Catching Up With Assemblymember Nick Schultz

Behind the scenes of California lawmaking, Assemblyman Nick Schultz reveals what his first year representing Burbank in Sacramento has truly been like. Far from the stereotypical politician, Schultz shares how he balances flying back twice weekly to be with his young family while chairing the powerful Public Safety Committee—an unusual responsibility for a freshman legislator.

The conversation takes us through Schultz's legislative victories, including his human trafficking bill that closes critical loopholes in protecting minors and creates support funds for survivors. With passion drawn from his prosecutor background, Schultz explains how his experience handling complex cases now shapes his approach to lawmaking. "Nobody is above the law," he asserts when discussing controversial legislation requiring federal agents to identify themselves—a direct response to recent immigration enforcement tactics that have alarmed communities.

Film industry advocates will appreciate Schultz's detailed breakdown of the expanded tax credit program that's bringing production back to Burbank. He artfully explains how these incentives aren't corporate handouts but essential economic drivers keeping skilled workers employed locally. Similarly, his innovative approach to housing development aims to transform vacant commercial properties into affordable housing while respecting local control—a refreshing middle ground in California's contentious housing debate.

What resonates throughout is Schultz's authentic connection to Burbank and surprising optimism about political collaboration. Despite the challenges—from budget deficits to the high-speed rail controversy—his practical problem-solving approach and willingness to reach across divides offers a glimpse of how governance might work when focused on community needs rather than political posturing.

Have thoughts on pending legislation or need assistance with state-related issues? Reach out directly to Assemblyman Schultz through his website or district office on 3rd and Magnolia in Burbank.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
From deep in the Burbank Media District.
It's time for another editionof my Burbank Talks, presented
by the staff of my Burbank.
Now let's see what's on today'sagenda as we join our program
Hello Burbank.
Craig Schubert here with usonce again, and of course, we
have Ross Benson.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Wow, it's been a while since.
I'm glad you know it's not ashot as in New York, but I'm sure
glad you got the air crank.
The room deodorant is thatfluffy smell of niceness and
hi-ho, tally-ho, let's go.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
Absolutely Well.
We've got a special guest who'sbeen here before, but in a new
capacity now.
He started with us as a councilmember, moved up to mayor and
now he's the Assemblyman fromBurbank and we talk about Nick
Schultz.
Nick, good to have you with us.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
Craig Ross.
Thank you guys for having me.
It is really good to be back.
It's good to be back home and Ilove how you said that the
Assemblyman from Burbank.
That's how I like to go by inthe Capitol.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
So I'm curious, how do we address you now, sir, to
go by in the Capitol.
So I'm curious, how do weaddress you now, sir?
Mr Assemblyman, your chair.

Speaker 3 (01:09):
I haven't been there yet, have you?
No, not yet.
I don't anticipate you, ross,you and anyone in the community,
just call me Nick.
When I'm home and I'm out ofthe Capitol, I just want to be
in my sweatpants at the storelike everybody else.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
There you go.
I want to see that.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
When you speak at the assembly they say, oh, we
recognize the gentleman fromBurbank.
Is that they do like they do inthe yeah, it's actually a lot
like that.

Speaker 3 (01:30):
So there it seems a little arcane, but there's
actually a rule that if you'redebating on the floor you're not
allowed to call another memberby name.
So you would never say Idisagree with Mr Benson or
Craig's wrong.
The only proper way to do it isto say the member from Burbank,
the member from San Franciscoyou know, lobbyists and other
folks when they're interactingwith me might call me Mr Chair

(01:52):
if they're talking aboutsomething with the Public Safety
Committee, or Mr Assemblyman,but I find all that incredibly
formal and kind of weird.
So please call me Nick.

Speaker 1 (02:01):
So I'm calling Mr Sofa.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
So, so that rule book that you had to learn, I mean,
does it tell you how to partyour hair too?

Speaker 3 (02:11):
Yeah, I'm sure there's a provision in there
about that.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Well, so how's the family?
I know you probably don't getto see the family as much as you
want to.
How's everybody doing?

Speaker 3 (02:21):
They're doing really good.
I appreciate you guys asking.
Allie's still at NBCUniversal.
Her career is going great.
Ella turned four.
She's going to be starting TKthis fall and she'll be going to
Edison about a year from now.
So we're getting ready toofficially join the BUSD family.
Aiden's two and a halfapproaching three.
I think we're going to do aSpider-Man-themed birthday party

(02:43):
for him this October and Ithink we're going to do a
Spider-Man-themed birthday partyfor him this October.
And then the last thing I'd say, craig, is travel is obviously
tough and we can talk more aboutit, but we're on summer recess
right now, so it's so great tobe home with the family and to
be with all of you right backhere at home.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
It's funny, all these technical rules and then you
call recess like elementaryschool.
It's a lot like that.
How are the kids?
Because now you're gone four orfive days at a time?
Sometimes are the kidsunderstanding why you're not
there all week?

Speaker 3 (03:10):
Yeah, you know, it was funny the first couple of
months.
I think they were adjusting toit and they almost didn't
realize what was happening.
But we've been able to softenthe blow.
So I would say, more often thannot, more than half the time, I
fly up Monday morning at aBurbank airport, usually like
the 10 am flight or somethingaround there.
You know how.
We have floor session in theafternoon.

(03:31):
I stay Monday night.
We have committee the next day.
I come back Tuesday lateafternoon very, very often.
So if you were at the airport,like on a Tuesday evening, right
around when council starting,you would probably see me
exiting the airport, walkingover to my car.
Don't tell TMZ that.
I know I probably should havebeen careful with what I bought.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
Well, you, know, nowadays with technology, I find
my son, who travels quite a bit.
You know he was gone for twoweeks at the All-Star game but
he could FaceTime with his girlsnightly and that technology,
you can talk to them.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
And to your point, ross, like I, I have heard from
many people that this is a veryhard profession.
It can be hard on families and,as you both know, a lot of
families don't make it.
We have a lot of great thingsthat we do as a family.
So every night at 8 30 PM,wherever I'm at, even if I'm at
an event I step out and IFaceTime with the kids every
single night and then usuallylater, once the kids are down,

(04:27):
allie and I talk all the time.
So you know we're always justkeeping that relationship strong
.
And I am in town Thursday nightto Monday morning.
So every weekend I'm home.
And then these recess times wehave a summer recess of a month
and then we have the last threeand a half months of the year
when we're not in session.
I'm home as often as I can be.
A lot of my colleagues like totravel internationally and do

(04:49):
other things.

Speaker 2 (04:50):
I just want to be home in my district with my
family, with all of you and whenyou say in your district,
burbank being your one of yourpart of your district, you have
your office in burbank inburbank.
It's the same place where yourpredecessor.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
Yep 3rd and Magnolia and their predecessor was, and
their predecessor yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
I think it goes.
The guy in my gato was in thatoffice.
It might have even gone backall the way to Paul Krikorian
who I think got into that.
We don't use that word in hereno I got it.
Yeah, if anyone's listening,it's on 3rd and Magn from the
YMCA of Burbank.
So we're right there on thefifth floor.
You can come up and visit us.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
You know there used to be a sign on that street pole
that said Assembly Memberso-and-so's office.

Speaker 3 (05:31):
Might have to get working on that right.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
Yeah, so we talked a little about your travel on
Monday, tuesday, so I was goingto ask you you must be traveling
a lot on are you usingSouthwest, or I mean is that how
you get miles?
Or something.
Some of it you got to pay foryourself.
Right, the state's not payingfor you to go back and forth

(05:56):
several times a week, correct?

Speaker 3 (05:57):
That's correct.
So I will just say I havehundreds of thousands of miles
on my Southwest app and I didget the card too because it's an
even better way to make points.
But yeah, to your point, theywill pay for one round trip a
week.
So if I fly up Monday and thenback Thursday after we have a
morning session on Thursday andthen that's it for the week,
they'll pay for that.
If I want to come back midweek,I pay for that personally, or

(06:21):
rarely.
On occasion there was an event,I think it was.
Let me see if I have it here.
Oh yeah, birmingham HumanRelations Council did a genocide
remembrance event at, I think,the church up there on first on
the hill.
That was like on a Tuesdaynight, if I recall correctly,
and so I actually got specialpermission from the speaker's
office to fly back for that.

(06:41):
So sometimes if there's like acommunity event or a legislative
purpose, they will fly you back.
But you're right, Generallyit's all out of pocket for me to
want to come home.
But the way I look at it, forthe same price of a night in a
hotel in Sacramento, I could flyhome and be home with my kids?

