of electricity is too high in this state,” Fazio emphasized, citing numerous complaints from constituents. Fazio accused the state’s leadership of failing to act swiftly, noting, “I have had hundreds of messages and correspondences from constituents begging us to act, but the state leadership hasn’t done anything.”
Fazio laid out his six-point plan for reducing energy costs, which includes eliminating the public benefits tax from electric bills, a charge he described as “a hidden tax” that funds over 40 different government programs unrelated to energy. He argued that removing this charge alone could save residents up to $500 per year on their electricity bills. “We need to cut these unnecessary charges,” Fazio said, pointing out that other states do not impose similar costs on their citizens.
In addition to eliminating the public benefits tax, Fazio’s plan focuses on diversifying the state’s energy sources by increasing investment in nuclear and hydropower. He also called for stronger oversight of utility companies, criticizing the lack of accountability and transparency in how rates are set. Fazio co-authored Senate Bill 7, which was passed earlier this year to address some of these concerns by improving governance over utility companies. However, Fazio argued that more needs to be done, particularly in securing natural gas supplies for winter to avoid potential future rolling blackouts.
Nick Simmons said, “I think Ryan’s been great on this issue. We agree on a lot of the points that he made. I add a little bit of context. One again, great on this issue in the solutions, but let’s just also be honest about the cause. You just said most of the increase in your bill was due to the social benefits portion. That’s not true. 77% of the increase in the bill was due to a deal that was made in 2017 made by both Republicans and Democrats to prop up the millstone nuclear power plant with a company called Dominion. And we’re locked into that for a lot, much longer time than we should be. It was a bad deal. Democrats equally blame as much as Republicans, but it is causing us right now to overpay and it caused 77% of the increase in our bills.”
Simmons went on to say, “So you’ve got great solutions. Let’s just make sure we’re also being honest about the causes of what happened. Other things I would add on to what Ryan is saying right now is a once in a generation opportunity to get federal funding through the inflation reduction Act and through the infrastructure bill to upgrade our grid. I was in the governor’s office when we were fighting for that money every single day from the federal government. It’s a little frustrating. They see the northeast as, you guys are already on your way with clean energy, so we’re just going to go send this to somewhere else. But they don’t take into account price. Yes, we are investing more in clean energy than other parts of the country, but we’re also paying more than any other parts of the country. So we need to upgrade our grid with more storage and more reliability and if we get more money from the feds, we should be doing that and just as a state we can allocate more of our bonding dollars to upgrade the grid. So I would add all that. And then also just that nuclear, we got it, got it. Got to do more. We finally lifted the moratorium on being able to build nuclear power plants that was in place since 1979 and I think we got to do a lot more there because we just saw in Pennsylvania, they just turned three mile islands back on, which is awesome. That’s adding more clean energy to the grid for a Microsoft data plant. We should be doing more innovative things like that.”
Througout the debate Fazio focused heavily on protecting local control of zoning, which he views as crucial for towns like Greenwich, New Canaan, and North Stamford to maintain their unique character. Fazio criticized state efforts to impose zoning mandates, specifically referencing his work in defeating legislation like House Bill 5390, which would have promoted transit-oriented development by allowing multi-unit residential buildings within one mile of transit stations without local approval. “I worked to stop that bill because it would have allowed developers to come into our communities and build high-rises without any local say,” Fazio explained. He emphasized that municipalities should have the final say in how they handle development to avoid congestion, strain on services, and changes to the local landscape.
Fazio’s position on zoning reform highlights his broader legislative goal of preserving local governance. He cited his work on Senate Bill 333, a law he co-authored to restore greater authority to towns in zoning decisions. “This bill gives our towns the tools they need to push back against overreach and secure moratoriums on projects that don’t fit the needs of our communities,” Fazio said, framing the issue as a defense of local democracy and community decision-making.
Simmons did not mention local zoning in this debate.
Gun Safety
The debate quickly turned to gun safety, an issue that drew a sharp contrast between the candidates. Simmons, who has spoken passionately about the impact of school shootings, pointed to Fazio’s voting record, stating, “My opponent didn’t just vote against that bill. He decided to take part in a filibuster that lasted until 4:00 AM in the morning.”
