Final Thoughts and Book Recommendations

High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face. Unless you power up with a so-fi personal loan. A so-fi personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low fixed rate monthly payment. It's even got super speed. Since you could get the funds as soon as you the same day sign . Visit sofi.com slash power to learn more. That's S O F I dot com slash POW E R. Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC, terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891 . On Friday, I moderated a forum with the top five Democratic candidates for governor in California. We invited the Republicans too, but they didn't show up on housing costs and housing affordability and what can actually be done about it. I think if you're in California particularly, but even if you're not seeing how the Democrats running to lead the largest state in the nation, with arguably the worst housing crisis in the nation, seeing and hearing how they're thinking about actually trying to solve it is really, really instructive for where our politics might be going . It is my total honor and privilege to introduce to you Mr. Ezra Klein and the candidates who are participating in this event . All right, hello Oakland . All right, welcome to the beautiful Calvin Simmons Theater. We are thrilled you're here. Uh the candidates on the stage tonight are according to the polls, the five top Democratic candidates in this race Tom Steyr, Javier Becerra, Katie Porter, Matt Mahan , and Antonio Via Ragosa . Give him a hand. I should say we invited the top Republicans too. Unfortunately they cannot make it tonight. There have been, there have been a lot of debates lately, a lot of debates this week. This is not one of them. What we're doing here tonight is a forum and on one topic, a topic that deserves 90 minutes of our attention, which is California's housing crisis. We're gonna have three sections. Each section, I'm gonna spend about six minutes talking with each candidate in turn. I'll ask follow-ups if we have time. I want to give people the opportunity to hear all of you thinking through these issues aloud. At the end of that six minutes, a bell will sound like this . That bell slightly breaks my heart. I'm a podcast host. I g wannaive you all ninety minutes each. Uh but you're gonna get very mad at me if I don't keep this fair. So we're gonna try to keep it very fair. We are asking candidates not to jump in or interrupt each other. You are free to criticize each other in your answers, but if you do it, that candidate you criticize is gonna get a minute to respond and you are not gonna get more time, so strategize accordingly . And to the audience, please hold your Candidates have not seen the questions here in advance, nor have any of the organizations that are co-hosting the event. With all of that out of the way, let's get to the reason we're actually here. Governor Gavin Newsom came into office in 2019 with a promise to build millions more homes. And in the years since dozens of pro-housing laws have passed, some of them written by Hero ic legislators in this very room. And yet the number of new homes being built in California is basically the same as when Newsom took office. Housing is a slow and hard problem to solve. That some of these bills may just take time is true, but we've also seen that they will take leadership and courage, that even good laws that we need encounter resistance and headwinds along the way. So all of you want to build more homes. You all have detailed plans to do so. So the question of tonight is what has to happen to convert these good intentions into homes that people can live in? And how do we protect those in need or at risk in the meantime? We're gonna begin by taking on something you all identify as a problem: the very high cost of construction in California. And Mr. Starr, we're gonna begin with you. A RAN study found that the cost per square foot of constructing an apartment in California is over twice that of constructing it in Texas. Why do you think that is, and what would you do about it? So I know that in fact what's driving that up is the way that we construct the cost of labor, the cost of materials, and the cost of financing. And for us to drive down the cost per square foot of housing to a place where we can afford to build these houses and people can afford to buy them, we're gonna have to make some real changes in the way we're going about this. So let's talk about two of them, which is one about the construction on site. And we are we are building houses and we are building apartment buildings the way we have been doing it for a hundred years. And there is new technology to do this where you basically construct, manufacture the uh parts of the house off site the way you'd construct or manufacture a car and then you assemble it on site. And the estimates that people have, both from the real world of having done it, but also projecting what they think w they could do , start at 20% . And they go up from there. And these are real things, and these are companies that are like manufacturing companies, so therefore, they need revenues and orders. And the state of California can do that and it can change the building codes. The second thing in order to drive down the cost of housing is about finance. And the state of California has has a number of finance programs. In fact, Buffy Wicks is proposing a $10 billion housing bond, which I think is incredibly important . And I should say Excuse me, excuse me. Hold hold it till then. And I should say that the nonprofit community bank that my wife Kat Taylor and I started in Oakland, California has financed seventeen thousand low-income housing units. We need to use finance much more aggressively to drive down the cost of housing. And the let- the third thing I'll say is this : the cities and counties in California are do not want to have housing in general, as someone said to me one time, they'd rather have a used car lot than they would a new housing , you know, a new apartment building. The reason is used car lots don't go to school, used car lots don't take health care costs. And so a real reason that housing is so expensive, both in terms of the time that it takes to get permits , but also cities and counties will charge very large fees up to 20 percent of the cost of the house, so that they can sort of preload the cost of having new inhabitants uh in their community. I've said that I will on day one call a special election to close a corporate real estate tax loophole worth over $20 billion to the state of California so that instead of when we're talking about a new housing facility in a city or county, it's not an unfunded liability, an unfunded mandate, it's a funded mandate. And we can then work with the cities and counties and they can stop dra gging their feet. So we're gonna come back to the city and county question, but I wanna jump in on modular for a minute. Modular housing has been promised and hoped for for a long time. Uh a lot of politicians have hyped it up. Investors have invested in it and been disappointed. The big companies in the space have often failed. Katara raised $2 billion in private capital, went bankrupt. Viv failed, Intecra failed. Factory OS, which is the biggest one in California, was recently rebranded and recapitalized. So this is pretty central to the way you think about housing. Why do you think it will be different? Why do you think they failed actually? And what have you learned that would make it different now? Well let me say this. There is a reason they failed, and there's a reason that most startups fail as are which is they don't have revenues and they don't have orders. And so the question is : A, does the technology work? B does it drive down costs? And C, do they have enough orders so that they're making money and able to sustain themselves and then to finance themselves into much bigger enterprises? And the answer is the state of California can change the building codes, the state of California can give those orders, and we can actually drive this business so that in fact not only do they do what they say they can do, but they can get economies of scale going forward to get the kind of size that it needs so that we can really get what they say they can do. Because the estimates right now are we can drive down the cost per square foot by 20 percent. But I can tell you, because I've talked to them that the people who run these companies see that as a first step and they can think they can go much further than that. And let me say this: there are 40,000 units in San Francisco, California that are permitted, that are zoned , that are not being built because they can't afford to build them to a price that people can afford to buy them. So this is actually the ability to drive down this cost is an absolutely critical part of building , you know, multiples of what we've been building for the last four years and in fact solving the housing crisis and putting it in a place where working people, working families can afford to buy. So it's really getting this right is a critical part of the mix. Thank you, Mr. Steyr. Mr. Becerra, yesterday you released a comprehensive housing plan. You say in it that it costs too much to build a home in California. You also say in it that you want more union labor in home For Democrats, there's a pretty wrenching trade off here. An analysis from the Turner Center found that those kinds of standards, notably paying prevailing wage, increase the cost per unit of housing by about ninety-four thousand dollars. How do you both cut the cost of housing and increase the wages behind it at the same time? Well I think the legislature and assemblymember uh Wix took the first measures that we need to get us to that point where we can do is make sure that we are building we're building with uh men and women who are skilled and we're doing it at a price that we can afford. And so as we've seen if you do infill housing and you make sure that if you have housing units that will be uh up to a certain height, up to usually about eight stories. If you're gonna do that, then you have the right to be able as a developer to try to get the the labor that you need and try to negotiate a good price. If you go beyond that, you're talking about major construction, prevailing wage will be the standard. I think that is a good approach. And then what we do is provide to those that are in the lower uh height housing the opportunity to uh go out and do private actions if you find that there are violations of labor laws. But I will tell you this. We should not believe that we have to build homes by making it so it's impossible for the carpenter who builds a home to never be able to afford I'm going to make sure that those workers who are building those homes can actually think about buying those homes themselves. And it all it takes is for us to work together to make sure we are dropping costs. It's far more than just labor. There are a lot of things