Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Senator Scott Wiener
Friday January 17, 2025
Question 1: Major Issues and Priorities
LWVSF: What major issues do you think the legislature must deal with in 2025 and beyond, and what are your personal legislative priorities?
Senator Wiener: We have huge issues this year. We're dealing with a new federal administration that's hostile to California, that could try to take away or undermine our funding for health care, for education, for disaster relief, etc. And so as budget chair, I'm very focused on our budget, which is currently approximately balanced and we're gonna have to do a bunch for LA, but we don't know what the federal government is going to do to us in terms of some of these big areas. So that's something we're very focused on. Obviously, we're very focused on the wildfires in LA. It's apocalyptic in the neighborhoods that were impacted. I'm actually heading down for the day to LA tomorrow for meetings and our senate leadership team is meeting with various leaders in LA about what they need from us. Then in terms of some legislative priorities this year, as always, I’m very focused on housing and continuing the push for a pro-housing policy to try to end our housing shortage. I'm also extremely focused on public transportation, making it easier to build and expand it, but also trying to avoid massive service cuts by Muni, BART, Caltrain,and AC Transit, which are going to happen if we let inertia set in. So we're very focused on transit, transit funding. There are other issues that I'm working on, some big health care affordability issues around the cost of insulin and pharmacy benefit managers.
Question 2: Obstacles to Building Affordable Housing and How to Address Them
LWVSF: What do you think the obstacles to building affordable housing are and how do you plan to address them in this legislature session?
Senator Wiener: First of all, there are a lot of regulations that make it hard to build housing around zoning and permitting and so forth. So we're always continuing to try to reform that to make it easier to build more housing in terms of the regulations. There are also resource issues for subsidized housing and so we've significantly increased our state investment in subsidized housing. But, we have more work to do there, which we'll continue to do. There are some issues that we have less control over, like the supply chain issues and the cost of materials, interest rates, the workforce, and so forth. But, we're definitely focusing on the areas where we do have control.
Question 3: Transportation Priorities
LWVSF: What are your priorities around transit for your coming term?
Senator Wiener: We’re working on legislation towards operational funding in the budget for transportation, making sure that as we move towards reauthorization of cap and trade, that it fully supports transit. And then we're working on legislation to authorize a regional funding measure to shore up our transit system. So those are the funding priorities. And then we have one bill that we're working on to reform, or to make it easier, for transit agencies to get permits for new transit projects and for improvements to existing transit.
LWVSF: How will you address and fund comprehensive local, regional and statewide transit initiatives?
Senator Wiener: Well, we had a bill last year to authorize a nine county revenue measure that could be a sales tax, a business tax, or a parcel tax. That did not pass this year. We're looking at one probably with four counties in it: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo County. That would also be one of those revenue measures. It's all very preliminary, so we don't know for sure. If we're successful, the idea would be to go to the ballot in November 2026.
LWVSF: What are your concerns in terms of the reliance on federal money for many of these projects with the new administration? Is there anything that we could get involved in that would help advocate for this federal funding to continue to flow to the Bay Area or to California in general?
Senator Wiener: California Republicans are in the best place, the best spot to advocate for that [to the Bay Area or to California]. So there are, I think, eight or nine Republican members of Congress from California that are state legislators. I think they're in the best position to advocate to the administration to not mess around with California.
Question 4: Electing Versus Appointing Judges
LWVSF: What is your stance on the election versus appointment of judges?
Senator Wiener: I don't like judicial elections. I've been very public about that. I actually wrote a law review article in law school about how in criminal cases, judicial elections can violate the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial. So I personally don't like California's system in terms of judicial elections. I'm not optimistic that that system's going to change any time soon. I have always supported sitting judges when they get challenged as a matter of principle. We've seen how in other states it's been very, very bad, especially when they have elections for their state Supreme Court, for example. It's really not a great approach in my view.
Question 5: Community Safety and Ensuring All Voices are Considered, and School Safety
LWVSF: Have you taken, or will you take, steps to ensure that all voices are considered in policy-making decisions about community safety? What steps have you taken or will you take to increase funding for neighborhood-based organizations that support crime survivors for your constituents?
Senator Wiener: I work with a lot of stakeholders and I've served on the public safety committee all eight years that I've been in the Senate, and I was just reappointed to it. It's a very intense committee because crime is public safety. It's just a very important issue and a lot of strong views. I work with a lot of the crime survivor groups, including groups that work with survivors of color. And, you're right, those voices have not traditionally been front and center in the discussion. And so their survivors have a much more diverse range of views and sometimes that is portrayed in terms of what the system should look like and whether an overly punitive system is really making people safer. So, yes, I absolutely work with those groups and will continue to do so.