Speaker 1 (06:57):
Are you staying in a hotel up there?

Speaker 3 (06:59):
Yeah, I'm staying at the Sheridan Generally, sheridan
, generally.
Sometimes they bounce me around, but that QMZ Sheridan, yeah,
you can find me there in thelobby, I'm sure, um, but no, I
the way I work it out is becauseI come home Tuesday nights.
I'm only in Sacramento twonights a week, monday and
Wednesday.
Some people rent an apartment.
I would rather just get home asquickly as I can and not have
to worry about getting groceriesor cleaning up.

(07:20):
I just I want to be in Burbankas often as I can.

Speaker 1 (07:23):
That sounds good.
Any kind of humorous storiesabout the travel back and forth,
or you know you must know thatspeech by heart.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
Could you recite it?
The overhang or the oxygendrops down your life if we're
over water.
That one you must know in yoursleep.

Speaker 3 (07:41):
I do.
There's not like a particularlyfunny story, other than to say
there was one time I think inJanuary or February we're flying
back and there was heavyturbulence.
I think it was shortly afterthe fires.
There was like a stormy day inBurbank and I kept thinking like
there's like half thelegislature on this plane, like
heaven forbid right.
Like like there's a lot ofpeople on this plane that

(08:01):
California needs.
So sometimes you're like I justhope and pray everything works
as it should.
The pilots do their job, butthey always take care of us.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
I wonder if they have the same.
Do you know the NFL and NBA andMLB have contingency plans if a
team ever goes down?
Is that how they travel?
There's actually contingencyplans in the pro sports if that
were ever to happen.
Interesting, I didn't know that.
I wonder if Californialegislature there's actually
contingency plans in the prosports if that were ever to
happen, interest I didn't knowthat I want.

Speaker 3 (08:26):
California legislature has anything like
that I mean, you know, I, I notto get too I don't get more of
it here, but no, but that's alittle known fact.

Speaker 2 (08:34):
I think you know, I don't know how southwest and
other planes out of burbank arebouncing off each other that I,
I mean it definitely, you know I, I still get a little uh,
nervous every time I fly.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
You know doing it so many times, you kind of get used
to it, I suppose.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
It seems to be the military aircrafts are causing
all the chaos.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
You used to have parking over there.
Do you get where thecommissioners park?

Speaker 3 (08:58):
So yeah, so they don't have a dedicated spot for
me.
However, I have a pass so thatgarage like when you're entering
the airport right, if the dropoff's on the right, there's that
garage to the left.
I can park anywhere in thereand I have a pass that will get
me in and out.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
But it is just whatever parking is available.
So what about?
So here you go.
I told the experience what isit that you did not anticipate,
or what, what, what kind ofhappened up there that you were
kind of like, oh, this isdifferent.
Or you know how long until youget your, your sea legs, or your
legislative legs, as they say?

Speaker 3 (09:35):
so that's a phenomenal question, I would say
, I think, what I like.
When I was sitting here as acandidate or even as mayor, we
obviously talked about all thechallenges facing California and
there was a lot of things thatI foresaw.
What I didn't expect was thatthe first week on the job we
would have massive wildfires inLA that would decimate Altadena
and the Palisades as we know it,and that doesn't seem like it

(09:57):
affects our district.
But as you, as you guys, know,we had wind damage in Glendale
to their utilities.
We had a lot of peopledisplaced from those communities
that came into this district,including Burbank, relocating
temporarily.
So that challenge was somethingwe didn't predict.
And then, not to get toopolitical, but obviously the
federal government has acontentious relationship with
California, to say the least.

(10:18):
We knew there were going to bechallenging financial times, but
when we're seeing fundingripped away from health and
human services, it is justcreating more challenges than I
even originally thought werepossible.
But to kind of end on apositive note, what I would say
is I didn't know who I'd beserving with, and we have a
pretty large freshman class thisyear, about almost 20 brand new

(10:39):
state legislators.
I can tell you that I've neverbeen more impressed.
Not that we all agree, butrarely can I really say these
are the people I'm working with.
I've never been more impressed.
Not that we all agree, butrarely can I really say these
are the people I'm working with.
I know them, I trust them.
I really think that they have aservant's heart.
They're in it for the rightreasons.
They want to solve big problems.
They're not thinking aboutwhere they'll go next.
They're really thinking like,hey, how do we address the cost

(10:59):
of housing?
That was a pleasant surprise.
You know you go to Sacramentoand you think you're going into
this like really cutthroatenvironment and everybody's out
for themselves and I suppose toa degree everybody obviously has
their own ambition.
But this unexpected sense ofcamaraderie, of teamwork, of
teammanship, it's, it's reallypleasant.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
Your party has more than the other party, so that's
a little more easy to do.
How many are in the assembly?
80 in total, so 80 assemblymembers, 60 Democrats, 19
Republicans, and then there'sone seat currently vacant.
So how does it feel going froma voice of one of five to a
voice of one of 80?

Speaker 3 (11:32):
It is enormously challenging to your point,
because on the council you'reone of five.
You get two people to agreewith you and you can do anything
that you really want to do.
Building a coalition in theassembly is so much more
challenging.
I think that's been.
The biggest learning curve isthat you can have a great idea
but you got to find at least 40other colleagues to agree with

(11:53):
you.
And to get those people toagree with you you really have
to look at you know, outside thebox.
Like, if you want to dosomething about our public
schools, you better be talkingto the California Teachers
Association no-transcriptgovernment is dealing with stuff

(12:27):
I mean locally.

Speaker 2 (12:29):
We know that California is not their favorite
place, that's true.

Speaker 1 (12:35):
So we're recording this at the end of July and
yesterday, literally, andyesterday the governor signed SB
379, the first bill of yoursthat the governor signed and
made into law.
Now, I know you're a lot intothe trafficking, everything

(12:56):
while you're here in Burbank andyou pass some stuff with that,
sure, and I think this has to doa little with that theme,
doesn't it?
Do you want to tell us aboutwhat SB 379 is all about?

Speaker 3 (13:05):
Absolutely.
I'll just mention it's AB forAssembly, bill 379.
This was a bill that we workedon with Assemblymember Stephanie
Wynn, maggie Krell and others.
It really does three things tochange the code, change penal
code in California.
And before I go on, I reallyjust want to say that a lot of
this bill the pieces that Iadded to it specifically came

(13:26):
from Burbank.
I mean, gloria Solis, we allknow, has been talking about
human trafficking and gettingbusinesses to do their part for
years.
It was my time on council andworking with Burbankers like
Gloria.
That really inspired a lot ofthe changes that I added into
379.
So I really think Burbank getsto claim a little bit of victory
in this legislativeaccomplishment.
But what it does is three things.

(13:47):
So under current law but thatwill change come January 1st it
is generally a wobbler, meaningthat it can be charged as a
felony if you approach andsolicit a minor to engage in
commercial sex.
So if you're trying to buycommercial sex from somebody,
generally speaking it's awobbler.
However, under existing lawit's only a misdemeanor if the

(14:11):
minor is 16 or 17 years old.
This bill eliminates thatloophole.
So all minors, anyone under theage of 18, if you're trying to
solicit them for sex, you're nowgoing to be subject to being
charged as a felony andprosecuted as a felony.
That's number one.
It also creates a verticalgrant program for local district
attorney's offices to make surethat the investigators and the

(14:32):
prosecutors who areinvestigating these cases can
work with the victim frombeginning to end to really
ensure that we are holding thesehuman traffickers to account.
The piece that has a real tie toBurbank has to do with our
businesses.
The Civil Code of California,for more than a decade, has
required different kinds ofbusinesses to have that standard
human trafficking.

(14:52):
Notice the thing that you mightsee at a restaurant or a
massage parlor that says if youor someone you suspect is a
victim of human trafficking,call this number, text this
number.
The Civil code has never saidwho's responsible for actually
enforcing that and or what doyou do with the fines, the funds
that you collect from that.
This bill says Department ofJustice will be responsible for

(15:13):
going after these businesses andensuring that they comply with
the law, and then any funds thatare collected from the fines go
directly to support survivorsor exiting a human trafficking
situation.
I could go on, but what I wouldsay in summary is.
This is probably the mostcomprehensive addition or reform
to human trafficking preventionand prosecution that we've had

(15:34):
in California in years.
There's still more work thatwill have to be done in future
years, but to have such a bigaccomplishment signed into law a
little bit more than maybeeight months into office, I mean
I'm very proud of that.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
Not only the fact that you had some experience
with Burbank, but you're also alawyer and you work for the
Attorney General's office.
Did that really help you a lotin informing this and then
coming up with this?