that are involved here and we would we would tackle those. So I take that point, but uh tell me then about how you balance the cost, because what you are describing here, if you begin paying prevailing wage, you begin paying higher wages, you do increase the cost structure. We all want to see higher wages. I take your point very much. The people who build a home should be able to buy a home. There's nothing, there's nothing to disagree with in that. But you have to cut the cost of construction somewhere. You got financing, you've got labor, you've got materials. If you are increasing a cost driver, what are you decreasing? And by how much? Well, if we can get rid of the Trump taxes, the tariffs uh that are now being found illegal, that would help us reduce the cost of building materials. If we could stop going to war in foreign local construction in California was high before Donald Trump. It was high, but not as high as it is now. And we can lower those costs. Transportation and building materials is very expensive. And so let's not disregard that we need Washington, D.C. to be helping us. But to your point, and remember, again, labor costs for most homes that are going to be built will not be based on simply the highest rates that you have in the large mega uh projects. Uh the legislation that was passed by Assemblymember Wix provided different ways to do this, which would make the labor cost affordable for developers. We also have to deal with financing. We have to have a stable force of financing uh source of financing. We can't just do it one time. I think the uh the measure that uh Assemblymember Wix is going to try to put on the ballot is good. I think the measure that former Assembly Speaker 10,000 uh 10 million dollars uh billion dollars excuse me of bonding financing so that you can start building affordable housing. Uh the 40,000 units that Tom mentioned that are ready to go , except the financing, that ten billion dollars would be readily available to get those shovel ready projects up and running, which helps give confidence to the California families that are looking to get into a place. But what is bringing the cost of construction down here? I'm hearing I'm hearing new bond programs, but the cost of construction is too high. That's what your plan says. What brings it down? So one, you you go after the red tape, so we try to streamline and again the legislation that the legislature passed over this last year helps reduce some of the uh red tape that you have at the state level. We have to tack it at the uh local level because of the the high fees that are imposed. You have to also make sure that they aren't trying to use their ordinances to try to prevent us from being able to build. Remember that most home, most housing that's built today is reserved for single-family homes. Very little construction is done with apartments and condominiums. Very little to buy other than single family homes. We're never going to reach the number we need if we continue to only build single family homes. And that's why the legislation that allows us to really build out , do the infill, where we know we have transportation, will give us an opportunity to increase greater amounts of housing at affordable rates for people who need to either buy or rent. And I think that if we do that and come up with a stable source of funding into the future, so it's not just a one time housing bond that people can count on, developer developers will begin to have confidence that we are looking to give them a predictable predictable means of being able to finance these projects and have them pencil out. Ms. Porter, you have often said on the trail here that time is money, something I hear from developers too. The RAN study I mentioned found that it takes about twenty-seven months to complete a multifamily housing project in Texas, 37 months to complete it in Colorado, and 49 months in California. Why does it take so long here and what would you do about it? So first, I love that you're talking about this RAN study because this is the second time that we've had a housing event where we were asked essentially what makes construction costs higher? And I think some people still haven't read the study because what the study I have read the study. What the study point and we we got asked about it before and nobody read it and doesn't seem like they have since. The study is very, very clear that the speed is the driver. Now, that's not to say there aren't a lot of things that were mentioned that contribute to the speed. But if Colorado, if we could be 22 months faster, which is what Colorado does, which does care about the environment and does have good worker standards, then the estimates are we could take 10 or even 20% off the price, and that was market rate. So yes, we need more housing, but we also need that how we more housing is a tool to less expensive housing. And so I think it's really important to think about all the different tools in your toolkit. I strongly support the pending legislation that would create one uniform statewide permit, making it easier for local everyone to have the same permit, easier for the state to monitor those denials. I also think it's a really good idea to limit how many sort of last second add-ons can come. So I think right now you ought to have to, if you're a city and you get a permit, you have should have 30 days. That's the proposal in the legislature. You could argue it could be 45 or 60 to say this is what the fees are going to be. This is your contribution for sewer. This is This is your contribution for school. And then you cannot do what we see now, which is just a little bit more and a little bit more and a little bit more, which is a little bit more delay and then a little bit more cost until pretty soon the project is unaffordable. So those are just a couple of ideas. I also do think there are innovations in architectural design, particularly for multifamily, that could be really helpful, especially smaller multifamily, where we're seeing you things that are four units have to apply the same standards essentially as something that's 400 units. And so that also adds to the time unnecessarily without providing much benefit of those smaller unit projects, which we need a lot of. We yes, we need all of the There's a difficult irony you see, not only that study, but it comes up again and again in my own housing reporting. There is no form of housing the Democrats feel more strongly about, support more unanimously than affordable housing. Affordable housing costs more to construct per square foot than market rate housing does. When you look at that same study that we are hyping up here on the stage, what you see is that it costs about twice per uh it costs twice as much to construct a square foot of market rate housing in California as in Texas, four times as much to do a square foot of affordable housing as market rate housing in Texas. Now that affordable housing is being built partly on the public dime. Why is it so much more expensive here to do affordable housing than the market rate. What do you do about it? This is not a surprise because look affordable housing projects face more delays. They face more obstacles. They face more community resistance. They face more restrictions on zoning. People don't necessarily want them in a lot of our communities. And so the other piece of this is that land becomes more expensive every time you have uncertainty about whether something is going to happen. The costs go up. The other issue is that affordable housing developers are piecing together financing from seven different pools of money that are all designed to make a contribution. And you just as soon get the seventh thing and you're ready to go, and then the seventh one expires, or you lose that funding or someone changes the term of a program. So one consolidated bigger pot of money, which is more similar to what market rates using, right? They're going to Wall Street, they're getting the the money and they're using it. One consolidated part of of us pot money would help. The other thing is the state should be putting land up for affordable housing. That is the one of the major factors. It's one of the hardest ones to solve. You can actually solve labor by not going backwards on housing in labor policy, which the other candidates both have. I think we ought to be trying to drive down the cost of construction, but the land is the a tricky piece. The state should contribute land So I have not I have said that I do not think today or now is the time to do prevailing wage in residential. And when we were in front of the labor Fed, I was the only candidate. I don't believe you were in front of the labor Fed, so I just want to make it clear. But those of us who were in front of the labor Fed, I was the only one who said, I'm not doing skilled and trained in full today for residential housing because it's going to drive up the cost . And I took the heat from labor. I stood up to labor. And I Melorina Gonzalez got, you know, it was right there. And I am not scared of anybody because I've got three teenagers that I do not want living on my couch. And you all seem very lovely, but I don't want you living on my couch or a street corner or in someone's attic. I want you to all have housing where you can flourish. And so you cannot. There is a pathway to keep building that workforce. There is a big need, a huge need to enforce labor violations and abusive labor practices, which unions have often been very helpful at doing. You could also do that through actually having government oversight of wage violations and workforce violations, and that would be my approach. Thank you, Ms. Porter. Mayor Mahan, San Jose has been able to approve over 20,000 new homes for construction, most of which did not get built because the economics didn't work out. What could Sacramento do to get those twenty thousand homes built in the air. Well, thanks for doing this, Ezra. There's no more important issue. Just want to say good evening to everyone. It's great to be in Oakland. Thank you all for coming out and being pro-housing. Uh this issue is very personal for me. I grew up in a house remembering my parents argue about how we were going to pay the mortgage and we were lucky to have a mortgage. My sisters have since moved out of state because they couldn't afford the cost of living here. Uh so you asked about the state and first let me as I come around to what we can do across the board, let me just share what we've done in San Jose because I came in to this problem of we've approved twenty two thousand homes and they're not getting built. So we're saying yes, and we're celebrating the beautiful rendering, and it's in the paper, and everybody's excited, except the neighbors who say we don't want it. And it doesn't matter because we don't break ground. And if you look at the RAN study, it's time and its fees are the two big levers we have control over. And the state can impose upon cities some standards and requirements