11th Middlesex State Representative candidates Sangiolo and Yanovsky spar over government’s role, housing, and transit

The two candidates running for State Representative in Newton’s 11th Middlesex District – Democratic candidate Amy Sangiolo and Republican candidate Vlad Yanovsky – faced off in an online debate this week moderated by Max Woolf of the Charles River Regional Chamber (see video). With State Representative Kay Khan set to retire, both candidates presented contrasting visions, hoping to secure voters’ support in the November 5th election.

The debate opened with candidates describing how their life experiences have influenced their political views. Yanovsky, a U.S. Army veteran, argued for a smaller government role, emphasizing the importance of individual freedom and limiting government interference in business. He criticized the influence of “big tech” and called for a complete separation of government and business, highlighting his concern about undue influence in recent elections.

On the other hand, Sangiolo, a former Newton City Councilor and current supervising consumer specialist at the Attorney General’s office, shared her belief in the government’s responsibility to uplift and support its citizens. Shaped by her upbringing as a daughter of immigrants, she spoke about her commitment to advocacy, particularly for those facing homelessness, eviction, and other social challenges.

Housing was a central topic of debate, with significant differences in opinion. Yanovsky reiterated his opposition to housing legislation, suggesting that those unable to afford housing in Newton should consider other communities. He asserted that there was no housing shortage, and that there was plenty of housing within the state. He said that the homelessness crisis is mainly a mental health issue and that mental-health issues should indeed be addressed. Sangiolo countered by emphasizing that housing is a human right and argued that increasing the housing supply – especially deeply affordable and workforce housing – is crucial. She expressed support for tools like real estate transfer fees to help fund affordable housing initiatives. Responding to a follow-up question, Yanovsky said the state has no business regulating homes and housing, and that only local zoning boards should make such decisions.

When asked about how each candidate would navigate Beacon Hill’s political landscape – where Democrats hold a supermajority – Sangiolo spoke of her established relationships with state legislators, which she believes will help her make an impact from day one. Yanovsky, in contrast, acknowledged the challenges of being a Republican on Beacon Hill but said his mission would be to increase transparency, describing himself as a “speed bump” to overspending and a voice against excessive taxation.

Transportation also featured prominently in the debate. Both candidates agreed that the MBTA is in dire need of improvements, but their approaches differed. Yanovsky called for privatization and community involvement in funding infrastructure, rather than broad taxation. Sangiolo pushed for increased federal and state funding for upgrading Newton’s commuter rail stations, adding that reliable public transit is crucial for achieving climate goals and reducing emissions.

The debate also touched on the upcoming ballot questions, including whether the state should eliminate the MCAS requirement for high school graduation. Sangiolo defended the standardized testing requirement, stating it was necessary to measure school performance, while Yanovsky opposes the MCAS requirement for graduation, favoring competition in public education through school choice and charter schools. 

The candidates addressed the ballot question that proposes raising the minimum wage for tipped employees. Yanovsky opposes raising the minimum wage for tipped employees and added that he favors eliminating all minimum-wage laws. Sangiolo said she supports raising the minimum wage for tipped employees.

In their closing statements, Yanovsky positioned himself as an outsider ready to challenge the status quo and reduce government intrusion in private life. Sangiolo, emphasized her legislative experience, advocacy, and constituent service, and she committed to addressing the housing crisis, improving public transit, and tackling rising healthcare costs.

With the election approaching, the debate highlighted the starkly different paths that 11th Middlesex voters can choose: Sangiolo’s progressive government-led initiatives or Yanovsky’s push for individual freedom and reduced government intervention.