myBurbank Talks
myBurbank Talks
Checking in after year one with Assemblymember Nick Schultz
The gap between bold policy and daily life is where most of us live: a power line snaps in high winds, your insurance hikes again, the lot down the street sits empty, and your child’s school starts talking about cuts. We invited Assemblymember Nick Schultz into the studio for a frank, fast-moving conversation about what’s changing in California—and what still isn’t—across housing, wildfire readiness, energy costs, public safety, local jobs, and schools.
We start with the bottlenecks that stall real homes: CEQA lawsuits that bury infill projects for years, building standards that shift mid‑stream, and commercial covenants that block apartments on dead retail sites. Schultz lays out three levers now in motion: a CEQA infill exemption to deter abuse, a six‑year residential code freeze to stabilize costs, and AB 1050 to lift housing‑prohibitive CC&Rs on commercial parcels. Then we dig into reliability and rates. Undergrounding high‑risk lines saves lives but raises bills; bonds and smarter financing could help municipal utilities move faster, while investor‑owned utilities should be pushed to invest more. On the generation side, we talk honestly about baseload: nuclear’s risks, green hydrogen’s promise, and why storage alone won’t carry peak days yet.
Burbank’s identity is on the line as studio mergers loom and productions chase incentives abroad. California boosted the film tax credit to $750 million and added animation, but Schultz argues local moves matter just as much: faster, cheaper permits, a dedicated film office, and Santa Clarita‑style incentives to keep crews, diners, prop houses, and vendors busy here. Public safety ties it together. With violent crime trending down across major cities, he spotlights concrete steps for safer transit and previews a bipartisan DUI package—tougher repeat‑offender thresholds, rationalized suspensions, and broader ignition interlocks—to reduce road deaths without surrendering the wheel to fully autonomous fleets.
Schools close the loop on affordability. Funding tied to average daily attendance punishes districts as enrollment falls; Schultz backs shifting to enrollment-based models and loosening categorical rules so districts can stabilize budgets. The local fix is housing families can actually buy—townhomes and condos that keep students in classrooms and communities intact.
If you care about practical solutions to housing, energy, jobs, and schools—and how to keep Burbank thriving—this conversation is your field guide. Listen, share with a neighbor, and tell us the one change you want prioritized next. And if you’re new here, follow and leave a quick review so more locals can find the show.
From deep in the Burbank Media District, it's time for another edition of My Burbank Talks. This podcast is presented by the staff of My Burbank. Now let's see what's on today's agenda as we join our program.
SPEAKER_02:Hello, Burbank. Craig Short here with you once again, of course, with our cohort and our co-host, Ross Benson.
SPEAKER_03:Dun dun dun dun dun.
SPEAKER_02:Where's the timpanies? No, it's so much we can do in our budget here for you.
unknown:Okay.
SPEAKER_02:Okay, let us know in advance you might like those. We'll get them for you.
SPEAKER_03:It's okay, my tally light wasn't on. So are we in the studio? I think we're in the studio.
SPEAKER_02:Well who's our guest? Well, go ahead and introduce them, Ross. Nick Schultz.
SPEAKER_01:When did you show up? I've been here all along. Good to see you guys.
SPEAKER_03:You are our assembly member?
SPEAKER_01:I'm still your assembly member for the 44th district, which includes Burbank. And I'm really excited to be here back in the studio with you, Craig. Thanks for your hospitality. And of course, Ross, congratulations on your key to the city.
SPEAKER_02:Thank you very much. Okay. Um, Ross, do me a favor. We gotta kind of not hit the camera because it's it's showing me in the earthquake mode here. Really? Yeah, you gotta be very careful on move the table. That could be me.
SPEAKER_01:That could be me.
SPEAKER_02:I'll be okay. Well, we'll be fine. We're fine. Anyhow. Oops. Um, so let's um let's talk a little about. Yeah, I'm gonna first get into a couple things here. I was I was thinking about on your on your way over here. And you know, we we got things that we want to get into, of course. Oh, it's fine. But I might be a little long-winded here, but I I I want to I want to ask you how people feel uh the the state government is really responding to them. If you look at over the years, I'm gonna start with I'm gonna go start with back with when the lotto came to California.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_02:I don't know if you were even around at that time or anything else.
SPEAKER_01:I remember it, yes.
SPEAKER_02:Okay, but it was a big deal.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:And the whole idea behind the behind the lotto was it's gonna go the all the profits gonna go to the schools. And that's a great thing. So we start the lotto, and it's doing really well, and they're bringing big checks to the schools, and then the California our our government, either I don't know, assembly or senate or whatever it was, they figured okay, let's say, and I I'm gonna I'm gonna make up a number for you. I have no idea. Let's say there was 10% of the budget went toward school funding, and the lottery brought in, let's say, I'm gonna say 5% of the budget toward the schools. So instead of the schools getting 15% now and doing better, well, the state cut five percent off their share, saying, Well, they're getting that money now from the lottery, they don't need our money, and we'll use it for something else. So the schools never got better and they never got stronger, and all the things we're promised never happened because they said, Okay, well, they can use that money instead, instead of the money that we should be putting into them. And that was 30 years ago, 40 years ago. Sure. Um, so and over the years, and I look at the the fires recently. People lost their houses, people lost, I mean, their businesses. And I'm still hearing I'm still hearing from people that it's it's the red tape. We can't, you know. Why are we not fixing things like there's so much going on out there that we don't seem to respond to people? The prices in California, the gas prices are$1.25 higher than anywhere else in the country. It seems like nothing in is being done for the average citizen on an average day. That the state just keeps spending more money, and we don't seem to be really fixing problems. Even homelessness. Um, 1,500 homeless people died last year in LA County. Terrible. Um that are are homeless. Uh so 4% died, you know, or and and we got 2% in the housing. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on what? Where's the money? Where's the accountability? How I think you see why people are saying they they throw their hands up in the air and say we can't control this, or they can do. But it's been it's been a long thing for and it's not you because you've been there for one year. So I'm not blaming you, you know, but I'm just saying the pattern, and that's why people I think are are disconnected from from government.
SPEAKER_01:I think you're right. Before I jump in, Ross, were you gonna be able to do that?
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, I I just yesterday went shopping. Can't use plastic bags anymore as of the first.
SPEAKER_01:Uh yeah, that's uh that's a new law that'll fix it.
SPEAKER_03:And and the whole recycling thing that we had, you know, we went to recycling, had to use plastic bags, or bring your own. That's that got shit canned out the window now. Brown paper bags were back down to brown paper bags. It didn't work, folks, but how many millions of dollars did we piss out the window with that whole program? You know, it just is frustrating. I know you're gonna talk about the fires. What about the the people that the the ones that you don't see, the ones that aren't vocal? You know, there's a lot of them. Yeah. Um, that after the fires, they didn't have the right insurance. They their house is burned down and every inch of everything except the clothes on their back. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, let me add out to that too, because uh all the insurance companies they're they're not paying. And they're and they're leaving. And they've asked for rate increases, and we're giving it to them. And I'm going to myself, how is our government being responsive in these situations? Why is there a why was there a committee or a a place set up where everybody could take their insurance form into this place and they tell the insurance companies, okay, here it is, you've got to pay this. Instead of making these people jump through hoops, I I once again, we're not solving bigger issues as they come up and and solving them. We're just doing the best we can do, they say.