Speaker 3 (15:59):
It did.
I know I've talked to you guysbefore, but when I was at the
California Department of Justice, I prosecuted the Lelous Del
Mundo human trafficking casethat major case that the LA
Times covered and what we sawwas OK, you can go after the
human trafficker, but thatdoesn't really do.
I mean, I suppose it providesprovides some sense of relief

(16:23):
and justice to the victim, butthere's not a lot we can do to
help them put their lives backtogether.
That victim support fund thatthis bill creates and funds is
real dollars that are nowavailable to our survivors to
ensure that they have access tohousing, that they can get a job
, that they can really begin torebuild their lives and repair
from the damage.
And that's not something ourjustice system does very well.
We're good at holding peopleaccountable and punishing those
who break the law, but reallymaking survivors whole and

(16:44):
trying to help them get back ontheir feet and rebuild their
lives.
I'm not saying this bill isperfect and going to solve
everything, but I think it's astep in the right direction.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
Yeah, well, it's very interesting because I was
curious with your backgroundwith the Department of Justice.
You prosecuted many, manydifferent cases, but your whole.
For years you've been dealingwith victims, suspects, so forth
.
So when you go up to be anassembly member, you have a

(17:13):
little knowledge in there, whereyour colleagues probably don't
have the same background.

Speaker 3 (17:20):
I think so and I appreciate the point, Ross,
because you know, when I joinedthe assembly, it's relatively
unheard of Not saying it neverhappens, but it's pretty rare
for a freshman, a rookie,someone brand new to the
assembly, to be asked or giventhe responsibility to chair a
major policy committee likepublic safety.
I think the last person who wasa rookie to chair public safety

(17:40):
was Bob Hertzberg, the formerspeaker.
I mean so it's not common.
I think the only reason I wasgiven that opportunity was
because of that background,because a lot of people know
what the justice system is.
There's things they like aboutit, there's things they don't
like about it.
They want safe communities, butnot nearly enough legislators
have actually investigated orprosecuted a case or really have

(18:02):
that practical know-how.
So enormous responsibility, um,but you know, eight months in,
it's everything I hoped it wouldbe and I love the work so I
just real quickly do you missworking for the doj and doing
that type of cases?

Speaker 2 (18:18):
because you had some cases you you never talked about
, but I know some of the casesthat they used to handle.
You had some doozies.
I mean things that people don'tthink about.
Oh yeah, daily.
I mean, do you miss that?
I do, I really do.
Do you miss?

Speaker 3 (18:32):
being in court?
I actually do, and you know I'mgoing to answer a question that
you guys didn't ask, but I getit all the time.
A lot of folks say, hey, youknow, You're 36 years old,
you've been mayor of Burbank,you're an assembly member,
what's next?
I'm not being coy, look.
I love this job and I want todo it as well as I can for as
long as you all will have me.
But, honestly, when I'm doneright now, I'm not saying never

(18:54):
rule anything out, but I couldbe very happy just going back to
the courtroom.
I love what I did at CaliforniaDOJ.
I love being in court, I lovefighting for what's right and
trying to make victims whole.
Again, I'm going to do this jobas well as I can for as long as
I can, but I, you know it'shard to think like 10 years from
now, 12 years from now, allthis travel, you know, coming

(19:15):
back home, being with my familyevery night and trying to keep
my community safe, that soundspretty good too.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
I will say this, though If I understand, you get
in the courtroom and you want tohelp that one individual and
everything else, but in yourposition now you can help
tenfold because of laws youmight pass or things like that
down the line.
So, while I understand theone-on-one thing, look what you
can do in the long run.
And I got to tell you I don'tthink the latter has more rung

(19:42):
still, I really do, and that'sanother podcast down the line.
That's very sweet.
Let me ask you this.
So you came back eight monthsago.
First you got kind of rushed inand sworn in real fast and then
one day you probably got thatlittle office.
It's a medium-sized office,right?

Speaker 3 (20:02):
It's probably about the capital office is maybe
double the size of this room.
It's not tiny, it's not big,it's small, then.

Speaker 1 (20:10):
Take a nap.

Speaker 3 (20:11):
I could probably take a nap.

Speaker 1 (20:13):
You sat down at your desk.
Now you just got your firstbill passed.
How would you say, did you havepreconceived notions, yeah, I'd
like to get these kind of billsgoing.
Or how did you come up with thebills that you decided to to
introduce and all that stuff?
What was the process there?
Did you have some preconceivedideas or did you just kind of,
did people come to you and say,hey, I'm going to do this and
we'd like to get on board withit, or how'd that all go?

Speaker 3 (20:35):
That is an outstanding question and other
than, what's next, that'sprobably the next most often
asked question I get is like howdo bills actually get made?
It was a bit of both.
So I in a minute I can talkmore about it.
But there were some ideas thatI brought to the table that I
said, hey, for example, we cantalk about it more in a minute.
But assembly bill 1050, whichhas to do with getting more

(20:56):
housing on vacant commercialparcels like the old Ikea, that
was something that I thought of.
I was thinking okay, what arethe obstacles?
Why aren't we building morehousing on those sites where it
makes more sense, and how can wemake it easier to put housing
there?
So some of the bills came fromme or from members of my team
like that.
But to your point, craig,certainly other people come in

(21:16):
the door all the time and theybring different legislative
ideas and we review them.
If we agree with them, if wethink it's a good policy, we'll
take it forward.
Plenty of things that we passon.
But I'll give you one justconcrete example.
The Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict came forward with an
idea.
That's now Assembly Bill 361.
And it does have a tie intoBurbank.

(21:38):
What AB 361 says is reallysimple.
When a school district has to goout and contract for someone to
do work or services, generallyspeaking they're required to go
with the lowest bidder.
Right, that's generally the law.
Lausd has had a pilot programfor maybe the last 10 years that
says they don't have to go withthe lowest bidder, they can go
with the best value becausesomebody might've been really

(22:00):
low and have a terriblereputation or history and it
just gives school boards theflexibility to weigh things like
reputation, prior workperformed.
So they came forward with abill and said could you make it
not a pilot program but make itpermanent, and could you expand
it so that any school districtin California, if they choose to
, could use that same process?
That's AB three 61.

(22:21):
And that was an example ofsomeone else coming forward with
a bill, us reviewing it andsaying, hey, maybe Burbank
Unified won't use that, but it'sgiving them actually more
discretion to pick what theythink is right for their
students who's going to performthe work.
So those are the kind ofdifferent ways that we can
decide if we're going tointroduce a bill or not.

Speaker 1 (22:40):
So let's talk about some of the bills you actually
have going right now andhopefully we'll get signed soon.
So let's talk about some of thebills you actually have going
right now and hopefully we'llget signed soon.
Yesterday was the first day ofsigning.
I guess you know, because it'sthe first time I was signing.
I signed another set of billscoming out today or something.
But so what other bills you gotin the pipeline and what do you
think?
You got some more stuff comingup.

Speaker 3 (23:02):
Definitely, and we have about gosh, maybe 17 or 18
bills in total, but I'm justgoing to highlight the ones with
the Burbank connection.
So you know we have 379solicitation, the human
trafficking one we talked about,that.
80-361, the one I was justtalking about, the school
district one that is over inSenate appropriations.
So we are hoping, crossing ourfingers, that that will get out

(23:25):
of appropriations.

Speaker 1 (23:26):
I want to talk with the Burbank QST right now and
their situation with contractors.

Speaker 3 (23:32):
Oh, yes, oh yes.
Well, we'll come back to that,but I will say 361 is, like many
of our bills sitting in Senateappropriations.
If it gets out of thatcommittee, the whole Senate
votes on it and then, if thathappens, it goes off to the
governor to be signed into law.
Their 1050 was another bill Iwas talking about.
It's a pretty simple bill.

(23:53):
When you look at parcels likethe old Ikea, the old Kmart and
Burbank, there's a lot ofreasons we're not putting
housing there, and you guys haveheard me talk about this before
.
With all due respect to priorstate legislators, an ABU here
and there is not going to solvethe housing crisis.
We need more housing, but itneeds to make sense in our
communities.
So we should be looking atthese vacant and underutilized

(24:15):
commercial parcels that are justsitting as dead space in our
community.