LWVSF: Do you have any plans to implement or improve school safety?
Senator Wiener: It's early in our legislative calendar this year, so I can't predict every bill that's going to be introduced. I have been a staunch advocate for gun safety and for taking a smarter approach to guns. We have too many guns, and that's really one of the key reasons why we have all these mass shootings. We have been very protective of K–12 school funding. Last year, we had a $50 billion state budget deficit, and we were able to balance it without any cuts to public education. So, it's critical that schools have the resources they need for all sorts of things, including safety.
Question 6: Climate Impacts and Challenges
LWVSF: As you work on state legislation, how do you balance broad environmental initiatives with the specific local needs of coastal neighborhoods in your district, while ensuring disadvantaged communities are protected in the process?
Senator Wiener: I focus intensively on fighting climate change and that means reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. It means empowering people to be able to drive less and to have other options and having land use patterns that are less focused on sprawl and forcing people to drive long distances everywhere and to emit more fossil fuels, decarbonizing buildings, and so forth. There are a lot of different strategies that we need to try to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. We also know that regardless of that long-term effort, we do have to focus on mitigations. We're seeing it with the wildfires, with floods, and sea level rise. And there's a lot of work happening, for example, along the Embarcadero, which is going to get flooded if we don't do anything. We know that on the ocean side of things there are their own issues in terms of risk of flooding and tsunami. We had a tsunami alert recently. And so for all of our coastal areas, both bay and ocean, we have to be mindful of sea level rise and the risks that these communities face.
We know that low-income communities, communities of color, have sometimes been the most impacted by, not just climate change, but all sorts of environmental contamination issues, whether it's having more freeways running through their communities or more industrial and oil refinery kinds of uses being put in their neighborhoods. Just lack of care by society in terms of where we're locating things and who's going to bear the brunt of some of these environmental contamination issues. We know that low-income communities in this country are disproportionately in lower lying areas that are more susceptible to sea level rise. And so we need to be mindful of communities that are going to be the hardest hit. We know that, for example, some very wealthy communities were just hit by the wildfires in LA and that's been true with some other wildfires. And we need to help them. But, we need to make sure that we are helping low-income impacted communities just as much as we're helping higher-income communities because, historically, we know wealthier communities tend to get the most help.
Question 7: Independent Redistricting
LWVSF: Would you support possible legislation to bring independent redistricting commissions to more cities and counties in the state? Would you support a San Francisco ballot measure similar to the one that voters passed in LA that would create a truly independent redistricting commission in San Francisco?
Senator Wiener: There are two things here: reform in general and whether San Francisco's last redistricting was evidence of a need for reform, which I dispute. No redistricting is perfect. There's always going to be imperfections no matter what.
Going back to the ‘90s, a certain faction of San Francisco politics controlled the redistricting and did some gerrymandering in terms of how different neighborhoods were combined. And I don't think gerrymandering, even in a negative way; they drew lines in a way that would be more favorable to certain political factions. And they controlled those processes in the ‘90s and the early 2000s and 2011. And then when 2021 came around, they didn't control it anymore and so there were people who did not like how the lines were being drawn. And it's a democracy. They have every right in the world to dislike how the lines are being drawn, to criticize those lines, to say, no, this neighborhood should be with this neighborhood or these two neighborhoods shouldn't be separated. I totally respect that view.
I didn't agree with everything that the redistricting task force did, by the way. There were some things I agreed with, there were some things I disagreed with. But ultimately disagreement does not mean that it was a bad process. It was just a process where people who had gotten their way in the past didn't get their way this time. And so instead of just saying I disagree with that, it became there's something corrupt about what's going on. And there were times when what happened, and this played out in a bill in Sacramento, comparing the San Francisco process to the very racist process that played out in LA, where we saw horrible things happening. They're very, very different. So I just want to express that I dispute that there was a problem with the last San Francisco redistricting process. I thought the process was fine.
With that said, we can always look for ways to make things better. I have supported bills in the legislature, there have been counties, especially Republican counties, that have just refused to have any sort of independent redistricting task force, and instead just let the board of supervisors draw the lines, and they're super gerrymandered. And you had counties that had a Democratic majority, but only one seat could elect a Democrat out of five. And so we did impose on certain counties the requirement to have independent redistricting commissions and I supported those.
In San Francisco could the process we had be better? Yeah, it could be. I'm sure there are improvements that could be made to it. And could we have a system with nine commissioners, where instead of it being the mayor, board of supervisors, elections commission, maybe you have the controller appoint three, Elections Commission appoint three, and retired judges. I think that's a very fair conversation to have. Some of the reforms I've seen didn't make sense to me and make the process unduly complicated. But I think it's worth having the conversation. I would prefer that San Francisco do it locally rather than having the state impose it. Typically the state has only imposed it when you have a local government that refuses to do it at all. So, we have some time before the next redistricting and I hope there will be a broad-based conversation instead of a proposal that has narrow support and then gets put on the ballot. I just think it should be a broad-based conversation.