Fazio expressed his frustration at the tone of the campaign, saying “I think it’s very unfortunate that my opponent has chosen to run one of the most negative and deceptive campaigns in this town’s history.” He quipped, “People are probably forgetting that I actually exist in color. I don’t just exist in black and white from all those ads.”
“I support strong gun safety laws for our state. Connecticut has the second or the third strongest gun safety laws in the country. I not only support those laws, I actually support enforcing them. If we do not enforce them, they are not worth the paper they are written on and they actually make us less safe.”
Fazio did not back away from his position. He explained that while he voted against the gun safety bill, he did so because it lacked sufficient focus on enforcement. His amendments to the bill, which included provisions for school resource officers and measures to increase the seizure of illegal guns, were not adopted.
“I actually never participated in a filibuster. I spoke for four minutes on the Senate floor that night simply introducing three amendments that would strengthen that gun law. They would have provided a state support system for school resource officers, which studies show do increase student and faculty safety. They would have reintroduced proactive policing policies like consent searches, which have been shown to take hundreds of illegal guns off the street in Connecticut.” Fazio then claimed that Simmons “opposes state support for school resource officers. He opposes giving police the tools to take hundreds of illegal guns off the street because of his tenure as Deputy Chief of Staff, the administration introduced a pardon and paroles policy without any public notice and without notice to the victims of families of shootings, including the mother of Elizabeth Carlson who stood with me at a press conference arguing that this policy must end and her daughter would be alive if we were actually enforcing our gun laws in this state.”
Simmons responded, “It’s just disappointing because we know how smart you are. I know how smart you are. You are a really smart guy.”
Simmons went on to say, “Please just don’t take my word for it. Ryan has an F from Connecticut Against Gun Violence. He’s endorsed by one of the most pro right-wing gun groups in the entire state. Just made up a bunch of things about my positions without a shred of evidence. I’m not attacking personally. I’m not trying to make this negative. I’m talking about your votes. You had the opportunity to vote on the most comprehensive gun safety bill. Another Republican in your caucus voted for it. You did not. You voted for all 14 amendments that weakened gun safety laws in the state of Connecticut. You talk about crime and wanting to get guns off the streets that Bill proposed capping the amount of guns an individual can buy in a year at 36. Why the hell would anybody need 36 guns in a year?”
Fazio countered, “I am proud to have the endorsement of the Stamford Police Association and the Fraternal Order of Police in this state who actually put their safety at risk every day to reduce gun violence and I will always fight for public safety as your Senator.”
This back-and-forth encapsulated a stark difference in how the two candidates approach policymaking. Simmons, speaking to broader national concerns around gun violence, focused on the importance of strong legislative action. Fazio, meanwhile, honed in on practical enforcement, reflecting his preference for carefully crafted legislative solutions that focus on implementation and accountability.
Transportation: Who Bears Responsibility?
Infrastructure, particularly the notorious congestion along I-95, also became a heated topic. Simmons was quick to criticize what he saw as the state’s failure to invest in critical transportation improvements. “We have the most congested highway in America from Greenwich to Norwalk,” Simmons said. “ Parents are leaving jobs. They say, ‘I love my job, it’s just not sustainable anymore, I can’t sit in this two hour commute each way.’”
Simmons also mentioned the necessity for infrastructure from the state and federal levels, noting how the 36th district has, “the highest percent of commuters on Metro North and we have one of the highest exposures to flooding in the entire state.” Fazio didn’t dispute the severity of the problem, but pushed back on how it should be addressed. He argued that Connecticut’s infrastructure projects are plagued by inefficiency, noting that the state has “the second or third highest per-mile cost of highways and roads in the country.” Ryan’s solution would be to reduce regulatory barriers and project costs, rather than funneling more money into the system.
Fazio’s remarks about Simmons’ time in the governor’s office highlighted a contrast in their perspectives. “Nick, you were in the governor’s office when this [transportation] issue was happening,” Fazio said. “The Department of Transportation is in the executive branch of the state government. So when you had responsibility and direct cognizance over transportation issues and traffic in lower Fairfield County, you didn’t, apparently, do anything about it.”
Simmons defended his role, clarifying that as a deputy chief of staff, he did not have the authority to direct funding or prioritize specific projects. However, he argued that now, as a candidate for state senate, he is determined to make infrastructure improvements a top priority, citing the urgent need to alleviate traffic and invest in long-term transportation solutions.