SPEAKER_01:No, I uh look, uh guys, I think it's great. And I'll just maybe we can take a we can take there's a couple topics baked in there. So we can.
SPEAKER_02:No, no, no. I think I'm frustrated like most other people are.
SPEAKER_01:No, and I'm glad. And I I I would say like there's a couple topics you brought up. Maybe we could piece it and we'll take that couple. Um so I'll I'll start in a moment with affordability, but I just wanted to say, like, if anyone ever gives you guys because I've seen it. I've seen the criticism of, oh, it's all softball and scripted questions. I mean, you guys are asking what a lot of people are feeling right now. So I just hope your listeners know, like, you guys aren't pulling punches, like you're trying to ask fair, reasonable punches. Uh you never have. I haven't worked about criticism. I've always sat right here, you guys have never pulled punches. So um, okay, let me start with just sort of the big picture, and that is where I think what what my response would be to the criticism, and then maybe we could talk about insurance, housing, all the good stuff. Um, but I would say that the frustration that you both uh described, I'm hearing it every single day. Um, I think the short answer to your leadoff question, Craig, is that I think we actually are doing a lot of good things, and I'll try to talk to them, uh talk about those today. But I think we're doing a terrible job of messaging it. I think that to your point, Ross, you're hearing about the plastic bag ban. What you're not hearing about is what we're doing to bring the insurance industry back. And there are things we're doing, but we're just somehow not able to communicate that message out to voters. And I think that heading into 26, people want to see results. They want to see what we're doing to make California a more affordable place to live. So maybe what I can do is start with let's talk about let's start with the fires and housing, kind of that area. And then we can dive in. I definitely have things to say on insurance and jobs, but you know, just because what we've we've kind of talked about the fire situation. So one of the things that we have done is we've tried to cut back the red tape to get housing production uh boosted. And I want to be really clear a lot a lot of the conversation around housing in recent years and this year with SB 79 has been about where you can build the housing, zoning. I'm not talking about that, though that's a it's a fair point, and we can certainly get into that. I'm talking about okay, in the city of Burbank, we have plenty of places that have been identified for housing production, but why aren't we actually building the housing? So there's three things that we did this year, uh two that my office spearheaded, and then one other one I'll briefly talk about, then I'll pause. First of all, CEQA, California uh Environmental Quality Act. It's an important piece of legislation. It can also be abused. You can file a lawsuit and tie up a project for years. One of the things that we did not author in my office, but we voted for and we passed was an infill housing exemption. So if you are building infill housing in an urban setting like we have in Burbank, you're no longer going to be subject to the weaponization of Sequa. Um there are some in the environmental community that are concerned, and I get that, but at the end of the day, Sequa has been a barrier to housing production. And when we're talking about putting housing in an urban area, we need to cut that red tape and streamline the process. That'll help not only with the rebuild uh of Altadena in in the wake of the Eaton fire, it'll also hopefully help Burbank actually meet its housing goals and build more housing. Number two, I'll briefly mention, is the building code. So uh to your point, Craig, despite all this work around zoning, we're still not actually building many more units of housing. A lot of things that are beyond city and state control, like the tariffs, supply chain, a lot of the global economic issues. But one thing we've looked at is the building code. So we ran a bill this year, AB 306, that was incorporated into the governor's budget. I think I talked briefly about it last time, that freezes the building code, the residential building code for six years, so that we already have some of the most energy efficient leading standards in the world. It sets the map for the next six years and says, this is what's going to be expected of you. We're not gonna have changes in um uh in materials or other things. So hopefully it'll hold the cost steady and that'll lead to more housing production. And then the last thing I'll just briefly mention, then I'll pause, is A B 1050. That was a bill we also ran. We know we need housing, but an ADU here and there is not gonna fix it. We need large-scale housing. We need to develop housing on the old Kmart location, the old IKEA location. A B 1050 passed the legislature, bipartisan basis, Democrat and Republican support. Governor signed it, and he even wrote in his signing message this is one of the most common sense kind of measures that we need more of. Very simply, it says the conditions, covenants, and restrictions on commercial parcels that generally prohibit the development of housing, those are now lifted statewide. So we're actually building more housing. So I'll pause there, but I bring that up to say I think we are trying to clear some of the red tape out and help make it easier to build more housing. But I bet before I came here, like you guys didn't know that. Like, like we're not doing a good enough job communicating what we're actually doing to try to lower the cost of housing protection.
SPEAKER_03:Don't be trying to steal our PIO. No, no.
SPEAKER_01:No, he's fantastic.
SPEAKER_03:He he would get the word out. No, my question was Al to Dina Pacific Valley Saints. Everything it was barren land. Power poles got burnt down, utility wires. While we're fighting all this out and figuring out why aren't we putting this utilities underground so it doesn't happen again? Instead, we're spinning our wheels, coming up with these laws and these local utilities. Why aren't they digging daily? You know, and and put utilities underground so God forbid you have another catastrophe. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:It won't be power that caused it, that's for sure. That's that's a great point, Ross. And and just so we can get through more questions, I'll try to do a better job, guys, of being faster in my answers.
SPEAKER_02:No, no, I no. We want to get into good detailed responses. That's that's how we educate people.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, well, I I appreciate it. Uh I'll I'll still do my best to find that balance. But but Ross, to your point, um, I would say I agree. If you look back at the Thomas fire, the Woolsey fire, Eaton, Palisades, in almost every instance you have a high wind event, and we're gonna see some of that weather here in the next couple days. We are and it meets aging equipment, outdoors, high wind areas, and you see the smacking of power lines and you see these ignition events with older equipment. You're right. The the safest thing we can do is underground those lines. It's all a matter of cost and expense. And and by the way, um, you know, folks also complain about the utility bills right here, present company included, it's one of the main drivers of your utility bills. So the reason that you haven't seen the state push more in mandating undergrounding of lines is because it is that balance of to do it, uh our public utilities like Burbank, Water and Power, will have to charge more to have the money to do it. And we understand that people are hurting right now. I think that what the state should be doing a better job of is talking about bonds and talking about public financing to help our POUs, um, because these are all ratepayer-driven expenses, right? Um, to help them have more funding to do those large infrastructure projects. Um and then the IOUs, so like SoCal Edison that operates in our area, those are a different story. These are per for-profit entities. And I think we can ask a little bit more of them to make sure that they're investing. But it is a matter of cost. My point I'm trying to make is we absolutely should do it. Um, and we probably could do it tomorrow if we were willing to let the rates climb to 200%. So the real question is what's that right balance of what is an appropriate amount of rate growth that will allow us to have the funds so we can make those changes? But you're you're right. The longer we wait to make it fully undergrounded in those high wind areas, we're just risking another fire.