Question 8: Compensating Inmate Firefighters
LWVSF: Do you support inmate firefighters receiving more compensation, as well as gaining a pathway for them to actually become firefighters?
Senator Wiener: They don't get paid what they should and they should have a path to being firefighters afterwards. There have been several bills to allow that and I've always been very supportive of those bills. These are folks who are putting their lives on the line to protect our communities and if that's not enough to have a pathway to become a firefighter after you're out, then I don't know what is. They should absolutely be allowed to become firefighters.
Assemblymember Matt Haney
Monday January 27, 2025
Question 1: Major Issues and Priorities
LWVSF: What major issues do you think the legislature must deal with in 2025? What are your personal legislative priorities and where do you hope to make an impact?
Assemblymember Haney: I think the big issues facing California over the last few years, and currently, are pretty clear. We continue to struggle with very high levels and rates of homelessness, housing affordability, and broadly, income inequality, and the ways in which far too many people in our state are not making enough to provide for their basic needs and their families, including being able to afford housing. Now immediately, this year, we have had some disastrous wildfires, and the need to invest in the recovery for what was one of, if not the worst and most expensive disasters in modern California history, and all of the connected aspects to that — not only being able to rebuild quickly in Los Angeles, but we had a housing crisis before these fires. So now we have tens of thousands of people who need to find new housing or rebuild their houses and that's affecting the housing prices of the entire region, and likely the state, as we further exacerbate our housing shortage. But there are also other connected issues there. We're going to continue to have challenges around making sure that people who live in fire-prone areas are able to be safe. So, hardening homes to protect from fires, looking at areas where we can and can’t build, and addressing the connected insurance issues in which a lot of insurance companies are increasing prices or pulling out of California altogether. We've got huge challenges related to climate change and fires, and the way that it affects our other broader issues around affordability and housing are really front and center for our state and for me.
And then we've got a new administration in Washington with a lot of unpredictability in terms of how they're going to support us, what funding they're going to provide to us that we rely on to be able to provide housing and health care and education for all of our residents, and also a sense that not only will the federal government potentially be pulling back some of that support we need, but actually being intentionally disrupted by increasing efforts to deport residents, including separating families and separating parents from children. So we've got to make sure that we protect all of our residents and their rights and their well-being, and so we're doing that all at once. All of those things will be my priority. I'm the new Housing and Community Development chair for the State Assembly, so taking a very active role in confronting our housing crisis and housing affordability needs to build a lot more housing at all income levels and bring the cost of housing down while we address the cost of insurance and to rebuild the areas that have been devastated by wildfires.
It'll also be a particular focus for me to look at our downtowns across the state. I represent downtown San Francisco, and I started a select committee on downtown recovery, and so our downtowns have been especially slow to recover post-pandemic. A lot of vacant retail, a lot of vacant offices, and we've got to get people back into our cities, whether that's to live, work, or visit. That will be a huge priority of mine as well, and, in addition, the opioid epidemic, the fentanyl crisis, which is still, unfortunately, the most deadly epidemic that we face as a state.
All of those things have been my priorities for my first two years here, and I think we go into this year with a heightened sense of urgency to make progress on all of those fronts.
Question 2: Obstacles to Building Affordable Housing and How to Address Them
LWVSF: As new chair of the Housing and Community Development Committee, what do you hope to accomplish? What do you think are the main obstacles to building affordable housing and how do you plan to address them in this legislative session?
Assemblymember Haney: The state has taken a much more proactive and engaged approach to housing over the past few years and a number of bills have passed that have created opportunities for streamlining. We have set new goals to provide for accountability for areas that haven't built housing in rezoned parts of the state with state legislation. So the first thing we're going to do is have an informational hearing next month to really look at what's working and what's not. We've passed hundreds of housing laws in the state in the last few years. We need to understand which of them are actually working, which are being used by folks who build housing or by cities, and where we're actually seeing progress. I do think we're at a place where we need to be assessing and being reflective around where we can go further and where we maybe have done some things that haven't worked or that have worked. So that's the first thing. I think we need to look more closely and not think that just because Sacramento passed a law that, all of a sudden, all these units are going to go up. Really, the goal is to build housing and to build out across the state at all income levels, to increase affordability, and to reduce the huge burden that housing costs have on our residents. That's going to be the way I look at this.