Speaker 1 (24:19):
Okay, I'm going to interrupt you a little bit now.
Sure, so I, I, I get it, andyeah, we do need the housing,
but look what SB nine and and SB35 and all that you know.
All of a sudden, now we'reforced to do certain things.
Right, how are you going to dothis?
We're not forced into somethingyou know.
And also, this is privateproperty too.

(24:39):
This is not you know, not, youknow, city owned property, right
, so, but how are you going tomake sure that we get what works
for the community and notsomething to shove down our
throats like we did on EmpireStreet, empire?

Speaker 2 (24:53):
yeah.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
Five parking spaces and 125 units.

Speaker 3 (24:57):
Great questions, guys .
So a lot of the prior billswe've talked about, like SB 35,
they deal with either changingthe zoning effectively.

Speaker 1 (25:05):
By the way, those are Senate bills, not assembly
bills yes, yes.
Explain the Senate Good idea.

Speaker 3 (25:09):
So they either change the zoning altogether or they
eliminate a council or aplanning commission's discretion
to review a project.
Ab 1050, my bill, doesn't doeither of those things.
So on those commercial parcelsthere are covenants that run
with the land and on manyparcels they say you can't put
housing there.
Period, it runs with the land.
All this bill does is say thatif you want to put housing on

(25:32):
these parcels, the covenants arenot an obstacle.
It doesn't change the zoning,it doesn't take away the
discretion of localjurisdictions to still evaluate
and make sure the project makessense.
It just tries to eliminate oneminor obstacle so that, hey, if
we have to add housing inBurbank, let's at least do it
somewhere that has theinfrastructure to handle more
water, sewage, traffic, parkingetc.

(25:53):
But so that's another bill likethe other one sitting in Senate
appropriations, hoping it goesto a full Senate floor vote.
I'll just quickly mention wehave AB 1150, which is actually
sponsored by the HollywoodBurbank Airport.
It's to allow them to raisemore funds to upgrade the car
rental facility to handle thenew terminal.
And then we have AB 793, whichis our dangerous and vicious dog

(26:18):
bill.
This actually was a response tothe Conan saga that we saw late
last year, where you had cityof Burbank ordering the
euthanasia of an animal, andwhat this bill tries to do is
put in place a higher standardthat must be met and more
clarity about, for example,determining what is a dangerous
or vicious dog and requiringbasic findings such as there's

(26:39):
no lesser means we could usethan euthanasia to make the dog
safe to the community.
So that's another example ofexperience I had on council and
wanting to address that at thestate level and trying to make
something happen.
The last thing I'll mention is,of course, the other big bill
that got signed my first sixmonths in office Assembly Bill
1138, which I co-authored.

(27:00):
That's the film and televisiontax credit program.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
So that was a down the line.
So yeah, let's talk about that.

Speaker 3 (27:07):
Yeah, so that was a bill that I was happy to jump on
as a co-author with others, butit does something really
important.
So just as a little bit ofcontext and background for you
guys and for your listeners, youknow that last October Governor
Newsom came to Burbank Ibelieve it was in Burbank, but
he came to LA for sure and heannounced that he wanted to
double the state's financialcommitment to the film and

(27:28):
television tax credit programand we did vote on that and
approve that and he signed thatinto law at that signing
ceremony here in Burbank a fewweeks ago.
So, we were not invited to, bythe way.
Yeah, it was kind of awkward,they didn't invite any local
press.
I thought that was bizarre, buthe signed it into law.
So we now went from 330 millionto 750 million a year to help

(27:50):
keep production local.
Assembly Bill 1138, the billthat I joined was a compliment
to that so it said, yes, moremoney is great, but it can't
just be more money at theproblem.
The problem is is that we haveanimation studios, as you guys
know, that have left Burbank.
We used to have Netflixanimation they're gone.
We had Cartoon Network they'regone.
We thankfully still haveNickelodeon.

(28:11):
But these are jobs that areimportant to our economy too,
and animation could notpreviously take part in the
program.
Well, now they can withAssembly Bill 1138.
They, too, can take advantageof that tax credit program.
We also looked at things like30-minute productions, not those
big hour-long dramas, but those30-minute productions can now
also participate in the program.

(28:32):
So AB 1138 really just expandedthe types of productions that
can now participate in ourprogram, all with the aim of
just keeping more nowparticipate in our program, all
with the aim of just keepingmore jobs, more production right
here, because it's the backboneof our local economy.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
Well, talk about.
I've heard many people say well, why are we giving all this
money to the studios and we'renot giving money to the studios?
These are, you know, maybeexplain how the tax breaks work,
where we're not actuallywriting checks but they're not
paying as much in taxes incertain situations.

Speaker 3 (29:04):
That's right, craig.
I mean I could go into a muchdeeper explanation and I will
mention whenever this drops.
You know it might be after, buttomorrow I'll actually be at
the Burbank Media Expo with apanel including folks from the
industry talking in more detailabout that about a huge event by
the way.
It's going to thousands ofpeople last year, and so we have
a panel tomorrow with Ed Duffyfrom the Teamsters, michael

(29:27):
Walbrook from Warner Brothers,we have someone from the
California Film Commission, soI'll get into more detail there.
But on a high level it's prettysimple.
If you're a production companyand you want to produce content
in California, you want to keepthe jobs here, you would apply
for it and you have to actuallyproduce the content, employ
people locally, employ thoselocal catering companies.
Once there's all that economicbenefit, provided you're able to

(29:49):
get the tax break on thebackend.
So, yes, it is a tax break to aproduction company, but what we
don't talk about is all thebenefits of that tax break, all
the people that live here inBurbank and around our region
that are actually employed bythe production companies.
All the benefits to our smallbusinesses, our dry cleaners
like Milton Eady's that benefitour local restaurants, our

(30:10):
catering companies, all of theselocal establishments benefit,
and so for every dollar we mayspend on the tax program, we're
getting several fold of thateconomic return to our community
.
I can think of probably nobigger bill that's going to have
more of an impact on Burbankthan AB 11.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
And we have to do that because look at what
they're doing in Georgia toattract Vancouver, north
Carolina.
These are all states that aretrying to get the action, so we
have to really compete with them, because they're giving the
same tax cuts too.
We're trying to say stay here,don't even travel there.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
If we had done nothing, we would have lost even
more jobs, and that means morepeople out of work in our
community.
That means more small businessclosures.
I'm not suggesting that thethings we did this year are
going to be enough forever.
This is just a good first stepfor more work we have to do.
But to your point, this isn'tsome corporate handout.
This is about keeping jobs,good paying jobs, good

(31:04):
entertainment industry jobs,right here in Burbank, where we
need them.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
Well, you know, you listen.
The drum keeps getting pounded,the negativity about production
and we're not seeing filming,and I think that negative needs
to be turned to a positive.
You drive down any burbankstreet the last couple of last
month.

(31:29):
You find more filming thanthere has been in years yeah,
you know everybody's been closedout twice in the last two
months.

Speaker 1 (31:37):
Yeah, well saw that yeah.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
Well, you know other places, not only, but they're
filming local and they arestarting slowly.
It's not going to happenovernight, but it's slowly.

Speaker 1 (31:50):
I think a lot of it is also.
One of the is that there's alot of local restrictions put on
production companies too.
You have to have this, you haveto have that, you have to have
all these things in place on aset, where I don't think other
places have that.
So that's another down the linething.
But I think there's so muchregulation that in the actual
shooting of the show that's alsokind of a constraint.

Speaker 3 (32:11):
And my last thought on that, because I know we have
other topics, guys, but I willsay look, the state is doing our
job.
Our job is to put the moneybehind this tax credit program.
That's our role.
I've been watching.
I think it's great that thecouncil is in partnership with
the chamber.
They're talking about this filmcommission.
I think that's all wonderful.
My hope and my expectation isthat locally, we'll build upon

(32:33):
what the state's doing and saygreat.
More resources, more peopleeligible to partake in the
program, fantastic.
Now how can we cut red tape andjust make it easier to film
content in Burbank?
All of that has the benefit, toyour point, craig, of keeping
jobs and keeping people thatlive here working here.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
Absolutely.
I was told that the FilmCommission Burbank was talking
about what a month ago has nowbeen put on the back burner.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (32:58):
I was told that the chamber wanted to do it.
The city would supply the moneyand that's taxpayer money.
And can the chamber do it?
And I'm told that right nowit's.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
Great idea is that you'll know where sometimes.
Yeah, how many times have youheard that?
Yeah, exactly, okay, well,let's move on a little bit.
You touched on it real, realbriefly before.
Um, you were named the chairmanof the public safety committee
and, like you said, not a lot offreshmen, that's a pretty,
that's pretty prestigious roleright there.
So talk about the committee.