SPEAKER_03:You know, Burbank, let's your your hometown here. How many years ago did they decide to dig underground and put recycled water everywhere? Anything that has a large field, the football field, the park, parkways, they did that infrastructure a long time ago. And it's paying off now. I mean, with the price of water and everything, and even now that recycled water is expensive, but they did that many years ago. Instead of waiting until the event, let's do it now.
SPEAKER_01:Well, and and to your point, Ross, and then I'll pause there because I'm sure Craig's got a follow-up. Um, what I would say is that, you know, we can also be sensible about it. So in Burbank, we don't need, I mean, ideally we'd underground all the lines, but we don't need to underground all of them tomorrow. We know where our high wind areas are up in the foothills, so those are the places we should prioritize. And I do think the state should uh legislate a bit more with carrot and stick. We should set targets and deadlines so we're actually undergrounding these lines. We should also try to find more resources to actually help local jurisdictions like Burbank Water and Power do it because they know just as well as we know where the risks are. It's a matter of financing it.
SPEAKER_02:We've got a candidate right now for governor. Um, and his commercial says, Oh, if you elect me, I'm gonna lower all water and power bills 25%. And I look at that and I listen to that and I say, people are gonna believe that. And it's it's it's it our politicians now are making they make statements that they don't keep and they don't care about keeping and they're not held accountable to because how are you gonna lower Burbank water and power by 25% when we own our own utility here and the state doesn't control the the rates? How are you gonna do that? And you can't do that. So it's it's a blatant lie, is what he's saying, and nobody checks them on it.
SPEAKER_01:I I agree with you, Craig. And and for you guys and for your listeners, I would say if you're wondering why rates are so high, generally speaking, it's one of three things in California. Um, obviously we have our energy goals, clean energy economy. So that's probably what this candidate's referring to. We're we're gonna forget about getting to 100% carbon neutral by 2045. That would lower cost. But the other thing I worry about is uh wildfire mitigation. That's another third of the huge driver in rate increases. The only thing presumably this candidate wouldn't want to cut back on is we also need more dollars, and this is why your rates go up for for transmission and distribution. You know, as we're getting more energy from projects out of state, like it actually costs money to bring it here to California. Um so, you know, like you said, this candidate's out there promising something that really resonates with people right now. What he's not saying, or she, whoever they are, what they're not saying is that to actually achieve that, we would have to make backwards progress in terms of wildfire mitigation, to your point, Ross, and in in in terms of all those climate goals. But what you just hit on, Craig, is people are struggling right now. People are hurting. And so, yeah, we want clean energy, but how much are we willing to pay? How much can we pay to achieve it?
SPEAKER_02:So look at the electricity costs. Uh, you know, Trump made a stopped all the wind farms. All the you know, it says no, we can't do the wind farms anymore. But yet how many of those wind farms were supplying the power for Northern California for all those AI computers that's pulling a ton of energy and now they are restricted from using that cat. So once again, where is the power going to come from? Yeah, and and where the you know, because we're going backwards and not trying to use clean energy.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I I I I agree. And I also think um, you know, something that I maybe is a little controversial, but I I don't think it's that controversial is nuclear power. Uh, I'm not saying we should embrace nuclear tomorrow, but what I'm saying is we used to have uh a larger portfolio of nuclear energy in our energy portfolio.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, absolutely.
SPEAKER_01:And now look, we we we've shied away from it because there are truly unanswered questions about how you properly handle and dispose of that waste. But at the same time, we have to be honest with the public and say we can't meet all of our energy demands in a really cold winter day or a high peak, you know, hot summer day with wind, solar, and geothermal. There just isn't enough that we can generate. Um perhaps if we could solve the long-term battery storage problems, you could store it for a day at a time, maybe. So if the point is if we're not going to seriously look at nuclear, is it green hydrogen? What is the stable baseload power source that we can rely on and we can crank up on a really hot uh heat dome sort of day? That's where I don't think we've answered that question. We we spent a lot of time talking about all the things we don't like, but we have to get a lot more realistic with people right now because whenever we don't do that and we have to fire up those peaker plants that Burbank Water and Power operates. Well, for all of us environmentalists out there, I mean, that breaks my heart that we have to do that, but we haven't answered. Well, if we're gonna transition off of fossil fuel, what do we actually replace it with that's reliable and affordable?
SPEAKER_02:Okay, I think I think it's those are good responses. I think it's for people to think about.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Um I'm gonna throw another off top another change of topic here. Something you might have, you know, some it's not inside knowledge, but you uh you will understand more than most people. Um because you used to work your former boss, the attorney general. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um he has now, I think, filed fifty-five lawsuits against the Trump administration for various reasons. Those lawsuits need lawyers. There's fifty-five lawsuits, and probably there's two or three lawyers in every lawsuit. Where where are we justifying this expense of all those lawsuits and all those lawyers to litigate this? And what what so what what are we not spending that money on that we're because that's I'm sure his budget in advance didn't include enough for 50 or 60 lawsuits against the federal government. So money has to be come from somewhere for that. And w isn't that money that we should be using for other things in this world besides suing the federal government? I mean, that's that's a lot of money. And you have inside information because you used to be working for the attorney general's office. Now, I don't say you have anything to do with these lawsuits, but you have an understanding of what goes on in the situation like this. So what do you what do you think about the amount of waste we're we're wasting money on these lawsuits, in my opinion, because in three years, life will go back to normal again.
SPEAKER_01:Well, I I think, you know, um I I I'll respectfully disagree, Craig, that we're wasting money, but I will acknowledge that what you just brought up are legitimate concerns and points that we debated on the assembly floor. So so just to give a little context, and then I'll I'll more directly answer your question. About a year ago at this time, uh, you know, one of the first votes I took in the assembly was to allocate$25 million from the general fund so that DOJ could initiate all these lawsuits. And and look, there were a lot of folks, uh Republicans. Moderate Dems who raise these very points. And look, it does come at a cost. What I would say though is that I do think that at least to a degree, some of that spending has been warranted. So I'll give you one concrete example. You might remember earlier this year, there was a point in time where President Trump was saying that he was going to impound money that Congress had allocated to California and just not send it.
SPEAKER_02:Or is that a different one? There was a couple of times.
SPEAKER_01:The universities, SNAP. And so I would say I don't think the point I'm trying to make is you know, we shouldn't just file lawsuits for the sake of filing lawsuits. And 50 does seem like a high number. On the other hand, I think there are some righteous times where we have sued the administration as overstepping their authority. And certainly when Congress has made a decision to give the state of California X million or billion dollars, whatever it is, and the president is just saying, I don't feel like it, I'm not going to allow it to happen. Certainly, I think in that case, a lawsuit more than pays for itself. But I can tell you, having worked for Rob Bonta, you know, generally speaking, he's had a pretty good track record of success. And in fact, last time in the first Trump administration, granted it was Javi or Becerra, I think we won about two-thirds of the cases that we brought. So if we are having similar success, then I think that you can make the case that there's some value to it.
SPEAKER_02:Do we recover costs in those lawsuits when that happens?