We'll be putting forward legislation to make progress on adaptive reuse, which is essentially where you have buildings that used to be available for something else, that now are sitting empty, that we should be moving much more aggressively to build housing and converting to housing uses. I'm bringing back a bill from last year to streamline in order to create property tax incentives, to make it easier to say you have an empty office building in a downtown area that could be converted to housing. Let's get all the red tape and bureaucracy out of the way to be able to make that happen. We need to be much more aggressive about it. We're going to do some things around permitting reform. It still takes too long to get a permit, too many steps that you have to take to build in California. In some cases they'll tell you you have to do one thing, and then seven more times they have to tell you to do something else. It's just more complicated, takes longer, and costs more to build in California than anywhere else and that's something we have to change. So we've got a whole package of permitting reform bills that we're working on.
I also think that we need to look at financing. In the past, when the state built a ton of housing, particularly in areas where it was needed, there was often a role for tax incentives and redevelopment dollars and all sorts of things that don't exist right now. So we need to either provide funding or financing or change our tax code to make it more feasible to build housing in the private sector and provide more support from the public sector. We need to provide cities with different infrastructure financing tools and ways that they can raise the funds to contribute to housing. Unfortunately, the private market on its own clearly, even if you rezone all over the state, is not going to build on its own the housing that we need, particularly the affordability levels that we require. So we have to be more honest about that and the type of financing that we need to either provide directly or allow localities to be able to provide for themselves.
Question 3: Learnings from Fires and Legislation
LWVSF: What have we learned from these fires where we might be able to get some legislation passed because it's impacting so many people?
Assemblymember Haney: The devastation from the fires is just unimaginable and the number of people who have lost their homes and have been impacted is tremendous. I’ve been down to LA a few times. I visited Altadena, Palisades, and Malibu, and I met with local officials. We've been starting a conversation about what needs to happen on the housing front to rebuild. We introduced about 10 bills already, mostly led by my colleagues in LA, but I'm very involved with it, and a principal co-author of most of those bills. We had a totally broken system as it relates to building new housing. We had a housing crisis before these fires, and so as we look at how folks can rebuild much quicker addressing the housing crisis and affordability crisis more broadly. Even beyond the fire prone areas there's a lot that we can do that will apply not only to the areas affected but to the state as a whole, making it easier to add a unit to your home, making it so you don't have to go through all these extra steps with the Coastal Commission to get something built. Some folks have these design review boards that create an added set of approvals that are needed and can add costs in parts of Southern California that have been impacted we can waive to make it easier to rebuild in the fire devastated areas. A lot of those laws that we pass will extend across the state.
We also have to confront this issue of fire safety and prevention much more directly. We've got to look at water, we've got to look at areas where folks can build and shouldn't be building. There are homes that did survive the fire, and we now know a lot about how to build homes so that they can be protected in these kinds of situations. So facing and accelerating all of those laws will ultimately, over time, allow us to build housing quicker and protect people who live in areas where they may be at greater risk.
That also is the case as it relates to insurance. As you said, we've had this issue percolating for years now, and it's gotten worse over the last couple of years, where there have been so many people who can't get insurance at all, or their insurance levels are so high that it's just a massive burden for them to be able to afford a home or to be able to pay rent. So I think it is going to lead to a much more proactive role for the state in the insurance market. We are going to have to potentially expand the California FAIR Plan and provide more access for folks who need insurance and can't get it. The challenge that we have is that, if you’re a private insurance company, we can't force you to provide insurance in our state if you don't want to. So some insurance companies are just straight up leaving, and so we can't tell an insurance company you have to operate in California. They'll just say no and leave the state. So we've got to use the leverage that we do have for insurance companies that are here and address some of the issues. One of the things that we're looking at, for example, is can we get the insurance companies together and say, if folks do these things to their homes to protect their homes, can we agree to some level of guaranteed access to coverage for those folks, and some potential discounts so that we really incentivize and provide the support for folks to be able to both build in areas that are not fire prone and also harden their homes so that their homes are protected as a way to be able to access insurance.
You brought up the incarcerated firefighters. I also went and visited with them and spent a couple hours with incarcerated firefighters, thanked them, and talked to them about what we can do to provide a pathway to more opportunities in careers in fire prevention and firefighting once they come out of their time being incarcerated. I support the bill [AB 247] that you mentioned with Isaac Bryan and was with him and these firefighters there. There are a number of other bills that we're going to be putting forward to provide these pathways to careers, and to make sure that when folks come out of that type of experience and work when they're incarcerated, that we have more of a pathway for them when they come out to become firefighters. I also have other bills for firefighters. Our firefighters in California have this cancer-causing chemical called PFAS that is in their turnout equipment that's something that we want to ban. It's been banned from McDonald's wrappers and all sorts of things, yet our firefighters who are saving lives right now are wearing these kinds of materials. So that's something that I'm also working on. But we do need to also invest more in fire prevention and thinking about housing in the context of avoiding building in areas that are more fire-prone and building much more aggressively in transit-rich, jobs-rich areas with greater density, not out in areas where there's great fire risk.