and caps that can hold us accountable. Now we didn't wait for that in San Jose . In the last two years, we have moved our multifamily housing approvals in our downtown, all of our planned growth areas along all of our transit corridors to what's called a ministerial approval meaning it's essentially by right. Doesn't go to the planning commission, doesn't come to the city council, it's just a weekly hearing in the planning department, and you get told to go. It actually exempts CEQA. So you're just you're building by right if you conform with what we've zoned, and we've zoned for dense multifamily housing in these areas. We have dramatically reduced the timeline for building. So I am deep in this right now as a mayor of a big city. We just had a 5 60 unit project get approved in no time. Came in, got the approval, they're ready to go. So that's speed. Now the state can impose those standards and set deadlines and use its ability to basically impose effectively a builder's remedy by right and say if you don't meet these turnaround times city or county the developer is going to by law have the right to build a conforming project. On fees, we have accumulated, I mean in I can tell you in my city over 10 pages worth of fees that look good on paper. It's to mitigate every imaginable it's traffic and and park fees and affordable housing fees and they all sound good. On their own, they're all justifiable and they're they're well intended, but you stack them up and they're adding 10 to 20 percent to the cost of housing. We had a really tough conversation on our city council. I came to our council and said we've got to cut the one-time fees in order to get the housing in the ground. And the good news is if we build the housing, we make up the revenue over time. We have more property taxes, more sales taxes, more workers, more jobs, more dynamism. We we eventually in the long run are better off. But it's a tough trade-off to make because you get yelled at by the park advocates, by the affordable housing advocates, by every other advocate you can imagine. We had a council member literally lose his seat not long ago in San Jose, and our last mayor lose his council majority over a fee reduction because it was framed as a giveaway to developers. But but there's still a number of big uh big projects that have not been able to go forward because the economics aren't working for you. So we could what could you do as governor to make it work for cities like So to finish the point, Ezra , we we cut the fees by over two-thirds and two thousand homes got under construction last year. Another two thousand are securing financing as we speak and we'll break ground. And what the state can do is cap local fees. A lot of these fees are not really fees. We allow these bogus nexus studies that employ a cottage industry of consultants, no offense to any of the consultants in the room, um, that the nexus is pretty loose. Nobody's getting sixty-five thousand dollars worth of value out of the neighborhood park. I'm sorry, I love our parks, but I think what we ought to do is cap fees at a much lower level, stay a top-down policy, and require that a city that wants to impose a higher fee actually produce to the state a feasibility study that shows that the project can still pencil because this is the problem. We don't control interest rates, we don't control the cost of timber, but timelines at the local level and all these fees are completely levers within our control, and we've made excuses for far too long, and it's blocked tens of thousands of units in our cities. Thank you, Mr. Mahem. Uh Mr. Vieira Ghostsa, your campaign site defends Prop 13, California's cap on property taxes. You talk about holding the line on property taxes. Prop thirteen pushes cities to raise fees on new housing because they aren't collecting enough in property taxes to pay the bills. It pushes them to prefer retail and commercial build ing over residential building. It pushes against homeowner selling because it sells to lose what is effectively a tax break. I know Prop 13 is popular. It's easy for me to sit here and talk about it. But you say you're willing to do the unpopular things to fix the First of all, I didn't vote for Prop 13 . I'm on record opposing Prop thirteen since nineteen seventy-eight. Uh look it up. Am I misreading your campaign site? Well, I do believe that we need to hold property taxes down, but let me uh explain. First of all, Tom Steyer is right. What he was talking about is called the fiscaliz ation of land use. And because of Prop thirteen, we have a situation where we reward a small mall, strip mall, more than we would housing. So many cities push back against it. So with respect uh to I'm saying with the laws we have today hold the line on property taxes, but I think we need to fix the whole broken tax system along the lines of Think Long. Think Long has said that what we have today, when we pass Prop 13, commercial properties were paying 60 percent of the freight. Uh homeowners were paying 40 percent. Now it's the other way around. We uh property can't move. People can. It's why I've opposed uh the billionaire tax because I said they're just gonna leave. But I do believe we need to fix Prop 13, but fix the whole broken tax system. But within the laws that we have today, Ezra, yes, hold the line on property taxes. So walk me through how you would fix that tax system. Well uh beg pardon? Walk me through how you would fix that tax system. How do we fix it? Yes, you're saying you want to do it more comprehensively than Prop thirteen reform. We need to fix Prop thirteen. I just told you we went from sixty percent commercial uh to now uh uh to now forty per cent . I'm sorry. Today we said back then homeowners are paying forty percent , commercial was paying sixty percent, now it's the other way around. We gotta change that. That's one. Two, I I do believe that we have to address the fact that people that bought a home before 1978 don't have to pay the same taxes that people who buy a house today do. And that 's not fair either. We want to keep those costs down, but we have to address the fact that my generation was benefited by the greatest generation that made sacrifices so we could buy a home. And by the way, I bought a home at 25 years old. I was working on a non-profit. Today, young families can't buy that because the average down payment is $140,000 to $160,000 . But fixing the broken tax system, uh, we got to address the fact that we don't have a service tax. Almost most states do. We got to fix the the upper income tax. They're they're those people are leaving. And we've got to address the fact that we overrely. I'm the only person on this stage that's actually been the speaker of the California State Assembly. I had to balance two budgets with a surplus, and I did, both times. The fact is we can do that in times of, you know, good times, in bad times, we can't, because the people at the top are paying the vast majority of the taxes. So you think long has put a proposal to spread them across the economy so that we're not over-relying on the upper income tax so that we can tax more and incentivize cities to build housing, not strip malls. Right. So it sounds like you want to move the line on property taxes. You think the system is not working as it currently says not working, yes. And how then does that give you some movement on fees, right? We've heard a couple of the candidates on the stage talk about the various fees that are layered on in part because of the way property taxes work. How do you approach those? Matt and I are on the stage, we tend to agree a lot because he's right. Impact fees are killing us. About a hundred and fifty. fees that every group says, all good things by the way. And your book, the the essence of your book is that Democrats don't build anymore because we're looking for perfect. And perfect doesn't exist. That's what happens when you have the kind of experience the two of us do. At the end of the day, I built more market rate, workforce, affordable, and homeless housing in eight years in the middle of a recession than they did in the in the 12 years before me. The downtown skyline went from 20,000 people to 60,000. I'm the first person in the United States of America, mayor, to do uh transit-oriented development districts so that we're building housing along transit districts. So what Buffy Wicks and Bob Herzberger here are doing, there these are the things that we need to do to drive down costs, to build housing, and to make sure that young people can buy a home again. Supported by BetterHelp. May is Mental Health Awareness Month, a reminder that you don't have to do this life alone. Right now, many Americans are struggling. Nearly two-thirds report feeling anxious, and more than half cite financial stress. Having a licensed therapist with you by video, phone, or chat can make a difference. And BetterHelp makes it easy. Sign up now and get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash New York Times. That's better h .com slash New York Times. Did you know about one in three people with plaxori asis may also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness, and swelling? Does this sound like you ? Listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away . Trimfaya, Guselcomab, taken by injection, is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy. And for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, or if you need a vaccine. Imagine being a million miles away . Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Trimfaya. Tap this ad to learn more about Trimfaia, including important safety information. I am not defined by my credit, even if it's low. Hey, Xperian can help. You can get your FICO score and boost it instantly. Free. Get the Experian app now. Xperian . Results will vary. Auto lenders use credit information impacted by Experian Boost. See App Store for detailsowell , Jr.: I I want to talk a bit about one of the difficult fights that a lot of housing projects have run into, which is the conflict with cities and counties. And Mr. Becerra, you were state attorney general when California began suing cities over housing. You sued Huntington Beach, you led the San Mateo case, it expanded the Housing Accountability Act's zone of authority. Governor Newsom is now threatened lawsuits against fi fteen more cities and counties for dragging their feet or opposing state housing law. Do these lawsuits work to build more housing? I mean Hunyan Beach, it's been just years of legal wrangling, not new build . And if they don't, what enforcement tools would you want to use or create as governor to align cities with the state? Use every tool you have, and certainly litigation is one. You hate to have to go there. You would hope that you would have cooperation between state and local government. Local governments have for any number of reasons decided they want to be able to control what happens. And they do have tools, zoning laws. Uh we talk about these fees that they try to collect to help when with infrastructure. But what I would say is we have to have an agreement, a state, local government agreement that there has to be a clear path on what the state of California will do when it comes to housing. Every local government must then fall in place to make sure they're doing their fair share. The lawsuit against Huntington Beach was because Huntington Beach had its own housing element plan. It itself had made the clip made it clear that they needed to build several hundred units of new housing, and then they reneged. And so when we sued them, we said, you it's in your own plan, you're just not willing to do it. The reason we won is because they were violating the law. The case against San Mateo County was simply to make it clear that the state has a role when it comes to housing because while we all are Californians and we're la Angelinos or Oaklanders or whatever else, we all have to be able to live and and uh work and survive in California. So the state of California has a role to play. I defend ed the law that said that every jurisdiction is accountable to meet its housing re uh responsibility. And we prevailed in court and found that that law was constitutional, which set the foundation for us to now be able to push and see the legislation that has now become law that's gonna let us build more. But has that law given access to the kinds of penalties that are needed to make it work? I mean the huntington Beach case is interesting because the state and Huntington Beach have gone back and forth. There was elections at Hunting Beach, it led to more opposition. And to my knowledge, it has not led to the housing being built. That there is some absence of sanction that is sufficient to make the cities that don't want to do it agree with the state. Two issues, Ezra, and and this I say as the former Chief and Law Enforcement Officer for the State of California. The difficulty with enforcement is sometimes the penalties, the fines are never enough. It's almost a cost of doing business to violate the law. You're willing to pay the cost of the fines to not have to go in that direction. The second problem is of course it takes forever. And so I I take when I've been Attorney General I'd say, I'm gonna give you incentives to do what you're supposed to do under the law. At some point though, those incentives go down, and at some point we cross over, and now becomes penalties. And the penalties grow the longer it takes you to conform to what the law says you have to do. Incent them to come forward, and if they don't, then start penalizing them for not coming forward. Let me pick up on the incentives. One of the lines I thought was interesting in your plan is quote, we will use a carrot approach as well. Cities meeting their obligations should be first in line for state resources. Which state resources Well we do have some funding that would be available right now in existing uh community housing and community development uh agency funding, but it's running out. We do need to have a a funding source, the initiatives that are on the ballot to create bonding authority would help us have some of that funding that we would need. But we would have to certainly make sure we're generating the source of funding. The legislature does provide the state with some money. It's not nearly enough. But there is an opportunity to make a clear the funding that the state has will first and foremost be allocated to those who are conforming to their their state law obligations. Those who aren't, the money that you could have gotten is going to those who are actually fulfilling their housing requirements. And let me uh pick up the question from the other side. So you have cities, you know, and again I'll use Honey Beach as the example say, we don't want to do this. The representatives you're dealing with there are elected on a platform of not doing this. Why is it the state's prerogative to tell them what to do? Well, the state same reason kids have to eat their broccoli. I mean, we how we we all have to we have to live by rules. I I guarantee you everyone would love to be able to cross through an intersection and not have to worry about the red light. But we have rules. I I live in New York. Nobody worries about the red light. Thank God this is California. See, we're not we're not look ing we're a society that believes that we we must and we teach our kids to follow rules. And if you're a city and you see the housing crisis and you're not following the rules, then get ready because I'm going to enforce. I will use the powers of the state, working with the Attorney General, working with our housing and community development uh agencies, and working with those who are willing to push the envelope to say, I'm gonna give you a reason to do this building. I'm gonna give you an incentive. I'll put you in the front of the line. But at some point, you're gonna pay the price because we need to build. You're a mayor right now, also running for governor. How would you handle this tension between local control and state goals differently than Governor Newsome has a Well I think actually I think Governor Newsome has been a champion for housing. And while I he and I have disagreed publicly on some other policy areas, I think he's been bolder on housing than than other um past governors we've had, and I give him a lot of credit for that. I mean, my philosophy is that we should use our housing element process and and the rena targets to uh tell cities and counties what is expected of them, the the policies, the program s, and the zoning, and the space they need to create for housing and the ability to approve it quickly. I talked about capping fees. And we should give local control up to the point where they lose the privilege of having that local control. We, I can tell you from experience, we were on the receiving end of this. We had a number of critiques of a housing element that started uh under my predecessor and then around the time I came into office. What a housing element is this is a policy document that we as a city and and counties as well have to submit to the st ate to basically show that we have zoned to create room for new housing and that we have programs and policies at the local level that will in fact enable that housing to get built. And we had some critiques of our plan, and it was a slow back and forth, a slow process for getting it passed. And like most other, many other cities in the state, we did not meet one of the deadlines for approval, and the state has an accountability mechanism that I would suggest is much more effective. It's not fun to be on the receiving end of it, but is much more effective than lawsuits, which is what's called builder's remedy. And I think that the uh the a lawsuit should be the last resort. I feel very strongly that our next governor cannot bring a lawyer's mindset to this problem. It is a market failure, it is a it is a process failure, it's the cost stack, it's the efficiency, it's innovation like modular. But in this case, when cities fail to meet permitting deadlines, when they try to use fees and local building codes to block housing, when they don't deliver on actually enabling housing to get built, I think the state should override and create buy-right mechanisms for developers to move ahead projects whether or not the city likes it. I think that's an accountability mechanism that's more effective, frankly, because what we see with these lawsuits is they drag on for years, they get appealed, and eventually maybe the court tells the locality, go back and update your policies, update your general plan, update your your housing element or whatever it is. And we're not actually seeing housing get built. Huntington Beach is not building more housing to your point. Um San Diego, I think, was sued, I think, when um Mr. Bacero was the AG and one of the projects with two thousand units still hasn't gotten built. So I think the law the legal path is not particularly effective if we actually want to build housing. Let me ask you about the other side of this question , which is persuasion and the relationship between the state and the cities. Obviously it is better if there is alignment rather than you have to go to builders' remedies or litigation. So do you think there are ways to bring cities along? I mean, do you think there are you're obviously very pro housing mayor, but you presumably know other mayors and you have seen these fights up close. Are there things the governor could do or things that you would do as governor that would uh did that you think could lead to more cohesion between the state goals and the city's preferences? Yeah, I think we're going to need we've talked a touched on uh financing tools and as you all probably know during the Great Recession redevelopment went away went away in California . And I think that what redevelopment offered was this tax increment financing, meaning you could project future property tax increases, the increment, and then pull that value forward and bond against it to make local upgrades. And I think we need to revisit having that tool in a limited fashion. I think there are some cities and counties got into trouble and racked up big debts, and so there need to be guardrails. But that is a way for cities to build the infrastructure that they need without having to put all of that incremental cost on each new project up front. And I think it's a mechanism that could be used to unlock more affordable housing, more of the horizontal upgrades that would enable cities and counties to uh see the fiscal benefits of building housing faster. Mr. Pissera, you were mentioned there over the question of whether or not the litigation is effective. You have one minute to expand on that. And I believe we as Matt didn't identify the project specifically, but this was a project in the San Diego County area that was in the hills in wildfunk wildfire risky areas. Uh it was a pretty large development, several thousand units. It had one route for egress. And we went to the developer and we went to the county and said, this is a safety hazard. This is something that could ca lead to the loss of life if indeed we have a wildfire. This was when I was AG between 2018, uh 2017 and 2021, way before Palis ades and Altadena. And we simply said to them, if you're going to build that many housing units and people are going to be living up there and there's a wildfire that hits, you better have a way for these folks to be able to save their lives. Having one route of e-grass was not going to do it. So we said to them, if you're not going to take care of this, guess what? We're gonna have to sue you. We tried. We tried not to do the litigation, but sometimes, Matt, it does help to have someone who knows how to enforce the law. Mr. Virgosa, you were mayor of Los Angeles, uh city very close to my heart as a UCLA graduate, and I grew up an hour or two. There you go. Um LA has not exactly been a model of pro-housing policy of late. Mayor Karen Bath