SPEAKER_01:It depends on the circumstance, you know, but ja so it depends on what kind of a lawsuit. Generally speaking, if you're in a civil case, uh you can recover, in theory, uh the cost of litigation. But in this case, you're dealing with the federal government, so probably not. Um What I would say though is that one of the things that we included when we appropriated the money is we said that DOJ has to have a public-facing portal. And I can provide you guys the link after this where you can actually go and see how much money is being spent on each lawsuit, the success metrics. Certainly, Craig, I would say if we start losing more cases than we're winning and we're not getting a good return on investment, that would be a change in circumstance. And the$25 million isn't forever. Clearly, they'll have to come back for more. So when it does, we're gonna have to look at are we getting a good return on our investment?
SPEAKER_02:And I think you have to also look at the, you know, if a lawsuit takes a year to two years to go through. True. And by the time it goes through, he's got a year left. Yeah, you know, I mean, I I understand if it it would go quicker through the system, but sometimes it does not go very quick, and that's a lot of a lot of lawyer hours being spent. So that that's that that's as far as I mean, I just I look at that and and as a taxpayer, I go, well, that's kind of well, and I'll give you one more example, Craig, because I, you know, to validate your concern.
SPEAKER_01:So I'll I'll give you a the flip side of the coin. So one of your earlier questions tonight was was, you know, do people should people feel like we're actually listening to them and responding to them? I'll give you one example where I think that we did, but there is cost and there's risk associated with that. So we've had ICE operating in our community and in Los Angeles more more re uh more broadly speaking. So we passed two bills this year, SB 627 and SB 805, um, which did two things. One bill prohibited the masking of federal law enforcement, so they can't wear a mask.
SPEAKER_02:Right, but they said they were not gonna respond to they're not gonna respect that law. So that's what we do. It's like we got to release the files in 30 days. They didn't do that. Nobody seems to they they do what they want to do, they don't care about deadlines and laws.
SPEAKER_01:Well, exactly. And and to your point, the other bill just by the way, had to do with identification that the officer wears. But I I do agree with you, Craig. Like we did something that the community was asking for. We listened to constituents, but now the consequence is the federal government hasn't just said they won't follow it. They're taking us to court, they don't think it's constitutional, and then now our Department of Justice has to defend it. More money. It's true. And and the other thing that's really sad about this entire uh entire equation is that I don't have a great degree of confidence in the Supreme Court to be fair and neutral when the vaccine is.
SPEAKER_03:You know, you know where the fair is. It's in Pomona, and it starts in May. That's the only thing when you talk about fair, and Supreme Court should go out there and visit.
SPEAKER_01:I agree. But but but I but I will I will say this, and I will I know there's more topics, but I will say when I'm voting on legislation up there in the Capitol, these are all the things I'm considering. Because you're right, sometimes there's competing there's competing values. Like, yes, we want to stand up for our immigrant community, we want to make a point, but to your observation, Craig, we also have to be realistic that it comes at a cost, there's always a trade-off. It's like the utility rate conversation. We want to achieve our climate goals, but who's gonna bear the brunt of it? Who's gonna pay for it? Working people that need to do their laundry at 6 p.m. and are gonna pay a lot through the nose because rates are going up. And so that I think that's the challenge is that politicians at the local level, yes, but especially at the state level, it is so easy to look for the quick win or you know, the the flashy headline. It's really hard to think like about the policy thoughtfully and say, okay, what is the in the long-term best interest of our okay?
SPEAKER_03:Let's take, for example, you are our assembly member for Burbank in several other local cities. Sure. How many how many people are not going to doctor's appointments, aren't going to church anymore, are afraid to leave their front their house for that fear. That fear is gonna take years to get over that for people. You know, and and the what are you know, here in Burbank, are they picking up what have they picked up? One or two, a couple of people here in town? You know, um, and it just it kind of gets you that there's now I call them, I don't want to say vigilante groups, but there's we started a radio watch group how many years ago to pick up when people wouldn't would their dogs would poop in the park and we were on patrol for that. Now there's these groups gathering to watch for ice agents coming into your city. Yeah. You know, they could be doing a lot more stuff than sitting waiting for ice to come into Burbank.
SPEAKER_01:Well, I think it it it's a challenge because um, you know, to the folks that are part of, I think it's Burbank Community Defense, I I I applaud them in the to the extent that these are people that feel, I would imagine, kind of helpless, powerless in the situation where you see a federal government resembling more and more like Hitler on the rise in in the 1930s in Germany. I mean, it's just all rules of fair play are out the window. But to your point though, Ross, I mean, there is that line of how much is it helping? And then at what point are you almost instilling more fear by riling people up? And and that and that's the pro and that's the environment in which Donald Trump operates. It's all about fear. I mean, they may only have two ICE operations any given day, but all of Los Angeles, all 12 million people that call the region home, are fearful of if their community is going to get hit that day. And so that that's his playbook. He's driving an entire immigrant community underground. And and the last thing I'll say, Ross, uh, because I Craig, you might want to jump in uh or have a different topic, but the the real cost in all of this is that this is really going to hurt public health and public safety. Um, when you're afraid to call 911, crimes like domestic violence go unreported. When you don't go to the doctor because you're afraid that you're going to get picked up and you'll never see your family again, medical treatments go, medical procedures go unfulfilled, things are untreated, and then they do wind up in the ER. And guess what? They get the services they need because physicians have taken the Hippocratic oath, and then we all pay more for it anyway. I mean, that's the ironic thing is if we really want to promote public health, public safety, you want these communities that are feeling more isolated than ever right now to actually engage with public health entities. You want them to engage in law with law enforcement and report crime. And doing the opposite, it plays to the crowd, uh to Donald Trump's base, but it actually makes a less safe community. And that's again, that's the truth. But we as Democratic elected officials, because we've been railing against Donald Trump, we ought to do a better job of connecting those dots for people and saying if you want public safety, do not embrace what this man is selling. Well, you're right.
SPEAKER_02:I'm gonna change topics a little bit for you. We've been some pretty serious stuff here going on. Let's talk, and and this is serious, but it's a little not not as, you know. Sure. Let's talk about the entertainment industry a little. Yeah, something that really affects that affects Burbank and all that. It's number one, we have the big merger possibly going through. Yep. And you know, we don't know what that merger really is gonna mean for the future of Warner Brothers land. They may decide to come in and make it like Universal Studios and put a city walk type thing in and amusement rides and everything else into that property. Um, and I kind of talked to the mayor about that and said, are we zoned? Uh you know to make sure that doesn't happen. There's really no answer to that. So okay, that that's the big merger is is a huge thing. But what about the the local people, you know, the jobs and everything else? You know, it's it's too bad that in all the tariffs that Trump did, he couldn't have put a tariff on going to other countries for production. Yeah you know, keep production in the United States, and especially in California, and especially here in Burbank. So what what are your thoughts on because this is your your backyard?
SPEAKER_01:Oh yeah. I mean, Craig, I appreciate the question. Um, and I'll just give the background of saying, as you guys know, we we bolstered the film and television tax credit program this year because we understand how critical it is to our economy. Um let me ask real quick on this because I don't know the specifics.