Question 4: Statewide Equity, Small Businesses, and Worker Protections
LWVSF: Your district includes some of San Francisco's most economically diverse neighborhoods. How has this influenced your work on statewide economic equity legislation, particularly around small business support and worker protections?
Assemblymember Haney: It absolutely affects my work. As you know, I've worked really hard to support legislation that protects workers. We had a bill to protect contract workers who are being laid off without any notice at all. You know there's a huge challenge with worker protections being undermined for gig workers. We've worked a lot on the sort of new reality for workers where they may be a temp worker, a contract worker, a gig worker and don't have a lot of the protections that maybe employees did in the past. And one of the areas that I've been very engaged in as a part of that, for example, is home care workers. These are folks who take care of aging or sick or disabled individuals at home. Sometimes they’re family members, sometimes not. It's a huge part of our workforce that often makes barely the minimum wage and doesn't have retirement, pension, healthcare access, a lot of things that these folks should have when they're actually providing a really essential service of care for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and when that's not there, those folks end up in institutions, which is more expensive and also costs the state a lot more and are not providing a higher quality of care in many cases. So I focused on that. We've got a bill this year which will actually take that responsibility away from the counties which have not often been providing a level of professionalized care for people who need it and have a state function around that. And it's a huge priority for all of those workers and the people they provide for to make sure that we take a greater responsibility for it and provide a level of care. So everything that I've done definitely has been about lifting people up who are either owning small businesses or who are low-wage workers. We had a bill to support janitors last year, too.
We have a very diverse district, a lot of people who have a lot of resources, a lot who don't, and they all deserve our support. And they all deserve these basic levels of protection and adequate pay to be able to provide for their families. We're also working on different things around historic businesses and advocating for protections for legacy businesses, which is something I worked on a lot in San Francisco. The state really needs to do something similar to what San Francisco does to provide some level of support or protection for these businesses, often small businesses, which have been around for decades. We also did some work, and I'm continuing to do some work, for cannabis small businesses. San Francisco has more retail shops than most places, and it's supposed to be, and should be, a way for communities that have been negatively impacted by the war on drugs to have some opportunity to start and benefit from these businesses. So we passed a bill that will allow for cannabis cafes that allows for existing retailers and future retailers to be able to serve food and non-alcoholic drinks. We're continuing to work on that as it relates to taxes and things that really hurt small businesses that are trying to operate in that space, I also worked a lot on retail theft and things that we can do to increase protections for public safety. I just got a text from a friend who owns a restaurant that his place was broken into twice in the last week, and so really looking at ways to make sure that these businesses can operate, downtown especially, and have those opportunities, but also can be kept safe from retail theft and crime. So those are just a smattering of things, but it's absolutely a priority for me to fight for the small businesses and workers who represent such a big part of my district.
Question 5: School Safety and Immigrant Families
LWVSF: School leaders across the country are working to reassure immigrant families that it is safe to send their children to school amid growing fears the Trump Administration will target undocumented immigrants on school grounds. Do you support legislation that would prohibit California school officials from providing information about a student to immigration officers without the consent of the student's parent or guardian?
Assemblymember Haney: Yes, I absolutely support that. I was on the school board, and I think it's terrifying that we see the federal government pretty much openly saying that they're going to come into schools and hospitals and do immigration enforcement, including on children. It's horrific. It's unacceptable in our schools. A school official should not be cooperating or participating in that sort of thing. It creates such a disruptive environment in our schools. It would lead some children to maybe not come to school at all, or to live in fear when they're in school. School should be for learning. It's not a place for ICE or for immigration enforcement. If somebody has broken the law, particularly an adult, there's a place for that in terms of enforcement. That place is not in our schools, and it's not something that should ever be enforced on children. Our education officials should never be in a position where they feel like they have to choose whether to abide by an ICE official or protect their children. So as far as the state is concerned, school officials should not be cooperating or participating in that and I think it's very important that we set that clearly within our law. And so when that comes in front of me, I will absolutely support it.
LWVSF: Another fear on campus is gun safety, and I'm wondering if there's anything that might be coming up in that direction.
Assemblymember Haney: California will continue to press for the strongest possible gun control and gun safety laws that we are able to do under what is allowed under the guidance we get from the federal courts. So we've gone a long way so far in banning certain types of really dangerous guns, of doing all we can to keep guns away from schools and protected areas, of increasing gun prevention by requiring certain types of locks and gun safety in terms of how they're kept at home and providing information to families about that. I'll continue to support all of those efforts to try to make sure guns are away from kids and away from schools, and that we have the strongest possible measures in terms of gun control and gun safety.