signed ED1, which expedited affordable housing, then started rolling it back because of local opposition when it seemed to work almost too well. Uh LA passed measure ULA, a transfer tax on the sale of properties over five million dollars, which seems to have cut the development of multifamily properties. SB 79, which increases housing density around transit, passed in Sacramento, and LA City Council passed a rezoning to slow it down. What would you do as governor to make Los Angeles an engine of housing progress again? Well as I said and I'll say it again, I built more market rate, workforce affordable, homeless housing in eight years in the middle of a recession than in the twelve years before me, the downtown skyline changed from twenty thousand to sixty thousand people. I agree. Look, I'm opposed to the ULA. The ULA is is a transfer tax, everybody. What it says, it sounds good , it's it's they call it the mansion tax. It says that homes over five million, you have to have a five percent transfer tax . Um you can't buy a mansion in LA, number one , uh, for five minutes. But number two, it doesn't just impact uh uh single family dwellings, it impacts multifamily dwellings, it impacts commercial. Speaking of RAND and UCLA, my alma mater, they did a study, and that study showed that we've had an 84% d rop in constru ction since the ULA. And let me be clear, as I understand it, I had more cranes than anybody in that eight-year period of time for housing, the airport, community colleges, schools. Today we just opened up the first leg of something I said twenty years ago. I said, dream with me. We'll be a build a subway to the sea. And we built it. And by the way, abundance, when we were talking in the green room or whatever that was . One of the things I told you Fair enough. I was doing abundance in 2012. I went 10, I went to Obama and I said, reward cities and counties that are putting up their own money, allow us to access low-cost loans to build transit, and then I said put Ni pah and SEQA together so to cut time because you said it th the what drives up cost is time or impact fees our sequel you know do do you know that under sequel you don't need a it's supposedly the California Environmental Quality Act, you don't need to sue on environmental reasons. Nipa, you do. You can sue from Richmond, California, I mean Richmond, Virginia, for a project in Richmond, California. Yes, you can. It's broken. I've been taking it on for twenty years uh nationally and lately that with Buffy and some of these people. I love what they're doing because this is what we have to do to build. about the politics of of Los Angeles because I do take the legislators there, the mayors there as responding to local local demands. I remember speaking to Mayor Garcetti at one point, and there was pressure after Los Angeles passed measure HHH. Well they got the money to build, but a lot of places didn't want it built where they were. And so there there is a a a push here, even in a city where housing is very expensive. So you know, you you know that city as well as anybody. Like how would you persuade both the mayor of Los Angeles and the people of it that the things you want to do are good for LA? You know, there's a lot of agreement here. Uh have you ever said something about using a carrot and a stick. I agree. That's what I did. I I love using carrots. I loved going into neighborhoods, talking uh about the need to build the housing or a homeless facility or wherever it is. I love working with them and compromising with them. But in the end, I understood one thing. If you want to be popular, get a dog . Yes. These are jobs where you gotta make tough calls. I made those tough calls. That's how crime went down forty-eight percent. It was the most violent big city in America when I got there. That's how graduation rates went up sixty percent. I rocked the apple cart and I made the tough calls, and that's what you have to do when you're governor. We passed all these laws, but we got to implement them. And I agree with you. I that you know, Gavin has without question been a housing governor. We passed the laws, but now we need the leadership to actually implement them, which is why I've said we need an accountability, housing production accountability board within uh the housing department to make sure they're meeting not just their housing element, but actually building the housing that they say that's in that element. Thank you, Mr. Vierragosa. Mr. Steyr, I've broadly been asking questions in the section about how to manage opposition coming from parts of the system, and California is a very complex system. The governor does not control. Of all the candidates on the stage, you have the least experience dealing with California's many, many layers of government, overlapping authorities, stakeholders, who never held public office before. This very uh relationship-based system. Many people I've talked to who like your ideas are worried that you'll get overwhelmed by the system. It overwhelms even people who know it very well. What's your answer to them You should know that for the last eleven years, we've had 20 people in Sacramento working on legislation and being part of this system for the whole time to trying to put together coalitions and work for progressive policies. Second of all, I've done I've run three ballot initiatives in the state of California, all of which have required a coalition of legislators, of unions, of you know, interest groups, including many times Chambers of Commerce, including uh , you know, in in in the case of getting a tobacco tax, getting the people in the medical associations. But let me say this too. Listening on this stage, we're talking a lot about how we're going to incent cities and counties. You're talking about in my mind, two different things. One is how are we going to organize the agencies within the state government? How are we going to relate to the cities and counties around the State of California? And those are two separate questions. The first one, the governor's step of bringing all of the housing into one place is a good first step, but m not nearly enough because a large part about the problems in timing and cost of housing have to do with multiple overlapping agencies who have different goals and conflicting goals. So that is a good first step. But in terms of the cities and counties, there's been a sense on this stage that they're doing something wrong, that it's basically NIMBYism. They don't want to do it and therefore they obstruct. And what I was trying to say the first time is this. There is an element of that, of course. But there's also the element that they can't afford to do this, that they are getting every housing development is an unfunded mandate. And I'm the only person on the stage who's saying I'll pass a proposition to bring over twenty billion dollars to the cities and counties so it's no longer an unfunded mandate. And to a large extent when you're asking how do you get along with people, a lot of it is about relationships. And I'm sure that we would have in my administration have particular people in mind who have long relationships here and would be part of what I would think of an office of intergovernmental affairs. But the other question is this. When you talk about carrots and sticks, you gotta have some carrots. And I'm talking about twenty-two billion dollars worth of carrots. So two things on that carrot. So something like that ? On that carrot? On that carrot. There's a very similar proposal on the ballot a few years ago. It failed. Yes. $22 billion is also higher than most estimates of how much money that would bring in. So if you put this Prop thirteen reform or the closing of what you call the Trump tax loophole on the ballot, and you support it, and as often happens with well meaning ballot measures to increase taxes, it fails, then what happens to the rest of the plans when the money isn't there? So let me see this. Say this as uh as you know because if you've done your research, I've done this three times, and three times people have asked me questions where this was a much tougher You mean ballot measures? Yes. And I've done it. When you think about ballot measures, it's a question of is there funded opposition? And I've done it against oil companies that are as funded o anpposition as you're ever going to get. And people told me we were crazy to do it and we got 70 percent of the vote. We did it the tobacco companies where the legislature had failed for 20 years to do it and we got over 60 percent of the vote, and we also beat the out-of-state companies who weren't paying fair state income tax. So in answer to your question, I've done it three times in the state of Californian one, I've done it three times outside the state of California in one. I look at this and I say, this is a question is can we convince the people of California that this is something necessary, that the money is absolutely necessary, and that it's just. And in both of these cases, I believe that to be true. And I'm overwhelmingly confident that we can do it. Because the truth of the matter is what everybody's talking about here, when we're talking about doing redevelopment, w which is what Matt said, which I think is a good idea, that's a billion dollars a year, not enough. We're talking about we need to build a lot of houses and we need the cities and counties to come along with us. Basically we need to fund them to be able to do it. And then you're asking what's your you know, what's your stick? And Javier was saying, you know, well, we can sue them. And he did say it was last resort. But the truth of the matter is, that's doesn't get it done in the time frame. Money is actually how we're gonna get this done. Because the answer is gonna be you do it, you get the money . You don't do it, you don't get the money. You do more than your share, you get more than your share. This is a real we need the ability. You're talking about relationship, I'm talking about incentive. How do we actually incent people? Everyone's assuming these guys are doing something wrong and there is NIMVIM. But the truth is, when I've talked to mayors, they've said I don't want to do this because I can't afford to do this, and if you bring the money, I'll be behind you all the way. Ms. Porter, you and I both lived a couple blocks away from each other in Irvine, California. Irvine's an unusual city, a master plan community. The Irvine Company assembled the land in the 19th century and held it and then shaped it in this way that would be almost impossible today. And I say almost because somebody's trying to do something similar right now, which is a California Forever project, this tech billionaire, excuse me. This tech billionaire backed effort to build a new master plan city of four hundred thousand in Solano County, in Solano County, I'm sorry, on land assembled, somewhat like Irvine was. There's been a lot of local opposition, the way that land was acquired was sort of unusual and secretive. I have