SPEAKER_02:Oh, are we matching other states or other countries? Or are we even are we better to to really lure people to stay here or to come back here?
SPEAKER_01:It's it's a great question. Generally speaking, we're one of the top in the nation. Um I can't remember I can't remember at this point if New York has doubled up and and and passed us again, but we're one of the top states in the country in terms of those that have set a cap, uh a limit. We're one of the highest, if not the highest. There are other states that have an uncapped program, meaning that they will spend however much comes to their state. So like Georgia. So in that way, we'd be trailing them. Um, you know, but I would say on the whole, the what we did this year was uh made a$330 million program, a$750 million program, which is huge, and we expanded the kind of content that can take advantage of the tax credit credit program. So like animation's a huge employer in this town. They can now uh uh buy into the incentive program and have a reason to stay here. So those are the good things we did. Um, but to your point, Craig, I mean, I'm concerned. Um, you know, obviously I'm concerned for two reasons. The the first and foremost reason is jobs. What's the future of Warner Brothers Studios? How much content's gonna be created here? Um, are people going to get pink slips overnight? And and I want to be clear, I'm not trying to sound the alarm. It's gonna be a while before the mergers finalize. We don't know what the impact is. I do think that policymakers should be both sounding the alarm to the public and to federal regulators, but also engaging with the parties at the table, saying, whoever, however, this works out, we want jobs to stay in our community. And we should be looking at local incentives and cutting red tape locally to make it more enticing to film here and to keep jobs here. Um, quick note I'll mention is uh council member Adrien Nazarian in City of LA introduced nine motions to make it um easier to film content in LA. Burbank should do the same thing tomorrow. They should take his blueprint and say his concepts of like a one dollar per day uh to uh for a film permit, do that in Burbank. Like like all of that should be done locally.
SPEAKER_03:Well, you know, when you talk about this merger, if it happens or if it doesn't, yeah, I don't know. I don't think I have talked to one person that works in the industry that says Netflix is good to work for. Um they they take their production out of the US, going to Canada, going to Europe all the time. Yeah, London's a big location. Yeah. Um I just watched a special, but also how many households have Netflix? Oh, everybody has one, right? Doesn't it? Yeah. They're the largest, so where do they get the money?
SPEAKER_01:From you and me, folks. Well, and and to your point, Ross, uh so going back to the merger at hand, it is concerning because you're right. Um, look, you could I'm I'm gonna take another local example. So we had NBC, it merged with Universal, and then Comcast bought that entity. So we've seen this before. The difference about this time, though, is that Netflix operates under a model. I mean, their mission is to make film studios and going to the movies a thing of the past. I mean, so I would say this is a unique threat to the industry that we haven't historically faced. That's right, you're holding up your phone and that's where people are watching their content. On the other hand, you know, what I would say is I have my concerns about Netflix. I also have separate concerns about Paramount. I think we would all agree that we would love it if Warner Brothers could just continue to operate as Warner Brothers. Unfortunately, this industry is consolidating and changing. And so I think change is coming. I think what we should be doing is trying to steer it towards a better outcome and really emphasizing that no matter what that merger looks like, who's in charge of that studio, it can't just be uh a museum to Hollywood's past. It needs to be an active place for film production. We've got to keep jobs locally. At the state level, Craig and Ross, you know, we're gonna be looking at even building on our work this year, more incentives to keep production in California, where we need the locals to do even more. I'm not saying that they haven't done anything by any stretch, but where they can do even better, uh, in my view, have a film commission or a dedicated film office. Look at like what Santa Clarita is doing. Um, they have an actual local financial program that they've committed to being an extra added incentive to film in their city. Look at what LA is doing, trying to cut the red tape any place that they can. Um I in the legislature can try to keep cut production in California. We need the city council and we need city staff really hyper-focused on how do we make sure that production comes to Burbank and not any other city.
SPEAKER_03:They need to lure, you're right, these these film companies, because the majority of these people, when you drive down the street, I did yesterday, Frank's famous restaurant. It's been in how many shows? Oh my goodness, so many. They're filming out there. Those are local folks, those are local people that are working those jobs. They're not flying in from other countries and other states. They're local.
SPEAKER_02:I think the assembly member from Burbank needs to write a letter to the Burbank City Council outlining these steps and saying we need to act now on this instead of down the line. Five months from now, a year from now. I think we think it's a priority that would help our city. I think maybe you should spill out a list of things that we should be doing immediately and let's see if we can get get it on the agenda.
SPEAKER_03:We are in a crisis. We are in a crisis, folks. The the production here is nil. You talk to anybody. You know, um excuse me, uh talk to the local dry cleaners how how their business is affected. We need to do something now. Not six months, not a year. Let's get it done now.
SPEAKER_01:Well, and and the last thing I'll say, Craig, is I I appreciate your comment. I appreciate your comment too, Ross. But you're totally right, Craig. I will be engaged on this issue. I like to come to the table, and I'll say, by the way, I've had great conversations with um uh councilmember Anthony, um with our incoming mayor or new mayor, uh Mayor Takahashi about this issue, and I look forward to more conversations. Look, I I want to be collaborative. I'm not the duly elected council member for Burbank, so I'm not going to tell them what they should do, but what I will do to both your point is I am more than happy to say this is what I'm seeing other jurisdictions doing. This is a toolbox from which you could pick. And I think any or all of these ideas are great. And I am more than happy to show up and voice my support for the council taking any and all kinds of action. And I I think it's on all the above approach. Um, so I'm hopeful that they will. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will. I think all five of them uh care about the community, they get it, they represent the media capital of the world.
SPEAKER_03:They're hearing from their constituents exactly. They're getting evicted, they're getting kicked out of Burbank, they can't afford to keep their kids in the local school.
SPEAKER_01:It's a trickle-down effect here, folks. That's right. And so my and to the extent that any of them may listen to this, I mean, I would just say my message is I'm not here to tell you what you should do, but what I am here to do is say we want to help, we want to be helpful. We'll gladly share any and all of the ideas that we're seeing around the region. And if there's something that we can do, show up a meeting, show support, get data for you for you from the state phone commission, like we are here. Um again, like I want production in California, but Burbank's my home. Allie works in the industry, it's deeply personal to me. So um the council will have my full and complete partnership on that.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, okay, there's a good example. Your wife works in the industry, you know, and who knows where her job is in six months to a year.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, it's a pressure we face. We we talk about it every day. I mean, what when people are saying they're they're uncertain and they're worried about the future of Warner Brothers, it's not an abstract concept to me. That's dinner table talk in our house. So, like I I I get it, and I will say that the state did something this year. We need to do a whole lot more, but we did something this year. I applaud the city for starting the conversation about the film commission and getting the consultant on board. But 2026 has to be the year of action. No more talk and it needs to be about delivering results, and the state can't rest on our laurels either. We got to build on what we did and do more.