Active shooting drills are very scary and they're traumatic in and of themselves. I know that every school district is required to have some sort of emergency plans and to provide information to students and educators about how to go about it if a situation like that did occur. So I don't think we require active shooter drills. That's something that would be up to a school district, but they are required to have plans to keep everyone safe.
Assemblymember Catherine Stefani
Tuesday January 14, 2025
Question 1: Major Issues and Priorities
LWVSF: What major issues do you think the legislature must deal with in 2025? What are your personal legislative priorities and where do you hope to make an impact?
Assemblymember Stefani: After talking to so many voters and knocking on doors throughout my campaign, the issues that are top of mind for my constituents in district 19 are public safety and affordability. That's why I campaigned on a safer and more affordable California for all. That's really the topic of concern up here in Sacramento for most legislators, really is the affordability piece, too. On public safety, I've done a lot in the gun violence prevention work space as a volunteer, and then I did a lot as a supervisor, where we created the office of victims and witness rights. We'll be working with other legislators on hate crime issues that continue to be pervasive. It is something that the large AAPI community in my district is still very concerned about.
On the affordability piece, that has several tenets where I think we could work and, of course, housing and working on social housing issues. I'm very excited about all the work that's been done in Daly City on teacher housing at 705 Serramonte and I want to build on that. The Jefferson Union High School district has done a lot, and they've gotten approvals for many more units of housing. So we are working directly with them and other school districts on teacher housing issues, and the affordability piece is so vast that it bleeds into health care as well. We want to make certain that we have health care policies that work for all, and that we also make sure that we are doing everything we can to create more jobs for health care workers. So it is very broad in terms of where I want to go with public safety and the affordability piece, but those two issues really are the ones that I hear most about.
Question 2: Community Safety and Ensuring All Voices are Considered
LWVSF: Have you taken, or will you take, steps to ensure that all voices are considered in policy-making decisions about community safety? What steps have you taken or will you take to increase funding for neighborhood-based organizations that support crime survivors for your constituents?
Assemblymember Stefani: I'm really glad you asked that question. It's one of the reasons why I put Proposition D on the ballot in June 2022 to create the Office of Victim and Witness Rights. And although that is something I did as supervisor, we are still working on making sure that office gets up and running. As you know, Ivy Lee was appointed by Mayor Breed to head up the Office of Victim and Witness Rights. I am still talking to them as they are doing everything they can to involve neighborhoods to make sure that there are resources for those that have been victimized. And you know one of the reasons why I created that office is because many times people are victimized, but they don't have a solution, or there's no case, there's no arrest, but they still need help, and this office will make sure that we are getting that type of help out to those that need it most. And up here in Sacramento I am working with the DA's office on a bill to make sure that victims of crime when they are going through the process are going to receive restitution. A lot of times that is something that is not prioritized in a way that victims ever recover any money and so we are looking at making sure we put that on the priority list of things that defendants will need to do to make victims whole. And your question on whether all voices are heard, or how I will incorporate that, again, that is something I considered when I put Prop D on the ballot. A lot of times, especially in domestic violence, so many people don't want to be involved with law enforcement, or they don't trust law enforcement, and that really is an impediment to making certain that people are whole after they've been harmed in some way. This office will serve as a place where people can go, that is not law enforcement related, and where they can seek justice, or they can seek support or whatever they need. And although I'm no longer the supervisor, I'm still the assembly member and I care deeply about making certain that office is up and running, and if there's anything I can do here to get the resources they need to make that office a success, I will make sure that is done.
Question 3: Addressing Student Safety, Mental Health, and Emergency Preparedness for Violent Inciden
LWVSF: What measures and protocols do you think schools across California should plan to implement and improve over time to enhance student safety, mental health, and emergency preparedness in the event of a violent incident on campus?