two questions for you here. As governor, what do you what would you think of California Forever? What would be your relationship to that project? And more broadly, what do you think of the kind of master planning projects that led to Irvine? Yeah, so I've actually asked to meet with the California Forever people because the first thing is you gotta listen, you gotta find out, you gotta dig in the details, you g otta read the study, you gotta ask the hard questions, right? And I I think they might be scared I'm bringing a whiteboard, and so they keep they keep not responding, but I'm really coming in in a place of wanting to understand it. Um so So look, I think some of that is NIMBYism. And I would just say to those on the stage who don't think there's very much NIMBYism, I invite you to visit Huntington Beach for yourself because I used to represent Huntington Beach and a lot of those cities in Orange County, as you know, are very anti-housing. Now Irvine, interestingly, is not one of them. They are still building. We are adding people from when you live there to when I live there. The population has doubled or tripled. And that is because they have they control enough of the factors that they don't get gobsmack ed with all of these additive things. And so there is something to having that kind of like bigger, bigger reach around all of the factors. But let me give you another example of where this doesn't work . And this is where I thought you were going with California forever, which is Tahone Ranch. Now, this is a really interesting are you familiar? This is a really interesting example. This was like one of the largest, I think it's still today, the largest contiguous private landholding in California. Pretty, pretty amazing. And it's outside of Los Angeles. They have been trying to develop, and I went and I visited and I saw it, they have been trying to develop housing there workforce priced housing for 30 some years and they own the land like there's no there there there's not anybody to permit them, right? They just keep getting sued. They got sued on CEQA. They resolved 30, 29 of the 33 objections. And then they went to court. And they lost on one of them. And do you know what happened ? Back to zero on all 33 objections. So yes, there's something to sort of saying you can get your arms around it, but we we have to do a lot of a lot of other tools. One thing I do think about master planning is that it can be a way to deal with some of that impact fees because Irvine, as you know, in any given strip mall in Irvine, if you're standing there and you've just walked into one store and you walk out and you think, shoot, I need to go get that other thing. Irvine Company, Big Brother, will have put that thing across the parking lot in the strip mall. It's like actually scary. And it's not for everybody. It is really not for everybody. But I think the fact that I live in and am raising my family in a very different model of housing. And living in a place like Orange County, which has got everything from the worst NIMBY in the state to some of the fastest growing pro housing cities in the state is a really good perspective as governor. I mean I said the other day to someone, you know, well they're like, well, you're not really from like a big thing in California, like, you know, some people. And I said, Well, Orange County is the sixth most populous county, and they said, In in California, no, in the United States, people, San Diego County is the fifth most populous county in the United States and they're making some progress on housing there. So yes, you're absolutely right. Like I think there are limits to what you can expect from master planning, but I do think innovation in housing is important. And at its core, if you take them at their word, which is where I would start, might not be where I'd end, but it's where I'd start the conversation with California Forever. What they're saying is let us innovate, let us show people what a different model of living and working and recreating can look like. And I think we need imagination about what housing could be so that we're not just fighting about forty story apartment buildings and single family. There are so many other permutations of housing, long-term leases, which is something Europe has that we don't have. That I've I campaigned on this in my Senate race. I'm campaigning on it now. We need more housing innovation. And at its heart, that's what I think some of these projects offer This podcast is supported by BetterHelp. May is Mental Health Awareness Month, a reminder that you don't have to do this life alone. Right now, many Americans are struggling. Nearly two-thirds report feeling anxious, and more than half cite financial stress. Having a licensed therapist with you by video, phone, or chat, can make a difference, and better help makes it easy. Sign up now and get ten percent off at better help.com slash New York Times. That's better H E L P dot com slash New York Times. Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible, overcoming high-interest credit card debt. It requires merely one thing: a sof eye personal loan. With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low fixed rate monthly payment. Defy high interest debt with a SoFi personal loan. Visit sofi.com slash stunt to learn more Mr uh bas era as secretary of HHS , you oversaw one of the federal agencies is most directly involved in homelessness policy. The Biden administration largely embraced housing first as the dominant federal framework. California spent something like $24 billion dollars on homelessness from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty three, mostly within that framework. And the unsheltered population has continued to grow. What went wrong? We didn't focus on outcomes. Uh there w the accountability wasn't there. To me the homelessness crisis is as much a mental health crisis. And we didn't provide the types of resources to make sure we could stand people up and make sure they wouldn't go back to the streets. I also believe that we have to do far more to prevent people from ever becoming homeless. I don't have control of the streets of Los Angeles, of Oakland, or the counties as governor. What I can control is the monies that we send and try to demand accountability. But the most important thing I believe, and this is where I will focus as governor, is trying to help that person that is on the very edge of losing their housing, whether it's their home or their apartment that they're renting. Because there are people who under some circumstances, you lose your job unexpectedly. You're trying to get back to work and it's taking you a little longer. You used up your savings. You're on the verge now of losing your apartment that you're renting. You have a medical emergency. You break your big piggy bank open, you use it all up, it's not enough. You still have a big bill, all of a sudden you have to make a decision. Do you pay the bill or do you stay in your home? And I believe those are the folks that if we provided more support and I would create a stabilizing fund that would be there for to help those Californians who are in a home, make sure they don't lose their home. It will cost us far less to invest in someone maintaining their housing than trying to pull them off the street, get them to stand up, provide them the services, get them to temporary shelter, and then help them get re employed. And so let's invest in prevention before we start talking about just trying to pick people off the street. One of the difficult questions within that conversation is the role of coercion. What do you do when people are on the street having mental health problems and they don't want to go in for treatment? They don't want to go into a home. What would your approach to that be? First, I think we have to give everyone an opportunity to have an out . And when I established the 988 program, and I hope some of you are familiar with it, it's like 911, but for mental health crisis and suicide prevention. And if you dial 988 or actually text or chat, you'll get someone who will help you, not as a police officer, but as someone who can provide you services. We do that. We have a dedicated line for veterans who are hurting. We have We have to give people an out, an opportunity. But what happens too often is we don't do that and then we don't do the second thing is to make sure that we tell folks we are your keeper. I am my brother and my sister's keeper. We will not let you languish in the streets. And if you keep saying no and it's clear that you need help, then it's really our responsibility as civilized people to make sure we provide our brother or sister some assistance. And so I think we have to get to that point. We don't let people make that decision when it's clear they're not making the right decisions for themselves. When you say that you want to see hold up hold the applause. When you say that you want to see more accountability in the homelessness programs , that's not a new thing to hear from leaders, right? It's not like Governor Newsom doesn't want accountability in the homelessness uh policies that he puts forward. When I've talked to mayors of major cities, they talk about this. So very specifically, what would you do that has not already been done? Very similar to the w the carrot and stick approach, which I use by the way, at HHS, we had to help doctors switch from paper record keeping, prescriptions, their medical records, to digital to finally join the electric elec electronic world. A lot of folks said we can't afford it. And so what we did was we scaled it, we said look, we're going to give you incentives to uh change your practice into one that can uh function electronically and we're gonna give incentive incentive incentive but at some point it's gonna become penalty penalty penalty if you don't join the real world. Uh we would do the same thing. There's a locality. You're not you have programs but they're not resulting in success, then we have to terminate those programs or stop the funding. I will then scale those programs that are working. I'll take the money from the programs that aren't working and I'll scale those programs that are working. And that's what you have to do is you have to carry it a stick, but I will use Mr. Steyer, you said the most compassionate thing we can do is revive the interim housing to get people where they want to be. That's not a new strategy building interim housing from shelters to other approaches. And it tends to run into two problems. One is that communities often don't want it. And they fight it very, very hard. The much harder than they fight a normal apartment building or something like that . Another is that many unsheltered people refuse to go into it. These are often uh very, very restrictive spaces. You can't bring your partner, you can't bring your pets. So how do you solve those problems that have made interim housing not the answer that many people hoped it would be? Aaron Ross Powell Well let