(33:33):
What, what do you do?
What is it all about?
What do you, what do you know?
Get a little rundown on itabsolutely so.

Speaker 3 (33:41):
the public safety committee, like a lot of other
policy committees becausethere's committees on housing,
the environment, you name itthey all function similarly.
They're actually a lot like acouncil, like they're smaller
composition.
Uh, we have nine members of thepublic safety committee seven
democrats, two republicans.
I'm named as the chair, so youalways win that way.
Well, you would think so, butthere are definitely on public

(34:04):
safety, it's one of those issues.
It really does cross thepartisans, absolutely, but it's
a lot like a council meeting andthat I run it like I would as a
mayor, with the gavel andtrying to facilitate
conversation.

Speaker 2 (34:14):
Never left that gavel .

Speaker 3 (34:16):
No, no, I still got it, but on a high level.
High level it's really simple.
If you have a bill that wouldpropose to change the law in
california related to what's acrime or how we're going to
punish a crime or incarcerationso anything with the state
prisons all of that is going tocome through the public safety
committee.
So we look at it from the lensof is this good policy?

(34:36):
Does it make sense?
The way it works is I reviewthe bills.
In addition to my staff, I havethe public safety committee
staff that also work for me.
So we review the bills, weoffer amendments to the authors,
we try to make the bills betterand then ultimately, the way
the hearings go, I make arecommendation as chair, I
either say I think this is agood bill, or it's a good bill

(34:58):
as amended.
I want you to vote aye, or Iwant you to vote no, I don't
think it's a good bill.
I've not been overruled yet, soyou know, but we try to work
with everybody to get the billsin good shape.
There were hundreds I thinkover 200, both Assembly and
Senate proposals this year tochange the law and over 98% of

(35:18):
them all got out of ourcommittee.
Some we had to work on a bitand change, but it's been really
important work and I absolutelylove it.
And the last thing I'll say,craig, is the way I approach it.
Every bill I ask two questionslike this is sort of my North
star, how I try to approach theproblem.
Does this bill makeCalifornians safer?
Does it build safer communities?

(35:40):
If it does that, it's a bill Ican support Separately.
No less important, just adifferent way to tackle it is
does it improve our justicesystem?
I spent a lot of years in court.
To your point, ross, and I'mjust being very blunt People
that look like me, people thatcome from my zip code, my
background we have a verydifferent outcome in the justice

(36:00):
system than many others, andthat is absolutely wrong.
The the the way you're treatedin the justice system should not
depend on how much money youhave in your pocket or where you
live.
So the other question I ask isdoes this bill do something to
actually make our justice systembetter?
We're not talking about lettingpeople out of prisons willy
nilly, uh, or not holding peopleaccountable, but it's just
simple things Like, for example,if you were convicted and you

(36:23):
think you were wrongly convicted.
I'm running a bill this yearthat says you have a right to
post-conviction discovery.
All that means is you shouldhave access to information that
might prove your innocence.
Little things like that thatmake our justice system better
and more fair.

Speaker 1 (36:38):
Okay, and the same thing.
I'm going to get into this.
I've got a problem with thesecret police.
We have a secret police here inBurbank who have blocked their
radio calls from the public andfrom the media.
Now we have the secret federalpolice who are running around
with nothing on their uniformscovering their faces, unmarked

(37:00):
vehicles and snatching peopleoff the streets.
Now it's federal, of course,but still this is the same way
third-world countries operate,you know, in El Salvador and
other places, which is scary Tohave that happen here in Los
Angeles and by the federalgovernment.
I heard there's a bill that wastrying to be introduced about

(37:21):
making them at least wear theiridentification and all that.
Now, has that bill come to youas a chairman and everything
else?
Have you looked at that billand what are your opinions on
that?

Speaker 3 (37:35):
So the short and quick answer is yes, it was
actually two bills, one fromSenator Scott Weiner and one
from Senator Sasha Renee Perez.
And yes, you heard that correct.
You actually may have a ScottWeiner bill you like here,
believe it or not, but there aretwo bills.
One would say local, state andfederal.
So, including ICE, all lawenforcement cannot wear a mask

(37:58):
unless there's a legitimatereason, like there's a fire or a
medical condition, butgenerally speaking, can't wear a
mask.
That's the Scott Wiener bill.
The other bill was the SashaRenee Perez bill, which said if
you're an officer, you have toidentify yourself as law
enforcement, again with veryspecific exemptions, like if
you're an undercover officer.
Absolutely right.
Both bills came through publicsafety committee about two weeks

(38:21):
ago.
They both passed with my eyerecommendation.
And then the Scott Wiener bill627, I actually asked to jump on
as a co-author.
The last thing I'll just mentionon that, craig, is I agree with
you.
We live in a free anddemocratic society.
It's bounded on the principlethat hey, if someone's going to
come and make contact with you,you have a right to know they're
an officer.
If you're going to be arrested,whether you're a citizen or not

(38:44):
of this country.
You have due process rightsThink about the Miranda rights.
You have the right to remainsilent.
You have the right to know thatanything you say may be used
against you.
You have a basic right to knowthat the person taking you out
of your home or your place ofbusiness is a legitimate law
enforcement officer and,ultimately, what you've been
accused of doing.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
Okay, those are basic things, but do you have a right
to tell the federal government,the federal officers, what to
do?

Speaker 3 (39:07):
We believe we do you know?
I'm not going to lie to you.
I think that it's somethingthat will be tested in court.
These bills passed the Assembly.
We believe they will pass.
Sorry, they passed pass theassembly.
They'll be concurred by theSenate.
They will be signed by law byGovernor Newsom.
He's indicated support for it.
We fully expect that almostimmediately the United States

(39:31):
Attorney's Office will sue andit will be challenged in court.
But what I would say is thatthere are basic standards that
any law enforcement officer hasto abide by, whether they're
local, state or federal.
We believe that the masking andthe identification requirement
are reasonable.
They don't impede their abilityto do their job as immigration
officials.
But at the end of the day, itis all about transparency and

(39:54):
public safety.

Speaker 1 (39:55):
Well, after listening to the appeal the other day at
the 9th District Court andlistening to the government's
lawyer saying oh well, you knowwhat we're doing is fine and you
know there's people in a groupthat you know we should be able
to go there and profile thosepeople because they're in a
group at that location, I don'tunderstand how the government

(40:17):
really thinks that they can.
It just really boggles my mind.
When I first saw it, I wasshocked.
I said this is what happenswhen we go and free a country.
This is what they do in thatcountry to people when we go to
free it.
It's scary to me.
It really is how the federalgovernment can do what they want
to do when they want to do it.

Speaker 3 (40:37):
I agree with you, craig, and not to belabor the
point, I will say there werepeople in that hearing and
outside the hearing thatsuggested maybe we shouldn't do
it.
The courts may not agree withus, they might say we can't do
it.
I think it's more aboutexpressing our values.
That's not who we are as asociety.
No one is above the law, andthat I mean because if we're not
going to let them, if we're notgoing to require them to wear

(40:58):
masks, does that mean that ICEofficers don't need to abide by
our city speed limits?
I mean, it's one thing ifthey're in a pursuit, but just
generally speaking, does thatmean they don't have to abide by
the laws that everybody elsehas to abide to?
This is about saying nobody isabove the law and there is a
precedent for putting in placebasic requirements, even on
federal law enforcementofficials that don't impede

(41:18):
their ability to do their job,even on federal law enforcement
officials that don't impedetheir ability to do their job.
That's not the goal here.
At the end of the day, it willlikely end up in the courts, and
I hope that the district court,the Court of Appeals, heck,
even the Supreme Court do notwant the United States to turn
into a third world authoritarianregime, because it sure feels
like we're heading thatdirection now.
This gives them the chance tobe on the right side of history.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
Absolutely.
I totally agree.
It's like Craig says.
We've talked about it.
You know just what you see, andwhat we're seeing on TV is
maybe a tenth of how bad itreally is.
I agree, it's just we don't,you don't drive down the street,
and for us, you know the colorof our skin or whatever, but

(42:01):
it's going to hurt our economy.
It's hurting everything.
These people that are afraid togo shopping, go to medical
appointments.
Yeah, you know all those things.