Assemblymember Stefani: I care deeply about this issue, and I've been involved in the gun violence prevention movement since Columbine. I started as a volunteer, and then I did legal work for what is now the Giffords Law Center after the Aurora shooting in July 2012, and I headed up the Moms Demand Action chapter after Sandy Hook. I have done everything I can to make certain that they have the resources they need to continue in that work, and make sure that their students are safe. It's sad that it's on the schools, right? I feel there has to be so much done by legislators before the schools are in a situation where they're having to respond. As a supervisor, we had a joint hearing with our Youth Commission and the school district to make certain that they were implementing bond money in a way that they said they would in terms of making sure they had Columbine locks and they had PA systems that were up-to-date. Those are things we can do throughout California to make sure that our schools have what they need to keep our students safe. But, the other side of that is making sure that that shouldn't even be an issue that schools have to think about. And I don't want us to get comfortable with the idea that that is something that we should just expect. We need to clean up the problem before it even gets to that level. I'm working with the Brady Campaign to make certain that when our law enforcement agencies are buying their weapons and ammunition they're doing that through good actors. The Brady Campaign found that up and down the state of California our law enforcement agencies were unknowingly buying their weapons and ammunition from bad actors with the ATF and those are actors that don't care about background checks or don't really check for straw purchasers. When I was supervisor, I made sure that our law enforcement agencies weren't allowed to procure their weapons and ammunition from bad actors and I'm going to do that here at the state as well. We're doing everything we can to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands, and then, making sure that our schools are secure and that students feel safe. It will be my lifelong work to make certain that somehow we get on the other side of this issue, where people don't have to think about it all the time and feel unsafe in their schools.
LWVSF: What about active shooting drills?
Assemblymember Stefani: I think it's unconscionable that we are putting our children through this. California can do a lot, but as long as we are beholden to a federal government that does not seem to care at all about this issue, we are going to be at a disadvantage. So we need to press upon our youth, and that next generation, to put people in office at the federal level and encourage people to run for office who are going to do something about it. And I see that promise in the youth like my daughter that we have a planet that's thriving. There's so much we are putting on this next generation to fix a lot of these problems. But we definitely need national laws at the federal level, and here in California, with this new administration coming in, we're going to have to play a lot of defense. The one thing is we cannot give up hope. We have to keep pressing on because we have no other choice. We have to keep passing our gun laws. We have to keep fortifying California against other states like Nevada and Arizona. One of the things that I was so devastated about when I was a supervisor is when we had the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting, that was where someone was able to buy an assault rifle in Nevada, bring it into California, and then kill three people at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, including a little 6-year-old boy, who was in a bouncy house. We have to make sure that not only are we doing what we can in California, but we have to keep on this issue to make sure we're electing people at the federal level who care as much about this issue as we do.
Question 4: Obstacles to Building Affordable Housing and How to Address Them, and Transit Priorities
LWVSF: What do you think the main obstacles to building affordable housing are and how do you plan to address them in this legislative session?
Assemblymember Stefani: There are many obstacles. We have to look at CEQA reform in terms of making certain that projects aren't caught up in politics and not really the law. One of the things when I was supervisor, and as an active attorney, was that I would follow the law when things were appealed, whether it be 24 units of housing or 500 units of housing. A lot of times there were appeals that just didn't make any sense whatsoever. And so we need to make sure that we are looking at CEQA reform and making it tougher for it to become a political act, and focused on the legal aspects of whether or not something really harms the environment.
We also need to make it easier to build housing in terms of streamlining permitting. We did a lot of that in San Francisco, and we need to do more of that up and down the state. And investments in social housing, like I just mentioned 705 Serramonte, make sure that we're using state land and we are doing everything we can to invest in housing for teachers and first responders and our health care workers. And we've seen models where that works. It worked for the teacher housing in Daly City, it's worked for veteran housing, and we have to make sure that we're following those models because we know that it can be done, and those will be models that I'm looking to in my first term here to make certain that we are delivering on that.
LWVSF: What are your priorities around transit for your coming term? How will you address and fund comprehensive local, regional and statewide transit initiatives? What are your concerns in terms of the reliance on federal money for many of these projects with the new administration?
Assemblymember Stefani: I'm very concerned when you think about individual car trips and the emissions problem. What that means is that when we're not providing pathways to public transportation, it is very difficult on the environment. So we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to invest in our public transportation. My daughter is an avid rider of Muni and won't even let me drive her to school anymore. She'll insist on taking the bus, which I love. On a regional level to make sure we're investing in Muni and BART and making sure that they are safe, reliable, and frequent. That makes people want to ride it. You have to provide options for people so they're not wanting to get into a Waymo, or they're not wanting to drive their own car, and that requires investment. We just had a Bay Area caucus meeting where transportation was one of the subject matters, and we're all talking about what we're going to do to save our public transit. So, we are aligned in that respect and we're going to do everything we can to make those investments because we know there's really no other option.
Question 5: Independent Redistricting
LWVSF: Would you support possible California legislation to bring independent redistricting commissions to more cities and counties in the state in general, and then would you be an advocate for or in support of a San Francisco ballot measure, similar to the one that passed in LA, to create a truly independent redistricting commission in San Francisco?