me take a step back, Ezra , because I agree with Javier that keeping people off the street is the first thing because no one gets well on the street. The street itself, live being homeless, is an incredibly stressful, vulnerable, and dangerous condition. And so when you think about the mental health issues of homeless people, only one in seven people who becomes homeless has a mental health problem, but virtually everyone who stays on the street for a long time develops one. So I agree with what Javier was saying, which is we need to keep people off the street, because it is much cheaper, and he was talking about it from the standpoint of money, but we're also it's also much cheaper from the standpoint of mental health. And so that is the first thing. The second thing that I've said is we need to get people off the street as fast as possible before the dangers and vulnerability on the street multiplies the problems that those people have when they originally become homeless. And the reason that I've said emergency interim housing, and I would dispute exactly how you characterized it, is this. This the strategy that the state of California has right now is shelters and permanent assisted housing. People hate going into shelters because they actually think they're dangerous, they have no privacy, they're not allowed to bring their pets, and it's something many, many people on the street would prefer to be on the street than to be in a shelter. The difference about emergency interim housing is you actually have privacy. You have a room with a key, you are allowed And what I believe is true is that the the majority, not 100% of the people on the street, are willing to go into emergency interim housing, to the tune of somewhere around 70% . And so, in fact, when we look at the strategy we've had, which is shelters and permanent assisted housing, it has failed. And and those permanent assisted housing, as you said, in terms of the cost of low income housing, it costs somewhere between seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and a million dollars a key. So what I'm talking about is something that is much cheaper, much faster, that people like much, much more than the strategies that we're employing now, and in fact, deal with the biggest issue we have , which is being on the street itself, is incredibly dangerous and causes multiple problems. So my actual goal is to g keep people off the street, get people off the street for their sake to be compassionate and also because look SB 79 Buffy Wick's bill which I strongly supported and continue to support is about building densely around public transportation for that to happen and for people to want to live there, we need safe, fun cities, walkable cities where kids can walk, and it's absolutely critical that they feel safe walking down that street, and that in fact that's the kind of fun community Californians want. Let me ask you about interim housing, not even as an emergency question. You you read American history and you all you know you've got Abraham Lincoln in boarding houses all across uh his travels as a lawyer. You used to have a lot of housing that worked more almost like college dorms do today. You had a lot of housing where people would come in and there were shared bathrooms, there was a shared kitchen, it was a lot of people in the in a single home. And we functionally zoned a lot of that out of existence. And so things that were very, very, very low cost housing that exist in between what we think of as a home or an apartment now and the street no longer exist because we made them illegal. Should we make them legal? Should interim housing be more than an emergency measure? Look, I actually think that's where we're the you know, flexibility in housing is how I would describe what you're saying. And so the obvious thing right now is ADUs, additional dwelling units. It's a flexible way of sticking a new unit in your backyard. Originally it was for your, you know, a family member, but now it's very much something you can rent out that's additional housing for your community. So to a very large extent, emergency interim housing, flexible. It's it's honestly to me, it sounds pretty I hate to say it, but it sounds like a college dorm. And so to a very large extent, it is taking away from a very rigid sense of what housing is supposed to look like somehow, that our existing system is supporting without taking into account that we're in a new world. We're not gonna be we're gonna build tiny little houses, we're gonna build ADUs. But what is critical from my standpoint is that we get a lot of units, that we get these get people off the street for their own sake, that we are actually compassionate , but also that we're building a society that people look , great cities are a lot of fun. We need to make sure that our cities are great cities. Ms. Porter, before people become homeless, they are housed. And what tends to happen is that they have an income shock or a health crisis or something happens where they can no longer pay their rent and they're evicted. Over half of California renter households spend at least 30% of their income on housing puts them in danger of that kind of thing happening. We've talked a lot here about increasing the supply of housing to reduce costs. In the best case that takes time. So what is a policy that you want to see to help people afford the home they already live in in a time of stress or strain , whether they're an owner or a renter? How do we peep how do we help people not fall out of the housing situation they're in now so a lot of my career all of my career before I ran for office was about this exact question studying families who fell into bankruptcy or were facing eviction or foreclosure. That was my life's work. That's how I got to know Elizabeth Warren, studying these families, talking to them, researching them. And it's the things you mentioned: job loss, income loss, it's medical debt or sickness that leads to the loss of income, it's family breakup, change in the family structure. These are the same drivers of bankruptcy that are the drivers of foreclosure and eviction. So the there's some really good research on this. This is not something that we don't know what to do about, but we have not had the willingness from our leaders to scale it up. So the very most effective way to keep someone in their home or in their apartment is to give them direct cash assistance. Period. That is the very most effective way. Everything else is complicated and expensive and slow . So let me give you an example. Somebody scrapes up their rent because they they they got it won't get evicted, right? And then they can't afford any food. They can't afford their bus fare. They're late to work. They get So there's really good research on this. The Audacious Foundation just funded a huge project here in California to do pilots all around the country. The average cost of this kind of cash foreclosure or eviction prevention is $6,000 a family. That's the median cost . Compare that to a million dollars or $800,000 a unit. So long before we get to the interim housing, which I think is right, we should keep doing that. And I, thanks to Mayor Mahan, got the chance to see some of that. Um and I've seen it in a few other cities since. But we've got to stop the the we've got to put shovel down on homelessness. We're just make the problem keeps getting worse. And so I think that those kinds of programs really work. And California should not have 97 different programs with 52 different forms and nine nine blill in the blank questions. We just need to give people a handful of money for a very short period. And most people are not permanently homeless. They become permanently homeless because they lose the housing they have. So if they could stay put for just a little while until they get better, or they find that new job, or they get back together with their partner, whatever it is, they will never find themselves in that situation in the first place. Let me ask you about that. And by the way, I did a lot of this when I worked on the statewide foreclosure prevention eviction prevention program with Kamala Harris. This was a big part of what we asked the banks to do was they had cheated people into these loans, they were cheating them on the way out. My research exposed that. But a big part of what we said to the banks is give them cas h so that they can figure out then whether they're gonna be able to keep this house or they're gonna need to make a transition. Give them ten grand and twenty grand. In that case the banks were wrongdoers so we could ask for big amounts. But give them that money to make that housing transition. Let me ask you about that uh fractured nature of California's homelessness and income support and rent support programs. I remember I wish you could ask Chad Bianco about this. I I remember talking to uh someone who had run a homeless ness prevention in LA. And I remember her saying to me, Look, everybody thinks I have a billion dollars to spend. I wish I had a billion dollars and you would let me spend it. There's a billion dollars, and I can't spend it because it's coming in so many sources and it's audited in so many ways. And I hear this again and again and again from public servants that if you would let me do my job, I could do it. But instead I spend all my time managing these overlapping authorities and these different people I report to. So how do you actually unify some of these authorities and and and give the people we have tasked with these incredibly moral, important, difficult jobs, the authority to do them. So I mean the state can think about doing some of this in our own programs. So replacing five and six different programs designed to help you meet your basic needs with something called Cal need or Cal Necessity. It's one program, it's one chunk of money, and you trust families to figure out what they need to do to stay afloat. And by the way, poor people, low-income people are really really, good at juggling money because they have to be to exist. And the opposite per the opposite perception that we can't trust people with cash, we can't give low-income people cash. It's racist, it's sexist, and it's wrong. And it costs us a fortune . So you could take that same approach. So broadly, let me just say: I drive a minivan, you might know the license plate is oversight. So I 've thought a lot about this . We do oversight backwards and in our state and in most government agencies. It's burying people. It's death by a thousand paper cuts, but they still bleed out . You are much bet ter crushing and I really crushing cheaters and trusting most people to do it right in the first place. And that would be my approach. Mayor Mahan, you have in San Jose done quite a lot in flexible housing to try to help with homelessness. And so I want to ask you a sort of open-ended question here. What have you seen work better than you thought that should scale statewide, that if you were governor, you would really put