Speaker 1 (42:10):
And we're in a pandemic for some businesses now
.
Yeah, I'll give you a quickstory.
This happened, oh, maybe 20years ago.
And my coaching days well, Istill have my coaching days, but
my earlier coaching days weused to have practice and then
we used to go back to school toget some hitting in and there
was a 7-11 on the way back andso we would stop in and then

(42:34):
some of the players would stopin.
You know, we'd grab a drink orwhatever it is to go back before
we went to hitting and one ofour players you know we'd grab a
drink or whatever it is to goback before we went to hitting
and one of our players you know,our center fielder was a black
kid, one of the greatest kids inthe world, absolutely just
awesome.
And I'm in the 7-Eleven and I'mwatching the clerk, and wherever
this player went in the7-Eleven, he was walking around

(43:00):
and I went to him.
I said do you see what this hegoes?
I go, oh no, I'm used to this.
It happens all the time and youknow, here's as a white guy,
you know, I I would never thinkof something like that.
So, like you said before, thecolor of our skin, the
experiences and things like that.
We have no idea what it's liketo walk in there.
They're used to it.

(43:20):
I guess you know they get totalk.
You know when you get pulledover how you're supposed to, you
know put your hands on thewheel and be very polite.
I mean, you know we don'tunderstand what that's all about
, and some of those people.
So I learned a lot and it'sstuck with me for 20 years now.
You know, think about whatthey're going through.

(43:42):
I think about what theHispanics are going through,
even the ones who are legal andare being caught up in all this.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
There's a car wash in Burbank that has been closed
now for a month becauseemployees are afraid to go to
work.
It's a car wash up on Glen Oaks.
It's been there.
Gary Sutliff, burbank farmer,built it and he told me he said
they can't get employees to cometo work, so the business is now
shut down.

Speaker 3 (44:07):
Well, you know.
One last point on this, guys,because I really appreciate both
of you sharing that perspectiveand I'll be brief, but you're
absolutely right.
Look, when President Trump,like I, didn't vote for him Not
probably a surprise to yourlisteners but when President
Trump got elected and he wastalking about doing immigration
enforcement against violentcriminals, people causing harm

(44:28):
in our community, I would saymost people could probably get
on board and say, yes,somebody's committing violent
crime, absolutely Obviously.
That's what I'm and, by the way, the biggest misconception out
there is that Assembly Democratsor others want to harbor people
that immigrated here illegally.
I will just point out SenateBill 54, the California Values
Act, has exemptions so that wecan work if there are violent

(44:50):
criminals leaving our stateprisons and ensure that ICE
knows about these individuals.
That's not who the federalgovernment's targeting.
They are targeting, by andlarge, law-abiding people that
are contributing to our economy,like you said, ross, and
documented instances wherethey've deported US citizens.
They're not going after seriousand violent criminals.
They're going after people,quite frankly, by profiling them

(45:10):
to your point, craig, and thatis absolutely wrong.
And now they're trying to do itwith secret police.
All your listeners, if you'relistening, you should be scared.
This is exactly what we saw in1930s Germany.
I mean, this is how democracyfails If we don't stand up and
say this is not who we are andit's fundamentally wrong process
matters.

Speaker 2 (45:29):
Absolutely Totally agree.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
I don't know what the solution is going to be, but
it's something that we need toget to quickly.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
We really need to move on it because it's yes,
it's getting.
We're not seeing it as muchbecause it's not the top of the
news now, but it's continuingfor me to happen, and if we
don't get a jump on it now andstop, it.

Speaker 1 (45:58):
We're chasing people through fields and everything
else that we're doing, and it'sjust, I feel bad for them.
Anyhow, let's move on a littlebit here.
You following the Burbank CityCouncil at all.

Speaker 3 (46:11):
Believe it or not, I am, you know.
I will mention that I'llactually be in front of city
council later this fall to givean end of year update.
So if you want to come hearmore about what I've been
working on, or throw tomatoes atme, whatever your pleasure I'll
be there.
I do try to watch every week.
I'll mention I can't watch allof every meeting, but I always

(46:32):
try to tune into the publiccomment period.

Speaker 1 (46:34):
Absolutely, because you know the best television
there is.

Speaker 3 (46:37):
It is.
Well, because you know the besttelevision there is, it is.
And also, if I can't watch awhole meeting, I figure the
people that are coming down tocouncil and sharing their
frustration, whatever.
Listening to that at leastgives me a sense of what is on
the mind of our community, so Ido try to follow.
I think the council is doing anadmirable job of trying to

(46:58):
tackle the tough issues.
I will say that, even with theobstacles to the Film Commission
, I hope they understand thatwhat we did with our
entertainment industry, thebills we ran, it's just a
foundation, it's just a startingpoint.
I encourage the council to domore locally to keep production.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
I think we need to do more like that.
The council cracks me up rightnow because we're talking about
politically correctness and theword landlord, you know.
I mean I just you know theywant to call it so many
different things.
Now, if you're a landlord, youown land and you rent it, I mean
it's your landlord, not aplantation owner, your landlord,
okay.

(47:33):
So I mean Burbank wants tochange a lot of terminology and
somebody asked at one of themeetings well, there's a state
landlord.
It was a state, everybody callsit landlord, and yet in Burbank
we're all stirred up about that.
Yeah, it kind of cracks me up.

Speaker 2 (47:49):
One of the things that bugs me and you dealt with
some of it, I forget which topicthat you had to throw that
gavel down a couple times isjust decorum.
Craig and I remember the dayswhen, okay, we had Jules Kemet
and Mel Perlich and they'd getup there and Mike Nolan and
they'd say their piece aboutsomething, then they'd sit down.

(48:10):
But now people are rude, nastyto our political people, to our
politicians that are up there.

Speaker 1 (48:19):
I heard today that the LA City Council passed
something.
Yes, they did.
You cannot say certain words orslurs or things like that.
Wow, and I'm not sure howthat's going to work in the free
speech, but that's interestinghow they.

Speaker 2 (48:33):
Well, now that you're not at the local level, you've
gone up.
You probably don't have anybodypublicly protest you, or you
haven't had anybody pick at yourhouse lately protest.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
You or you haven't had anybody pick at your house
lately.
Well, actually, with with ab379um earlier this year, you might
remember, there was a lot ofmisinformation out there.
Um, people thought that we weretrying to protect people
preying on children, when that'snot at all what we were doing.
I had, uh, numerous confirmeddeath threats.
I had people picketing myevents.
By the way, none of thesepeople were from burbank.
They they were all um, forgiveme, they were.

(49:08):
They were right-wing lunaticsfrom outside our area, never
read the bill, didn't knowanything about us, but saw
something on a right-wing blogand took it as true and came to
Burbank and we had to useBurbank police department for
resources to keep us safe.
They did a great job.
By the way, love the new chiefof police, chief Quintero, is
fantastic, but no, I mean, it'snot the same.

(49:29):
You're right, because it's veryoccasional.
It's one bill that maybe causescontroversy, but I agree with
you though, at the end of theday, in a free and democratic
society, we have to be willingto get together.
Disagree, that's fine.
Bob Frutos, the first personwho I had the pleasure of
serving under as mayor, alwayssaid you can disagree without
being disagreeable.

(49:49):
I think we've got to get backto that.
You can disagree with me onpolicy, but the moment you start
making slurs or beingdisrespectful at the dais or, in
my case, threatening my wifeand kids, we've then, at that
point, crossed a line that isnot appropriate conduct.

(50:10):
Yeah, and this is burbank.
Yeah, exactly this is burbankactually.
But you know, and I will saytime and again, it's not the
people that call burbank homethat are doing this.
It's other people we saw itwith tin horn flats people from
elsewhere that are coming inthat are using exactly, they're
stirring the pot and using ourcity, our opportunity, as a
chance to further whateveragenda, and I I'm not going to
have any more of that.

Speaker 1 (50:25):
So here's a local issue, that's a Burbank issue,
but I think it's also in yourdistrict also, and that's the
bus corridor.

Speaker 3 (50:33):
Oh the BRT, yeah the BRT.

Speaker 1 (50:35):
Now, of course that's coming through Burbank, but it
starts in North Lawn and goesall the way to Pasadena and
they're changing theconfiguration of streets.
And there's kind of that fightsaying, well, changing
configuration of streets, andthere's kind of that fight thing
, well, we're going to do this,and we're saying well, nah, we
don't know if we're going to dothis and what they want and what
they can force us to do orleverage us to do, you know.

(50:55):
So I'm wondering if that'ssomething that you know down the
line you might have to belooking at, as you know, I mean,
besides Britain, that's anotherarea too.
They do it in Hollywood andother places.
So I wonder if that's down theline, is public transportation
going to have more rights, youknow, and give the cities less
rights?