Reproductive Rights: A Pragmatic Approach vs. an Ideological Vision
The debate over reproductive rights became one of the most contentious moments of the evening, with Nick Simmons directly attacking Ryan Fazio’s vote against the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act.
Simmons framed Fazio’s decision as a refusal to stand up for women’s rights in Connecticut. “Ryan voted against [the safe haven law],” Simmons declared, this bill, “expanded access to abortion by empowering other providers like nurses to be able to provide more types of abortion, expanding access.”
Fazio; however, emphasized that his opposition to the bill was based on practical concerns, not ideological ones. “I support keeping abortion legal in Connecticut,” Fazio stated unequivocally.
Fazio explained that his vote against the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act was due to concerns about patient safety, specifically the provision allowing invasive procedures, such as aspiration abortions, to be performed by nurse midwives without requiring a doctor’s supervision. “The provision that Nick was talking about would lower the standard of care by allowing aspiration, abortions and invasive abortions that could go into the 16th week to be performed solely by nurse midwives without the consultation of a doctor,” Fazio said. His focus, he explained, was on ensuring that medical procedures remained safe and up to the highest healthcare standards.
Fazio further pointed to the testimony of several medical experts, including the Connecticut State Medical Society and other healthcare organizations, who voiced concerns that the bill could compromise patient safety. “There were six independent medical organizations that testified during the public hearings, including the Connecticut State Medical Society critical of the bill saying this may not be the legislation that is wise to pass in a short session and without the benefit of a full working to explore the many complex facets presented,” Fazio explained, referencing how healthcare experts called for a more cautious approach to the bill’s provisions, particularly those allowing non-physicians to perform complex procedures.
Simmons, however, dismissed these concerns. He argued that leading healthcare organizations had endorsed the safety of the bill’s provisions. Simmons countered, “Planned Parenthood said it was the greatest bill on expanding reproductive care in a generation.” Simmons pushed back against the notion that patient safety was compromised. He viewed Fazio’s concerns as an attempt to sidestep the larger issue of reproductive rights.
Fazio’s approach remained focused on healthcare safety, emphasizing that his objections were narrow and pragmatic, not reflective of a broader opposition to reproductive rights. He pointed to his work in expanding access to reproductive healthcare, specifically his co-authorship of a bipartisan law allowing pharmacists to prescribe oral contraceptives. “I coauthored and passed a law that allows pharmacists to prescribe oral contraceptives,” Fazio said, calling it “a tried and true program” designed to increase access for women, particularly those in lower-income or rural areas. This, Fazio argued, was a practical solution that expanded reproductive healthcare without compromising safety.
For voters in the 36th District, the debate illuminated two distinct approaches: a pragmatic focus on refining healthcare policies versus an ideological commitment to expanding rights and protections.
The Road Ahead: A Question of Governance
As the debate came to a close, the differences between the two candidates were evident, not just in their policies, but in their approach to how government works.
“Representing my hometown for the last three years has been the honor of a lifetime,” remarked Fazio, “There’s not a day that goes by for me that I don’t feel the awesome responsibility of doing my best to protect our district and make our state a better place.”
Fazio emphasized his record of bipartisan cooperation, pointing to the six laws he has passed in just three years. “I’m proud of my bipartisan record of leadership … co-authoring and passing into law six new laws to do everything from returning basic rights to planning and zoning to our municipalities, to expanding birth control access for women, and to strengthening oversight of utilities in order to protect our consumers, but there’s a lot more work to do,” Fazio said. His message was one of steady, careful governance, focused on finding practical solutions to the state’s most pressing problems.
“I absolutely love this town. It’s where me and my four siblings were all born at Greenwich Hospital where my parents bought their first house over 50 years ago,” recalled Simmons.
Simmons, by contrast, framed his candidacy as an opportunity for change. “We’ve got to invest. I mean, we are sitting on the shoulders of giants who created this incredible town for us on the coastline,” he said, referencing transportation improvements, housing affordability, and climate change in his closing statement. Echoing Fazio, Simmons declared, “it would be the honor of a lifetime to be able to be your state senator.” His message was broader, more focused on the vision of what Connecticut could become with the right investments and leadership.
The debate underscored an emerging distinction between the two: Fazio’s focus on targeted, practical solutions and carefully written legislation versus Simmons’ desire for broader reforms, strong ideological stands, and more sweeping legislative action.