resources behind it. And what have you tried or what does the state support that you have not found is effective and you would like to somewhat move away from it? It's a great question. And you know, I'm actually gonna start not on interim housing because I think Katie's description of prevention was right on. And we have partnered with our county and a local nonprofit called Destination Home.. That's the model Who you know, that's this is the model. We created arguably the nation's leading prevention model. And Notre Dame University studied it and showed that up to I think the longitudinal date it was maybe three or four years by the time they did the study, over 92% of households who were helped with one-time rental assistance paired, by the way. The one thing I would just add is the importance of the case management, really supporting someone and helping them bridge past the job loss, the health issue, the uh unexpected debt that came along, the the cars that broke down, whatever it is, really, you know, w over 92 percent remain housed and don't need ongoing public subsidy. It's incredible. So it is very cost effective, and we've reduced inflow uh by fifty percent as a related to those um who are um coming off of our streets. We're getting to a point where with enough supply of interim housing, we can get to functional zero unsheltered homelessness, which has been my biggest focus, has been to say you started Ezra with, well, where did all the money go effectively? Tens of billions of dollars. And I think we made a mistake politically in trying to convince voters that if they invested in something we need, which is the development of new affordable housing, that they would suddenly see all the tent encampments disappear. And it was, it's just, it's it's not either or but the truth is one solution is very slow and expensive and only so scalable frankly at least with that mechanism and as the tent encampments persisted I think we lost a lot of public support for the approach. And so what has worked in San Jose, and I've stood in room after room, we have built 23 interim housing sites. And I've seen rooms with hundreds of angry neighbors red in the face shouting and saying, We're going to recall you . And my commitment to them has been we're gonna make your neighborhood better, not worse off. And this is I think the details matter. What we've been able to demonstrate to residents around those 23 sites, and we're not perfect. I'm sure if I say this, someone's gonna tweet at me with a photo of something that's gone wrong. So yeah, I'm just gonna acknowledge that up front. But what we've done is we've been really radically pragmatic. When we buy that old motel that's run down and we converted into transitional housing, or we buy those modular units, some of which are now stacked and built at 300,000 a unit, and and you could live in them long term. They're very nice. Some of which are literally just tiny sleeping cabins. We made a commitment to the neighbors in a radius around that site that there's gonna be a local preference. If you're homeless in that area, you get first dibs on that ho using. Number two, after a period of time of outreach and moving people in, in a smaller radius, we're going to create an enforce a no encampment zone. Because with the early sites, what didn't work was allowing people to still choose to camp r a block away from that interim site. And it completely visually undermines that trust and belief that we're making progress. Not everybody loves the idea of a no-encampment zone , but that's how we got community buy-in. And what we've seen, and this was the case I made, but we had to prove out, and it took want to thank my colleagues and others um down in San Jose for having the courage to do this. We were finally able to show people, and they felt that when we built interim housing and got people stabilized indoors and connected to case management, calls for service for crime, 911, for blight, 311, plummeted , which actually makes perfect sense, common sense. You get people stabilized indoors and not in an unmanaged tent encampment with noise and fires and drug use and all the challenges, and everybody's quality of life is better. But I will say the thing that we've done that has not worked super well is as we have tried to throw local public dollars at building new affordable housing, you pointed it out, our cost to build is 30% higher than the private market. Frankly, if I could go back, I would have encouraged us to buy the older housing stock that's $300,000 a unit rather than build new at a million a unit when the private marketplace could have built if we had just incentivized them at 600,000 a unit. So I think we should be buying and preserving the older stock, buying down affordability. Let's do funded inclusionary requirements and buy down affordability and new market rate units, but not subsidize at the least efficient with no cost controls or innovation. I just I don't think it's scalable and I think we lose public trust when we just keep throwing money in an inefficient way at the problem. Mr. Viever Grosso. Antonio is fine. I'm going to maintain formality here. The the New York Times is a whole style guy that I have to follow. The Tenant Protection Act is going to expire during the next governor's term. That law caps annual rent increases to 5% plus inflation. Some tenants have seen the rents jump by nearly 10% per year, all in. Uh a recent bill to cap rent at 5% a year failed in the legislature. There's a lot of lobbying um in both directions on that . Rent caps are a tough issue. Both sides make good points on this. What did you say? Rent caps. Rent caps. What is your view on them, particularly in a place like I mean, we're you know in the Bay Area, you have all this new AI money sending pri ces skyrocketing. And a lot of people do not work in AI. They're not part of that. So how do you think about the Tenant Protection Act? And and how should the the annual rent increase caps be As a temporary situation, I'm I'm for it. Uh that we they passed that uh temporary protection at rent or uh Protection act because people were starving, they were going on the streets, we had COVID, uh all of those things came to play a at the same time. But I think you look at any study, you've been in the job that I've had uh over the the years, and one thing is clear, we need supply. Uh if you want to bring down rents over the long term, you need supply. So that's why I always say you need market rate, you need workforce, you need affordable, and you need homeless housing. I want to speak to something that you raised though, and you poo-pooed, and that is that you know when some of this started? It was in the middle of a recession, and Jerry got rid of redevelopment. Redevelopment was a tool, tax incre ment financing was a tool for us for economic development and for housing, and particularly for the affordable housing. But one of the things I want to say about this conversation, because I've heard you speak uh to the others. We spent twenty-four billion dollars at the state level, and the fact is homelessness went up. The LAO, the legislative analyst, did an analysis. Only two programs worked. A program that we're all for, rental assistance. Help these people when they have lose a job, cars broke down, whatever it is, um from going homeless in the first place and home key, which is temporary housing. But right now the average unit, and and this is where getting back to your book, abundance. This is where the Democrats get it wrong. I I really appreciate the street teamboard care. We're looking for perfect, everybody. The average unit in LA for permanent supportive housing is $850,000 . Your kids can't afford that. We can build tiny homes. We're doing it in San Jose. We're doing it in LA for a hundred thousand. The fact is, what we're doing is we're we're looking for perfection and it doesn't exist. In Santa Monica, it's one point two million. That's what the average unit is. That doesn't work. So I loved your point and I had forgotten boarding houses because I before my time . At the end of the day, we should have an all of the above approach. That's what happens when you're practical. I tell people I came out of the civil rights movement. I was a labor leader for 25 years before I got elected. I am unabashedly a progressive. But after being a big city mayor for eight years, the one thing I know, the only way we're gonna deal with this is an all of the above solution. Let me speak about something we haven't spoken about yet. Democrats love to talk about Ronald Reagan made this problem s worse because he got rid of mental hospitals. We Democrats have been in office for 28 years. Why don't we build mental facilities? We did the care courts, and there's no accountability at the county level to, you know, start to use the care courts to make sure when parents want parents who love their kids or a wa spouse who loves their partner wants to put them in an institution. It's almost impossible. And i you know one flew over the cuckoo's and s was one example crazy, but the other example is that we there are too many that with nobody goes to lock mental facilities. So part of the problem is that we have to understand there are too many people on the street. And you're you're right. Uh I've been with Hope of the Mission and let me tell you something. S a lot of these people that are on drugs and mentally ill now, they weren't when they first got homeless. But after being homeless and threatened to be raped and beaten up and no food and everything else, yes, they start getting on drugs and they have developmental illnesses and and a drug problem. So we have to have those services. But if we keep on doing what we've been doing, just saying only this works or that works, we're never gonna get deal with this problem. And what I say is this: what is compassionate hum,ane, or progressive about people living in their poop? About people, you know, getting beat up at night and stabbed. There is nothing progressive about that. Nothing. Thank you, Mr. Vieiragoso. Uh that is our final question. So I'm gonna end with a variant of what I always do on the show, which is what is one book you'd recommend to Californians? And we'll go in order of the room here. Mr. Steyer, we'll begin with you. The book that I'm recommending is called The Hour of the Predator. And it's a statement, it's a nonfiction book about how the power in our society and around the world is changing and it is an absolute plea for us to preserve our democracy. Mr. Becerra. Uplifting after this conversation. And uh uh there's a uh book called Rain of Gold by Victor Villasenor, which is all about how if you just put your mind to it, you can lift up your family and have success . It's the American dream in this book and it's a rain of gold. I love that book. Miss Porter I read for fun . So I would tell you that I think the banger book of the year that really encapsul encapsulates in a fascinating, mind-bending way all of the frustration and rage