Assemblymember Stefani: Yeah, I think the key word here is independent, and I would have to see exactly what LA passed, but I haven't read it or studied it so I can’t comment. But I do think that it should be independent, and to be truly independent you need to make sure that you are creating a [fair] system because one side is always going to try to outmaneuver the other side. Democracy is important, and everyone deserves a level playing field. And sometimes it hasn't felt that way in San Francisco on both sides, right? So we need to make sure that if we're going to create something that is independent, that we do it in a way that is very smart and well researched and well-thought-out. And I would definitely be up for that challenge and working with everyone to make certain that we achieve that type of independence.
Question 6: Government Transparency
LWVSF: What would you do to protect the ability of citizens and the press to easily access public records so that you can increase the level of government transparency in your district and also throughout California?
Assemblymember Stefani: I'm a firm believer in this, and I don't know if you know this, but I was the county clerk for two years in San Francisco. As you know, the county clerk oversees a lot of legal public documents: birth and death certificates, confidential marriage licenses, or fictitious business name statements, notary public records. We just have a lot of records that we and the public have access to. One of my priorities when I was county clerk was making sure that we had those translated and easily translatable. I definitely believe in transparency. As a public policymaker, I want transparency from the departments that I work with, and I know that sometimes I'm aligned with the citizens and making sure that they are providing that transparency and how they're making decisions and what money is going out the door. I did a lot of work on government accountability as a supervisor. So I definitely strive to make sure that those records are available. I think it's healthy for our democracy for people to trust our government. I would love to continue to work with you on access to public records for our citizens who are footing the bill.
Question 7: Environmental Initiatives, Local Needs, and Disadvantaged Communities
LWVSF: As you work on state climate legislation, how do you balance broad environmental initiatives with the specific local needs of coastal neighborhoods in your district while ensuring disadvantaged communities are protected in the process?
Assemblymember Stefani: Obviously sea level rise on our coast is very important. I think you know the people involved in creating the master plan for Ocean Beach have been very invested, and very careful to make sure that we are doing everything we can to reroute the Great Highway, to build a seawall along there, and working on beach restoration projects for Ocean Beach. In 2018, in San Francisco we passed the $425 million general obligation bond for the sea wall and I think that those efforts need to continue. But we need to make certain that, as you said, the communities that are affected and are in the path of that sea level rise, that we are doing everything we can to relocate them. There are consequences right now for many people because of climate change and because of the sea level rise and erosion, and we need to be helping those communities now. Whether or not those dollars come from a general obligation bond, or whatever type of emergency relief we might be able to secure from the federal or state government, we need to be focused on those communities. And it's something that I intend to do while I'm up here.
Question 8: Addressing the LA Fires and Misinformation
LWVSF: In the wake of misinformation around the LA fires this winter, is there a comprehensive plan to ensure that correct information is getting to communities during a natural disaster and create sources of truth?
Assemblymember Stefani: It’s been absolutely devastating to see and hear about the sheer devastation and the magnitude of what's happening down there. It is nothing like I've ever seen. We've had several zooms and meetings with our colleagues and with the Democratic caucus on what's going on, what are the actual facts on the ground, and what might our legislative session look like in terms of the investments that we're going to have to make, to make certain that we are providing funds and pathways to rebuild for these communities. It is not just raking leaves in the forest, as we know. But what are the preparations that we need to be taking when we are rebuilding that makes our communities more resilient? Also, one of the things that's concerned me a lot is the misinformation that is out, and the weaponizing of a tragedy for political purposes has been really hard to watch because I know all the people I've met that are affected care so deeply about their communities. Nobody wants people to suffer like this. So I can assure you that we will be doing everything we can to figure out how this never happens again to this scale. But at the same time, what are we doing for our insurance markets? What are we doing to make certain that people can get insurance? It is going to be a huge undertaking. The state of the insurance markets here in California weren't good to begin with and now, with this catastrophe, it's going to be even worse. So we have our work cut out for us up here. But I can assure you that the people that I have been working with are more than willing to roll up their sleeves and figure out how we protect Californians up and down the state, how we help all of those who have suffered in Southern California, and how we make them whole again.
Question 9: Compensating Inmate Firefighters
LWVSF: Do you support inmate firefighters receiving more compensation, as well as gaining a pathway for them to actually become firefighters?
Assemblymember Stefani: Absolutely. I support a higher wage for them and the investments that should be made in terms of their education and getting in line to work for a local fire department. Also, you know, I've worked with the firefighters in San Francisco recently on Prop. H to lower their retirement age from 58 to 55, because it's such a hard job and it exposes them to so many different risks, especially health risks and cancer. So you know what these inmates are doing is no easy task, and they're doing it for the state of California, and they should be paid a higher wage. And one of the things we talk about with criminal justice reform, too, is if we're going to make investments in people, so they don't get out of prison and commit another crime. These are the types of investments we should be making in people to give them a pathway out, give them a sense of empowerment, and a sense of giving back to their community.