Speaker 3 (51:14):
Yeah, you know, talking about local issues,
that's one that I've beencontinuing to monitor.
I appreciate the council forcontinuing to show up and engage
.
I would like to see moreresolution on that issue.
It feels like the city andMetro are still miles apart
After last week's meeting.
Yes, I know, but here's what Iwill say.
What the state can do is we'retrying to offer solutions that

(51:36):
can be helpful, regardless ofwhether the project moves
forward or not.
I respect the fact that thecity officials need to work with
Metro and make whateverdecision they're going to make,
but one of the bills we didn'ttalk about, which is alive and
we will be working on next year,is assembly bill 939.
This would, if it passed, thelegislature next year, would put
on the 2026 ballot for all ofyou to vote on a 20 billion

(51:58):
dollar bond for transit capitalimprovement projects things like
a monorail well, sure you, sureyou can do a monorail rail or a
trolley car or a trolley car.
I had in mind the Olive AvenueBridge, because, whether or not
you have a dedicated lane, thatbridge is only so many years
from being an end of life.
There's no dedicated bike pathon that bridge it's not safe to

(52:20):
cross or walk across or walkacross and 939 was designed for
the whole state.
But it came from my experiencein Burbank and at a time when
the federal government's rippingaway funding, we don't have a
lot of available dollars to do abig project like that.
That's what Assembly Bill 939is all about.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
Okay, Transportation and statewide high-speed rail.
That has become a slipperyslope.
The government just pulledtheir funding for it.
We've got half the thing builtin Northern California.
It's a train to nowhere rightnow, you know.
So they haven't even talkedabout doing the southern part of

(53:00):
it down to LA yet and whereit's going to go and what
domains.
I mean it's a huge clusterthing, you know.
So what do you see in thatgoing on?
Because right now you've gothalf a thing well kind of built,
yeah, and that's it.

Speaker 3 (53:16):
I think it's a great question.
I mean, look, I think we'restill in the capital.
There's sort of division ofopinion.
You have some people that aresaying that we've tried the
project, we spent a lot of moneyon the project, it's time to
bring it to an end, which seemslike a waste of resources and
dollars.
Exactly and, by the way, this isa job creator.
Most of the jobs have been inthe Central Valley, but this has
the potential to put a lot ofpeople to work for a very long

(53:40):
time.
You have another group ofpeople that still see value in
the project, and I would say Ifall more in that camp.
I still think the high-speedrail can work.
The issue is the implementationhas been completely sideways.
I would have started with theSouthern California leg of it as
opposed to the Central Valley.
I would have certainly donethat.
I think there clearly has beeninadequate oversight of the

(54:02):
high-speed rail project, and soI think that if the legislature
were to continue with thisproject, we do need more
transparency.
We need more accountability Ifwe're not going to cut our
losses and just end the projectnow.
The public needs to have moreconfidence that these dollars
are actually going toconstruction of a rail project
which Burbank will play a bigpart of.

(54:23):
I mean it will have seamlessintegration with our airport.
It'll bring more people throughBurbank, to Burbank.
It has selfishly for ourdistrict, for our city.
If it's done the right way andthat's a big if.
But if it were, it hasincredible potential to bring
more economic boom to our city.
It just has to be done theright way.

Speaker 1 (54:42):
We're in such, we're one of the best technological
states and more or lesscountries in the world.
But yeah, you go to Japan, yougo to all these other countries,
high-speed rail everywhere, andwe can't figure out how to do
one rail line through the state.
Now there's a private onethat's going to happen to Vegas,

(55:03):
which a private company isgoing to do, but the one we're
doing, we can't figure it out.
All these other countries haveno problem with it, and that
boggles me.

Speaker 3 (55:12):
And to your point, craig, before we just cut our
losses and have this weirdsegment of a train stranded in
the Central Valley, I'd be muchmore inclined to see is there a
public-private partnership thatcould help at least save a
portion of the project?
But you know, I think that youknow we're sort of losing the
point of the argument if we'rejust saying we hate this project
, we want it to end.
Let's see if we can finish itand do it the right way and at

(55:34):
least have some positivecontribution to california at
all.

Speaker 2 (55:38):
I think we can get there, it's funny, you, we're
talking about high-speed rail,cra.
Craig and I witnessed for 40,30 years the controversy about
Burbank Airport.
We're going to replaceterminals.
How many meetings did we cover?
How many?
I mean countless hours of thefight, of you know a new.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
And even today you can't say new terminal, it has
to be replacement terminal.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
It's all about words you know, yeah, but as you go
out there you fly by.
That's moving rather rapidly,oh yeah.

Speaker 3 (56:09):
Believe it or not, they're on schedule and at
budget.
It's remarkable.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
So it can be done.
It can be done.
It cracks me up.
When they put the Ritzy in foreverything else, I said why
would they put it in here whenthey're going to move the
terminal over there?
And now they're finding thatthey don't have the you know
with your bill and everythingelse, because they have to now
put another rental car situationin, because the one they built
10 years ago now is going tobecome obsolete because of the
terminals.
And I just said that was wastedmoney.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
Well, you know, real quickly I drove by there just
the other day, went out of VanOwen and I don't know I don't
remember if you were on councilat the time the argument about
the paintings or the artwork onthe outside of the Ritzy.
They drove by there, All thoseframes that they put up.
You can't see them because thetrees have now matured and grown

(56:57):
.

Speaker 1 (57:00):
How about the bridge?

Speaker 2 (57:02):
that's supposed to go to the train station.
Yeah, just this little stuff,you know.

Speaker 3 (57:04):
I'm with you and at the end of the day I you know, I
know we're close on time, butI'll just wrap with saying on
this issue, I mean, I'll wrapwith saying that what I think my
contribution can be is that Ihope to be in the sea as long as
I keep doing a good job and thevoters keep sending me back.
You know I'm turned out in 11years but for as long as I'm
here I want to have that sort ofregional eye view.

(57:24):
Obviously, burbank is our home.
I care deeply about whathappens in the city.
I see opportunity with theseregional projects, with these
state projects.
I want to do right by our wholedistrict and yes, of course,
burbank is where my heart is,it's where my family is.
So I want to make sure thatBurbank comes through very well
in all of this.

(57:49):
I think to your point, ross.
We just have to have morestrategic vision.
You know we can't just be soreactionary.
We have to be thinking aboutwhat do we want Burbank and,
more broadly, the 44th district,to look like 20 years from now?
How do we get there?

Speaker 2 (57:57):
Yeah, it uh, like you say, burbank's not going
anywhere, folks.
I mean, we're a city of people,pride and progress.
I think, yeah, and we reallyare.
This is the movie capital ofthe world.
That's right.
I mean how we move forward andso forth.

Speaker 1 (58:18):
And things are changing.
I think in the next 20 yearsactually a lot of location
filming won't even be doneanymore because they're going to
sound stages now.

Speaker 3 (58:26):
Oh, look what they're doing, warner.

Speaker 1 (58:28):
Brothers might become more sound stages and then less
sets there now.
Well, 16 new stages over there,right, but I'm talking about
the main lot, oh, the main lotright?

Speaker 2 (58:39):
Well, I know we've gone on longer than we were
expecting.

Speaker 1 (58:43):
Yeah we have, but that's one more thing for them.

Speaker 2 (58:45):
Okay, because I want to find out.
What's the future hold.

Speaker 1 (58:47):
What do you see in the future?
Right now, what are your goals,your immediate goals?
For the next, let's say sixmonths.

Speaker 2 (58:54):
You know that little snowball or cube.

Speaker 3 (58:56):
Oh, the eight ball, you know turn it over.

Speaker 2 (58:59):
Tell us what you see.

Speaker 3 (59:16):
You Tell us what you see.
You know I would say as I, as Icontinue to be in the district.
And, by the way, I will mention, even though I am gone a lot,
Monday to Thursday for sevenmonths of the year, you know, I
still have managed to make itback to Burbank to a lot of
events that are near and dear tomy heart.
And I won't go through all ofthem but, like from Earth Day to
Genocide Remembrance, to theMedia Expo tomorrow at Woodbury,
like I try to be here when Ican, genocide remembrance to the
media expo tomorrow at Woodbury, like I try to be here when I
can.
The reason I bring all that upis to say I keep hearing.
Even with the progress we'remaking, the primary concerns
continue to be affordability.
I think that's going tocontinue to be the theme of this
entire legislative term.

