Four candidates — two Democrats and two Republicans, including one incumbent — are in the race for the two open seats on the Stanford Town Board. Each of them participated in Oct. 14 Meet the Candidates forum hosted by the Herald. A video of the forum is available to view here.
Below are concise profiles summarizing their backgrounds and positions on key issues including housing, business growth, recreation, taxes, short-term rentals, the comprehensive plan, agriculture, and natural resources.
Charlie Cunningham (D)
Cunningham, a town planner and new parent, described a career that spans AmeriCorps service, community organizing with the American Red Cross, planning, and hands-on volunteering in Stanford, including trash pickups and helping with the new playground. He cast himself as a collaborator who wants to bring technical planning skills to the board.
On housing, Cunningham said the board’s direct levers are limited — particularly for building publicly funded housing — but argued the town can make it easier for appropriate private investment by clarifying processes, signaling priorities, and encouraging businesses that support year-round families. He supports using the comprehensive plan as a “conversation starter” that can evolve over time. He favors working closely with the business community on a practical center-of-town plan (residents often mention a grocery option) and using small, realistic steps to improve walkability.
Cunningham backs the short-term rental cap of 55 as a prudent baseline, to be monitored and revisited as conditions change — especially as the town weighs infrastructure impacts and the need for long-term rentals. On taxes, he supports holding the line to preserve essentials such as winter road operations. He supports dark-sky practices and targeted invasive-species management, and said the town should continue to listen to farmers while supporting small producers who keep the local food system resilient.
Frank Marcin (R)
Marcin, a Marine Corps veteran and retired NYPD mounted officer, moved to Stanford after a 13 years on horseback. He spoke about preserving what drew him to Stanford in the first place. He said his public-service background informs a practical approach: listen first, then find common ground. “You got to work together,” he said.
On housing, Marcin said county septic standards can drive up costs and make new construction difficult; he suggested encouraging homes along existing road frontage, such as Route 82, where infrastructure is simpler. He suggested short-term rentals can also introduce young couples to the town. On business development, he floated outreach to a larger grocery chain to test a small annex in the hamlet.
Marcin said the Comprehensive Plan’s breadth can feel uncertain for residents who want clear yes-or-no answers. He supports regulating short-term rentals and indicated openness to adjustments as the town learns what works. On taxes, he called current levels fair but “adjustable,” and urged public participation in budget workshops. He said farmers should be left to farm without nuisance complaints from newer neighbors, and he emphasized protecting water and foliage while being realistic about how planning overlays are applied on the ground.
Teddy Secor (D), incumbent
Incumbent Teddy Secor, a Stanford resident since 2010–11, emphasized continuity and representation for renters and working residents. He has served on the town’s Recreation Commission, the Conservation Advisory Commission, and the Climate Smart Communities Task Force, and previously worked elections. He’s also long involved with civic groups, including the Haunted Fortress, the Grange, the Lions Club, and Stanford American Community Inc.
On keeping young families, Secor said the town’s recreation offerings are central to quality of life and regional draw. “So really, I got to say, recreation is probably the most doable and present way to keep people in this town and in this general area,” he said. He supports strengthening programs while keeping fees fair, and pursuing grants and partnerships to avoid large tax hikes.
Secor said the comprehensive plan should guide—but not dictate—policy, calling it useful when applied with a “critical eye.” He backed the town’s cap on short-term rentals at 55 as a balanced starting point that can be adjusted if needed. He favored modernizing zoning to encourage the right kinds of small businesses in and around the hamlet while maintaining rural character. On taxes, he said the goal is to sustain core services and long-term investments without dramatic increases. On agriculture, he said the board should “listen… deeply” to farmers and incorporate their feedback into policy. On natural resources, he pointed to the Climate Smart work plan and grant-driven projects (such as public EV charging) that align environmental and homeowner considerations.
Durga Taylor (R)
Taylor, a teacher and U.S. military veteran, presented herself as a hands-on neighbor who helps local veterans and elders with rides, meals, and day-to-day needs, and mentors girls into their first jobs. She argued for clear, enforceable rules over open-ended guidance. “You don’t interpret the law. You read it, and you execute it,” she said.
Taylor questioned how the comprehensive plan is used in practice, saying recommendations can be interpreted to block small businesses; she opposes relying on ambiguous guidance and favors “black and white” standards. On keeping families, she argued that strong schools are a primary draw and pressed for improved proficiency and teacher training. She also called for allowing more small businesses to operate, contending that growth in local jobs would help residents afford homes.
Taylor opposed capping short-term rentals at 55, framing them as income for older residents facing inflation. She said the town should “secure” and better enforce rules at the town park to protect community investment. On taxes, she said she would not raise or lower them, and instead would grow the tax base by welcoming residents and businesses. On natural resources, she urged scrutiny of feel-good measures—arguing, for example, that EV chargers may rely on fossil-fuel power upstream—and advocated for decisions grounded in detailed data.