The Weekly wanted to give voters insight into each state senate candidate’s position on issues we believe matter most to the community. 

Consequently, we asked the candidates for California State Senate District 10, Linda Price and Scott Sakakihara, four questions, giving them the flexibility to answer as many as they wanted. We limited their responses to 750 words (allowing a bit of flexibility for how disparate word processors count words).

Their responses appear verbatim. 

Data centers: Should the state regulate data center construction, and the water and electricity use of existing facilities? What policies would you recommend?

Price: Yes. California should encourage technology and innovation, but we also have to protect residents and our limited resources. Data centers are significant users of electricity, and their demand is growing rapidly. The California Energy Commission projects data centers could account for about 9% of California’s peak electricity demand by 2040.

I support reasonable, transparent standards requiring data centers to disclose their water and electricity use and demonstrate that new projects will not shift infrastructure costs onto existing ratepayers. We should also encourage recycled water, water-efficient cooling systems, and energy-efficient technology.

The goal should not be to stop data centers. It should be responsible growth that protects our water supply, electric grid and taxpayers.

Sakakihara: If a community is going to allow data center development, projects should provide open information and meaningful public input, with no NDAs standing between residents and the facts. They should meet strict environmental standards, use the latest water recycling and efficiency technologies, provide clean energy sufficient to meet their needs and contribute to local infrastructure, and minimize noise and other impacts. Projects should also uphold strong labor and safety standards, including union labor and project labor agreements, and make long-term financial commitments so communities are not left holding the bag if an operator closes.

California can advance technology while demanding that companies be good neighbors and publicly accountable. It won’t matter how much computing power we have if we don’t have enough water for people to drink, farms to operate, and communities to thrive.

Housing regulations and small landlords: Some say California’s housing laws — including the Density Bonus Law, the Housing Element Law, and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 — are so complex they discourage small landlords from renting their units, as argued at the Aug. 26 Santa Clara Planning Commission meeting. Is this a valid concern? Should the legislature revisit these laws, and how?

Sakakihara: Housing affordability is one of the most important challenges facing California, and is one of the urgent reasons I entered public service. The cost of living is pushing families out of our communities, making it harder for young people to build a future here, and forcing too many Californians to choose between staying in California and being financially secure. California should be a place where people can afford to raise a family and build a life.

I believe the complexity of our housing regulations makes it harder to solve this crisis with the urgency it demands. Well-intentioned laws have accumulated over time, creating a system that can be difficult for small property owners, local governments, and housing developers to navigate.

The Legislature should simplify and streamline requirements to build housing faster while preserving strong tenant protections, affordability requirements, responsible development, and strong labor standards. Clearer, more predictable rules can help unlock housing production and make it easier for communities to deliver for residents. We cannot afford to let a complicated system stand in the way of the housing California desperately needs.

Price: Yes, it is a valid concern. California needs more housing, but we should be careful that well-intentioned regulations do not make it harder or less attractive for ordinary Californians to provide rental housing.

The Density Bonus Law, Housing Element requirements and Housing Crisis Act create a complicated regulatory environment. The Density Bonus Law, for example, can require local governments to provide increased density and various incentives or concessions when qualifying affordable housing is included.

I would support reviewing these laws to determine which requirements are actually producing housing and which are creating unnecessary costs, delays or uncertainty. We need to build more housing without destroying neighborhood character or driving small landlords out of the rental market.

Local governments should have a meaningful voice in determining how growth fits their communities, while the state should remove unnecessary barriers to responsible housing development.

Cost-shifting regulations: Some state regulations shift costs onto residents — for example, landscaping restrictions or tire standards critics say raise costs. Should the legislature address this, and how?

Price: Absolutely. Before imposing another regulation, the Legislature should ask a simple question: Who ultimately pays for it? If the answer is California families, renters, homeowners or small businesses, we need to carefully examine whether the benefit justifies the cost.

I support requiring a meaningful cost-benefit analysis for regulations that substantially increase the cost of living. Regulations should be based on sound evidence, should achieve a clearly defined public benefit, and should be reviewed periodically to determine whether they are still necessary.

California families are already struggling with housing, utilities, food, insurance and transportation costs. Government should be looking for ways to reduce unnecessary costs—not continually add to them.

Sakakihara: Affordability should be a consideration in every area of state policymaking. We should pursue important statewide goals, whether they involve climate, public health, efficiency, safety, or other priorities, without unnecessarily putting the costs on individuals who can least afford them. Building a stronger California requires all of us to contribute to the public good, and we should take pride in doing our part.

Additionally, the Legislature should regularly ask whether a regulation is actually addressing the problem, if it’s a half-measure, whether there are more effective ways to achieve the same goal, and always, who is ultimately bearing the cost. Good policy should deliver a public benefit while being honest about the real-world costs Californians are being asked to bear.

Continuity vs. change from predecessor: What issues would you vote on differently from your predecessor? The same?

Sakakihara: I have tremendous respect for my predecessor and the work she has done in this seat. We share a commitment to making California more affordable, protecting our environment, expanding opportunity, and delivering for working families.

I will bring my own perspective and experiences to the role, and the Legislature will inevitably face different challenges and opportunities than it has in the past. I will approach each issue with an open mind, listen to constituents and stakeholders, and make decisions based on what I believe will best serve our communities and the state. I will focus on the needs of our district and on delivering meaningful results for the people I represent.

Price: I would bring a different approach to the Legislature, particularly on government accountability, affordability and the role of regulation. I would make reducing fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars a priority and would support greater transparency in state spending. I would also scrutinize regulations that increase the cost of housing, energy and everyday life, while supporting policies that make California more affordable for working families, seniors and small businesses.

On issues where my predecessor and I share common ground, I would support continuing those efforts. For example, I believe protecting children, addressing homelessness and substance abuse, improving public safety, and investing in our communities should be bipartisan priorities. Senator Aisha Wahab has also made public safety, affordability and accountability part of her legislative work. My approach would be simple: listen to the people, examine the facts, spend taxpayer money responsibly and make decisions based on what actually works for the people of Senate District 10.

State Senate District 10 includes Alameda County cities Fremont, Fairview, Hayward, Newark, Union City; and Santa Clara County cities Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and parts of San Jose, including the Alum Rock, Alviso, Berryessa, and East Foothills neighborhoods.

Related Political Posts:
Sunnyvale To Hold Three Uncontested Elections
2026 Santa Clara District 2 & 3 Candidates
2026 Santa Clara Mayoral Candidates