SPEAKER_02:Ready to turn the page again? Sure, let's do it. What do you got? We're kind of new script. We're gonna we're gonna move to the let's move to transportation. Okay. Let's talk about infrastructure and and uh things like that. Okay, so Burbank's got two bridges that are over 60 years old and both need replacing and modernization. We have a thing called this BRT that they want to kind of shove down our throats down all of Avenue. Um now I know that's that's more of the Metro Board, which is not a state thing, but but what what are your thoughts on on infrastructure and on uh transportation and it affects the local Burbank people?
SPEAKER_01:So I would say two things. Um going back to our conversation about housing, Sacramento does a really great job. I'm being a little facetious, but like a really great job of talking about more housing, more housing, mandating it, uh upzoning, all that.
SPEAKER_02:We are we love SB35, by the way, you know. What is that? We love SB 35. Thanks for coming back to our throats. We all appreciated that.
SPEAKER_01:I know.
SPEAKER_02:Like we were not at farming.
SPEAKER_01:I was not involved in that one. No, but but but but what we're not doing a good enough job is actually building the infrastructure to make these communities that plate people want to be in or the uh and places they can get in and out of. So the point I'm trying to make is we absolutely have to do a better job. Um look, a big part of what the state can do is more resources. Um we uh I I'm a big believer in talk about our wins, but I also think it's important that you guys and your listeners hear about our failures too. We introduced uh Assembly Bill 939 this year, which would have been a$20 billion infrastructure and transportation bond for bridge replacement, for um uh uh new roads, new alternatives to driving. Like it was all about transportation infrastructure. Now, that one did not get a hearing, it didn't get out of transportation committee. Um, I think it was a missed opportunity, although I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the reason that was given was that we couldn't afford more debt servicing at the state with our budget deficit. And I can't say that's a totally unreasonable answer. But what I would say though is that in future years, we've got to find uh more opportunities for revenue generation that is focused and dedicated on transportation and building those infrastructure projects. Because when you build those replacement bridges, including the Olive Avenue Bridge, whatever the future of the BRT, we need a new bridge. You're gonna put a Lot of people to work, a lot of crafts building that bridge. So I look at it as it's not just good for transportation, it certainly is, especially if you build a bridge with like dedicated bikes, all that stuff. Yeah. Exactly. It's about creating jobs. It's the one thing the government can really do to help actually create jobs.
SPEAKER_02:Okay. Well, I'd like to see some, you know, hopefully you get some progress. I mean, transportation, we can have all the bus routes in the world. We have the Burbank bus that nobody really rides. Yeah. You know, if if if we did that show when you were mayor, or we did on the bus. Yeah, if the results aren't really helping people or or or having people use them, then you know we can have all the systems in the world, but they have to be convenient for people to use.
SPEAKER_01:I mean, and safe. And safe. And to your point, Craig, I would mention in terms of success, one thing that we did this year was we worked with Laurie Wilson, an assembly member from Northern California, to run a bill about violence on public transit. So it was a bill brought by the bus drivers, the operators of public transit. And we actually stepped up uh both the punishments and the stay away orders to try and build a transit system where if somebody's coming on and accosting a transit operator, they don't get to keep abusing the system and putting everybody else at jeopardy. Those are where I think more things the state can legislate and make sure that we have uh hopefully uh affordable and reliable transit, but also transit that is safe. That's a really critical thing, too. If people can ride the red line and know it's safe, they'll use it.
SPEAKER_03:Well, I I'm curious, and um we've talked about it before. You sit on several committees. Yes, sir. Committees that you have wanted to sit on with your experience working for DOJ, being an attorney, are there currently, you know, all the committees that you're on, it's like a chest match or checkers. I mean, are are things moving forward? Are you, you know, getting bills passed that you specifically are really pushing for currently?
SPEAKER_01:Oh, absolutely. And if I'm looking down at my phone, um, I apologize, but I wanted to pull this up. So I would say in terms of public safety, which is the one committee that I chair, it's been a really productive year. We had over 200 bills that were introduced that we processed. Not all of them made it through the other house, not all of them were signed by the governor, but we did a lot of legislation this year around not only uh looking at new crimes, new enhancements, new new sentences uh for, for example, criminal threats, people that are putting in a bomb threat to a mosque or a synagogue, for example, we wanted to deter that. We also put in place um a lot more bills around re-entry, uh folks that are leaving prison, making sure that they have access and connection to housing, job placement. Um incarcerated firefighters was a really hot topic this year. But the reason I was looking at my phone is I wanted to bring this up. Uh, you know, when I took office uh a little more than a year ago, people were really feeling unsafe in Los Angeles and in California. I don't share this to suggest that the work is done. And I certainly don't want to take credit for this. This is not all the work of Nick Schultz, but myself, my colleagues, the governor, and local electives working together, these stats came out from the Major Cities Chiefs Association. So these are the police chiefs for all of the major cities in California. Homicides are down 18% statewide, robberies down 18%, aggravated assaults down 9%. I bring that up to say that violent crime is trending downward and substantially. So I think that if we continue doing what we started this year, hopefully those numbers are gonna get even better. And I think that's how we start to bring back safety in California and people all of a sudden maybe do feel more comfortable riding the bus, riding the train, walking in their neighborhood.
SPEAKER_03:You mean your neighbors might leave their front doors unlocked like they used to twenty thirty years ago?
SPEAKER_01:I don't know if we're there yet. But um I would say, look, if that was a report card uh for my work this year, I would take that as I'm not gonna give myself a name, but that's a passing grade. I think if it's trending downward, that means that what we're doing is working. And now it's about okay, great, we had one good year, fantastic. But it's only gonna make a difference if we have two, three, four, five good years back to back. So back to work in two weeks, as they say.
SPEAKER_02:Well, new chapter?
SPEAKER_01:Sure, let's do it.
SPEAKER_02:I know your time's limited and we got a lot of topics. Sure, we jump in, let me jump into schools and school funding. You have uh a daughter about ready to start the Burbank school system, and and you're gonna be part of that whole system?
SPEAKER_01:Yes, sir.
SPEAKER_02:Um, we're in financial trouble, substantial financial trouble. Like I said in the beginning, the lotto is supposed to solve that. But what's happened is the money, the extra money we got for the lotto became money that was then taken away from from the state. So we're still in the same situation we were 40 years ago. But our schools are in dire need, not only of infrastructure, but also to pay teachers and everything else. So kind of my comment or question is is, and once again, you can't do this all yourself. You're not the king of California. No, but um, what what do you see for to help these schools and and get through this financial uh their schools going bankrupt right now, and their schools are they have to close down schools, their schools are uh ending sports and like in Pasadena, combining the sports into one school. I mean, there's a lot of serious things and stuff going on that is gonna really affect the the average student development in most formative years of their lives.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, it it's a great question, Craig, and I would add that like the entertainment industry question, this is one that's personal to us because as we look at the district's financial situation and as there's concerns about what could happen down the road, look, if there were school closures, heaven forbid, like that could impact us directly. So we're we're we're feeling it. I would say there's a couple things. At the state level, we have to look at school funding. Um, these are the things that we can control. Uh well there we go. Sorry, Ross with the selfie there. I love it.