(59:36):
People are struggling with thevery high cost of living, from
the cost of rent or or what yourmortgage is I mean the cost of
rent or what your mortgage isand the cost of housing is
through the roof to the cost ofwhat you're paying at the pump
for gas, to the cost of.
That translates to and whatyou're paying for at the grocery
store to your energy cost.
I know the council just had toapprove more rate increases for
Burbank Water and Power, whichour family is absorbing like

(59:58):
anyone else.

Speaker 2 (59:59):
I sure did this month .

Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
It's all up, and so I would say whether it's running
bills, like we're trying to do,to add more housing in a
sensible way to our communities,to bills that we didn't talk
about, like AB 1117, which wouldoffer dynamic pricing, so that
the quick explanation, ross, isyou could know that if you want
to turn on the AC right now,this is what it'll cost you, or
you could wait two hours at acheaper cost, just giving you,

(01:00:22):
the consumer, that knowledge tohelp save a few bucks in your
pocket.
Those are going to continue tobe the things that I prioritize
affordability and then, ofcourse, I would say, separate to
that, public safety.
It's going to continue to besomething that I care deeply
about wanting to build safercommunities.
And the last thing I'll closeon is just the budget.

(01:00:49):
We have a budget crisis inCalifornia.
We had a deficit, and that'smade worse by the fact that the
federal government is nowclawing back grants left and
right.
They passed HR one, which isripping away more funding.
Even in spite of that, wepassed a budget that includes
universal, uh, tk, uh, freeschools at you know, free, um,
afterschool meals.
We are doing what we can in ourbudget to keep in place that
social safety net that I thinkis going to be more needed than
ever.
So the last thing I would say,craig, is, as this federal

(01:01:11):
government continues to reallyhammer California and really, by
extension, hurt the people inour community in Burbank who
really need our lifelines themost, a lot of the legislation
and the work I'll be doing onthe budget is trying to keep
that social safety net in place.
Nobody's asking for a handout.
They're just asking for a handup and the opportunity to not

(01:01:31):
fall into homelessness.
That is what we need to do atthe state level is to ensure
that we're continuing programslike SNAP, to ensure that we're
continuing to house people, thatwe're making progress on
reducing homelessness.
Those are going to continue tobe priorities.

Speaker 1 (01:01:46):
I think you're going to have to find a balance
somewhere.
Also, because if you have arent cap, basically of 99% of
the state or something in thatarea I'm not sure exactly what
it is but if the landlord's costis going up 12 or 13% because
of you know certain things, well, you're asking them to take a 3

(01:02:08):
or 4% loss every year then forwhere they can raise the rent
and where they have to theirbottom line.
So I think that's somethingthat you'll have to find.
The whole you know the wholelegislature will have to find
how do we find a balance in thatso that they have their, they
can still maintain their marginand yet these people can still
have housing too.
I think that's the big equationwhich nobody has the answer to.

Speaker 3 (01:02:33):
I agree, Craig, and the only thing I'll very quickly
say is another bill.
Clearly we've been busy, butanother bill we didn't talk
about was the affordable housingbond, which we're co-authoring
as well.
This idea of we keep talkingabout rent control as a solution
when we all know it's atemporary measure at best.
We need more housing toalleviate market pressure.
We don't need more luxury levelunits, we need affordable

(01:02:54):
housing that our workforce canafford.
One of the bills we're runningthis year, this affordable
housing bond, if approved by thevoters next year would be $10
billion.
$10 billion to construct 100%,truly affordable housing.
It's trying to replace what welost when the Burbank Housing
Corporation lost access to thoseredevelopment agency funds Like

(01:03:15):
those are the kind of thingsthat we need right now.

Speaker 1 (01:03:17):
That was a terrible redevelopment agency when they
lost that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
It was oh, so many things went down the tube, so
many things.
Well, you know, I heard you aminute ago.
Didn't say these words, butthis is what I heard come out of
your mouth this is still thebest damn state to live in.

Speaker 3 (01:03:33):
And the best city.

Speaker 2 (01:03:37):
Well, being a lifelong Burbank resident, I
will always say that Both of uswill.
But if you look at all theother states and everything that
they go through and so forth,california is still.
It is, you know, the best,absolutely there's nowhere else
I'd rather be.

Speaker 3 (01:03:52):
And I just say to your listeners um, you know, if
if you don't believe me or youthink I'm full of it, let me
prove you wrong.
And to everyone else, that'sexactly what you should expect
from your state rep.
You should have someone therewho believes in the promise of
California, who knows that wecan do better and wants to do
better because we have to.
But I still think that we arethe greatest state.
I think we are one of theworld's largest, strongest

(01:04:13):
economies, and I still believethat we have yet to achieve our
maximum potential.

Speaker 2 (01:04:18):
Oh, definitely.
What's the best way for youknow here, there your email,
probably have the same cellphone I do or what's the best
way if somebody does a righttest but wants to talk to you?

Speaker 3 (01:04:31):
yeah.
So I would say, I would saylook, many, many folks still
have my cell phone and you canreach me that way.

Speaker 1 (01:04:37):
Um, but that cell phone put out there, huh
818-806-9392.

Speaker 3 (01:04:41):
You can still reach me that way, but but I'd say the
best way though, because Idon't know any given day where
I'm going to be or if I'm goingto be voting.

Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
You can't have that phone on when you're on the
floor?

Speaker 3 (01:04:49):
No, you can't.
So I would say, if you'rewanting to get my attention on
something or if you want help,two things you can do.
You can always write an emailto assemblymember all one word
schultz, s-c-h-u-l-t-z at A-S-M,dot, c-a, dot gov.
That goes right to our office.
I get it, diane.

(01:05:10):
Or Amanda Amanda's your fieldrep in Burbank with my office.
We have access to it.
That way it doesn't get lost inmy inbox.
We have multiple eyes on it sowe can track what you need.
The other thing I would say is,if you go through our website,
you can find all of ourlegislation we're working on.
You can also comment onlegislation, and a lot of people
like to call our office andspeak to a person and I totally

(01:05:31):
get that.
But if you go on our website,you can write a direct message I
support SB, whatever.
I hate AB, whatever.
That gets loaded right onto myiPad.
So when I'm sitting on thefloor voting, I have an iPad
with me and I can look, not justorganization but individually.
So it'll say Ross Benson,burbank, and I can see how many

(01:05:53):
residents, how many constituents, support a bill or oppose a
bill.
That is such an easy way, easything to do so that I have a
sense of hey, there's 500constituents who reached out
that want me to go up on thisbill, or 500 that absolutely
want me to vote no on thisterrible housing bill, for
example whatever it is, it'sreally interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
Again, technology makes it so you can have that
iPad there and get messages.

Speaker 1 (01:06:15):
Or it's nice to watch the plane.
We have that hour plane flight.

Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
And I read it.
I really do, like every timebefore a floor session I'm
looking at.
For each bill we'll be votingon, who did we hear from in the
district and when I hear from alot of constituents, there are
times where I was like you knowI might have voted one way, but
really listening to my community, that's part of the job too.
I mean it makes a difference.
So I would say, if you want totalk to me, if you need help
with something, send the email,but if you just want to know,

(01:06:51):
you want me to know, how youfeel about a bill.

Speaker 2 (01:06:52):
use the website, you can still call and email, but
that website is such an easy wayto get your opinion registered
with our office.
Fantastic Ross, any finalcomments or anything?
No great show, I mean.
We haven't seen you in a whileand you and I have seen each
other out in the community,looking forward to seeing you
tomorrow.
We're your SPF 35 probably outthere It'll be.
Last year was cooking, Iremember so, but I'm glad
everybody at home is feelinggood.

(01:07:13):
The kids are getting older,yeah, and thanks for
representing Burbank.

Speaker 3 (01:07:17):
Well, thank you guys.

Speaker 1 (01:07:19):
Okay, well, I want to thank everybody for listening.
I think this is greatinformation, and please contact
Assemblyman Schultz if you haveissues you want to talk about.
He's very approachable.
Okay, so, once again, subscribeto the channel.
We'd appreciate that.
Hit those old like buttons allthat stuff you always hear and

(01:07:40):
become a member of our channeltoo.
If you want to help support myBurbank, get a channel
membership.
That's where you can really dosome help for us.
So that's it for this time andwe will talk to you again.
Thanks for watching and, by theway, two hands of stereo.
If you're doing this podcast inyour car, take care.

Speaker 4 (01:07:59):
Thank you for watching our my Burbank video.
Please consider a channelmembership to support us, or
head over to our merch storewhere you can pick up some great
items.
Also, make sure you subscribeto the channel so you don't miss
the latest videos, and pleasedon't forget to hit that like
button.