SPEAKER_02:You know, you know that um the always the big thing, you know, when people talk about school funding, they always say, remember, students don't vote. That's why they always get left behind.
SPEAKER_01:That's right. So so look, you know, we had we actually upped uh per pupil funding in California over, I think,$26,000 this year. The issue with that's specific to Burbank is you have a district with consecutive years of declining enrollment. So I would say there's a couple things that we can do. And by the way, both of these ideas came as a product from conversation with the board members and with the interim superintendent Oscar Macsias. So I share this to say whether you agree with these folks or not, I can at least report to you and your listeners that they're engaging with our office. They are coming to the assembly and saying, we need help. Here are our ideas for change. We're obviously taking their ideas, but we're vetting them, right? We're making sure that they actually make sense and we make good policy. But I think the major thing we have to look at is how we fund our schools. As you all know, we fund it based on average daily attendance as opposed to enrollment. That's something that Senator Portantino talked about for years. Uh we agree, and that's something that we're hoping to champion this year. We want to make it so that even if you only have 95 out of 100 students reporting every day, you get funding for all 100. Because that 5%, to your point earlier, Ross, they might not be coming to school because they're worried about whether their parents are going to get picked up. We have to account for that. That's that's one thing. Uh, the other thing I would say is that there have been some proposals from the Burbank School Board and from the superintendent related to the categorizations of funding. There's a lot of funding that they actually can't touch because they don't meet criteria to tap into. So they've asked for more flexibility or at least to apply it to the strategic reserves that they have to maintain. So these are the things that we're looking at. Point I'm trying to make is at the state level, it's all funding. Um, I agree with what you're saying.
SPEAKER_02:I know that I don't know the specific r reasons, but I know that some districts receive money for certain things and diversities and things like that that Burbank can't get. Why can't we open up that funding to all the districts so Burbank's not even footing with other districts? Because other districts are getting the funding and then the recruiting out of Burbank.
SPEAKER_01:Well, and that's exactly it. So at the state level, we can talk about looking at the criteria, expanding it, giving more flexibility to transfer funds between different categories. Those are all the tools that we can do at the state level. The local solution is going to be we have to find a way to reverse the downward trends in enrollment. And I think that where that becomes difficult is we can do all this zoning reform and all this stuff at the state level. Um, we need our our city staff and council to the extent that they can, and not saying they don't want to, but we need them to find more opportunities for missing middle-income housing in our community. Because when the average home sale price is$1.4 million and your kids and grandkids can't afford to live here, there are fewer kids in our schools. We have to solve the affordability crisis.
SPEAKER_02:Not only that, but the um you believe so many apartments that are just one or two bedroom apartments where it's just a couple, they don't have children moving in. So there's less children even moving in.
SPEAKER_01:Yep. And I'll say the council members I've talked to is special credit to Constantine Anthony, have talked to year for years about, for example, the the liability uh uh uh that that applies to condominium development and that leading to less condos being built. We need more townhomes being built. Um, it's not that we're trying to take away from our stockpile of single family homes, but the reality is we have we have a ton of apartments, we have a nice healthy stockpile of single-family homes, and we do not have a lot of in between. So, how do you, paying, you know,$2,000 plus dollars a month for rent, ever save up enough to put that down payment down for your$1.4 million house? It just you can't. What you can do is have something in between, like a condo, like a townhome, where maybe a young prof, and it's still going to be beyond reach for so many people. That's the sad thing. But maybe some hardworking young professionals can scrape together enough to get that condo at$600,000 and then build that equity and maybe upgrade one day. We're not doing any of that. At the state level, we can look at things like liability, we can look at other impediments to construction, we can do a lot of it, and where we'll need the locals to help and assist is just actually green light these projects with more of a home ownership component, I think.
unknown:Okay.
SPEAKER_03:Ross, you need to follow up or well it it it concerns me because you look at a town like Burbank, there's no stock to buy. You're not building single family homes, you know, you're kind of locked into it. But what I noticed that we're in a situation now that it was caused way before your time being elected, you know, and how do we correct so many issues? I don't think our listeners, you know, and followers understand how much there is going on.
SPEAKER_02:Like you were saying before, though, we have all these lands like the uh the IKEA property, like the other but the problem is these are privately owned. You can't make somebody develop them. You're right. They're sitting there and there's and the banks aren't gonna finance them. Well, we're gonna solve those problems because that's not publicly owned land. So it's all catch 22 in a in one way.
SPEAKER_03:Well, what kind of gets me is the fries property. Let's take that for uh example. They do they leveled that fries building they were supposed to build. That project is now not happening. Yeah, you're talking how much land out there's the old Bob Hoop Museum, too. That's a system. It just there's these the IKEA. How many years have we looked at the old IKEA not getting developed?
SPEAKER_02:Or like you say, and then you look at the ranch property, which is now the number one production facility in the United States as far as what they can do, and that got built in within two years. So you they can do what they want to do, it because they're making money. Exactly. So um, anyhow, we let's get off of that. Sure. Your time is short. I we understand right now. So we're in the epilogue now. We the chapters are over within the epilogue.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, we got a call from we got a call from uh the Southwest Airlines that's oh they need me back, okay.
SPEAKER_02:Yes. So 2025 was your first year, and I'm sure a lot of new experiences and a lot of learning curves and all that. But 220 2026 is now on the horizon. So talk about you know, kind of what you learned in 2025 and what you foresee in 2026. What are your goals? What are your ambitions? What do you what do you think you can do better now that you have a lay of the land?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I I appreciate the question. And and by the way, um, you know, we're sitting here and it's uh I'm just looking at my county. It's Monday, December 22nd. I have a little uh digital clock on my desk. My I go back to session in less than two weeks. So our first session is January 5th, one o'clock. So 2026 is we're on the eve of it, right? Like through the holidays, like less than two weeks, we are back in session. Um, I would say what I learned uh when I think about all the bills that I worked this year, really two things. Understanding the importance of quality legislation as opposed to just doing something to look like you're doing something. Um, I'm really proud of the bills that we got signed by the governor. Um and when I look back at the start of the year, there are maybe one or two bills where I'm like, you know what, maybe I wouldn't have run that in hindsight. Uh, you know, we don't, you don't need to run 30 bills. If you run 10 quality bills that can actually solve problems in California, that's a great year. If you can get all those signed by the governor. The other thing I would say is, you know, when I walked in, especially being on council, I was so in the weeds on policy, and I still am, as you guys know. But I've learned in the course of this year there is that disconnect. Like we're doing great work in the Capitol, and yet so many people don't know about it. So it's understanding the politics of you can be working on all this great stuff, but when people are just worried about making their rent today or whether their job's gonna be there next year, unless you're talking their language and talking about affordability, cost of living, making it easier to survive, they're not gonna have the bandwidth or the attention to just let you drone on and on about something else. So I think in that way, I'm gonna be more focused next year. Um, I'll give you two highlights. Obviously, you know, we're gonna continue to focus on jobs and housing, front and center. Those are gonna be everything. So building on the film tax credit, finding ways to um not upzone everything, but I'm saying for all those parcels we already have identified the Fry's, the IKEA, the Kmart, how do you actually get housing built on there? What are the other costs and impediments and barriers? That's gonna be the focus. The other thing I'll quickly say, and then I'll hand it back to you, Craig, is in terms of public safety, um, because I get this one a lot. You know, I think there's a there's a couple categories where it's gonna be um this is gonna be a hot topic this upcoming year. Probably the biggest one though is DUI enforcement. I know the LA Times, CalMatters, folks have been talking about how state of California has more uh driving under the influence of fences and fatalities and injuries than almost anywhere else in the country. And that makes the road less safe for pedestrians, bicyclists. You guys are the first media source I'm announcing it. Uh, but at the end of January, we'll be holding a press conference in the Capitol. We might also do one locally, so we'll keep you guys posted. But I'm spearheading um with Lori Wilson a bipartisan legislative package, probably about four or five, maybe even six bills, all aimed at DUI uh detection and enforcement in California, um, from what we can do to prevent people from getting intoxicated and driving a car in the first place, to having a penalty structure that incentivizes them to do the right thing but takes dangerous drivers off the road. So that is something that last year in the first year, Craig, I was more just surviving and trying to come up with some good ideas. Being a year in, now I'm looking at it more holistically. Here's a problem, and we need our chair of transportation who oversees DMV, all the regulatory side, to work with me over here in public safety, handling the courts and the justice system. And how do you have a package of bills that actually tackle the issue from every angle?
SPEAKER_03:Well, you know, that that kind of gets me because we have state-of-the-art cars now. You don't even have you can tell your car to start. You know, you don't need years ago you had to put a key in the key slot. If you were drunk, you probably couldn't find the key slot. Now you don't even you have a key fob sitting in your pocket, you push a button, your car starts. I've shot my you know, plenty of DUI related accidents, fatality. Just two weeks ago, right here, uh half a block from our studio, Burbank Police posted a video. You might have seen it.
SPEAKER_01:I did.
SPEAKER_03:The guy came around. Thank God there weren't people more people coming to the ball.
SPEAKER_01:Down right off the wall of uh Warner Brothers.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah. Deuced, drunk. Yeah, he went to jail, but we gotta do something to stop these people from driving, you know.
SPEAKER_02:Our cars are I wonder how many how many times has that that been has been arrested for doing that. I find most people arrest for DUI. It's not the first time.
SPEAKER_01:No, no, I I I agree, and I'll I'll I'll give you a uh just a slight preview of what I'm looking at. So in California, uh assuming you don't hit and injure someone or hit and kill them, heaven forbid, um, if it's just what we call a technical DUI, so you're pulled over, you're drunk, okay. You can only be charged for a felony on your fourth in 10 years, that's a lot. Uh most states it it's lower. So we're looking at what makes sense. Should it be eligible for felony filing at say your third? Um, another thing we're looking at is the license suspension period. So you actually can have a longer license suspension for injuring someone than killing them.
SPEAKER_03:But you know what gets me? Those people, and I've witnessed it mu uh numerous times, those people that get their license suspended. Yes, they go into court, give us your license. They still get behind the goddamn dr wheel and drive. And I'm I'm gonna make a point here. Craig and I don't drink. I never have, uh, my whole life. It's not sitting at a bar drinking your scotch and whiskey and whatever, folks. It's that one glass of wine after another glass of wine till that bottle is gone until you open another. You're the ones that are out there killing people and getting DUIs. People need to take responsibility with their drinking. And I don't mean hard liquor, I mean wine. Wine's a big thing now. You know, I witness it when I go places. I just can't believe how much wine people go through. That's alcohol, folks.
SPEAKER_01:No, bottom line. Well, and and here's the thing, Ross. I mean, if I can if I can have my crystal ball for a moment and look at the future, another bill in the package will likely be regarding the installation of ignition interlock devices in your car and making that probably mandatory for most first-timers. But what I'll say is this if this package of bill and other bills like it don't solve the problem, and then this is my plea to the public, then you might find a day where every car is a Waymo vehicle and you just don't have the option to drive. And and I have concerns about you know autonomous vehicles driving on our roads. I already have concerns about there. But at the end of the day, the epidemic of road violence, whether it's road rage or DUI fatalities, it's unacceptable in California. Um, so I bring all that up to say, Craig, back to your original question. When I took the job a year ago, I knew like individually kind of the things I wanted to work on. Now, a year in being in leadership, I see these broader problems at play in California affordability, public safety, you name it, transit, housing. And now I'm thinking in terms of you can't fix you can't fix that in one year or with one bill, but how do you have a real effort to make it better this year? And then how do you start building on that next year? It's it's that longer term kind of higher bird's eye view perspective that Laura had, um, that Adam Schiff had, we know both the uh in the state senate and then the Congress. It's like as you get more experience, you start thinking beyond your time there and really thinking about how do you have lasting change.
SPEAKER_03:Well, you know, a good point. You know, what it takes to get into your phone. Difficult. But what what it takes to get into your car and just drive away, make it that difficult. You know, I I I'm not a drinker, as I said. So I'll go through. Yes, it's a pain to do double as syndication and all that. But you know what? Getting into a car if I was drunk, if that would save one more person. That's right. That's right. It should be done.
SPEAKER_01:That's I I I I think that's that's that's totally right.
SPEAKER_02:Well I think we've reached the end. Never the end. We've we've we've reached a pause because this is always be a continuing conversation.
SPEAKER_03:Well we always welcome you know you live here in the media district you know your backyard you were mayor here in Burbank that was your first elected position. That's right. You you've got some ground under you now. We'd love to have you in the studio because it's your it's um a medium for people to hear you. I mean you probably shake a lot of hands every day you run into a lot of people but with with like a podcast where thousands of people can listen to your topics and so forth it's a great medium and you know that we want to keep giving to you.
SPEAKER_01:Well I I I appreciate it Ross and I'll I'll take that as my as my curtain call but I'll just say I look I I appreciate the opportunity and I'm always happy to come back and I want to be really clear y'all have a great council you got great staff you got great people running the city um you know I'm always here you know I I'll be happy to share my perspective I want to be a resource I never want to be perceived as meddling in the local issues because I respect the fact that you got five independently elected people that were chosen by the voters to represent them. But Burbank's my home I am certainly going to do everything that I can at the state level to set it up for success. And you know whether you're a commissioner or a council member or just a concerned citizen listening to this if if we can be helpful in any way our office is here third on uh still on third in Magnolia right in the city of Burbank I mean when I'm not in Sacramento I'm here and we'll keep working all right well that's it for another show um for Ross Benson and Nick Schultz this is Craig Sherwood saying of course like subscribe I know you hear that all the time but you know what it really does help.
SPEAKER_02:And if you're just listening to us in the car and driving keep two hands on the wheel and we will talk to you next time.
SPEAKER_03:Happy happy New Year's and don't drink and drive everyone