Checking in after year one with Assemblymember Nick Schultz

The gap between bold policy and daily life is where most of us live: a power line snaps in high winds, your insurance hikes again, the lot down the street sits empty, and your child’s school starts talking about cuts. We invited Assemblymember Nick Schultz into the studio for a frank, fast-moving conversation about what’s changing in California—and what still isn’t—across housing, wildfire readiness, energy costs, public safety, local jobs, and schools.

We start with the bottlenecks that stall real homes: CEQA lawsuits that bury infill projects for years, building standards that shift mid‑stream, and commercial covenants that block apartments on dead retail sites. Schultz lays out three levers now in motion: a CEQA infill exemption to deter abuse, a six‑year residential code freeze to stabilize costs, and AB 1050 to lift housing‑prohibitive CC&Rs on commercial parcels. Then we dig into reliability and rates. Undergrounding high‑risk lines saves lives but raises bills; bonds and smarter financing could help municipal utilities move faster, while investor‑owned utilities should be pushed to invest more. On the generation side, we talk honestly about baseload: nuclear’s risks, green hydrogen’s promise, and why storage alone won’t carry peak days yet.

Burbank’s identity is on the line as studio mergers loom and productions chase incentives abroad. California boosted the film tax credit to $750 million and added animation, but Schultz argues local moves matter just as much: faster, cheaper permits, a dedicated film office, and Santa Clarita‑style incentives to keep crews, diners, prop houses, and vendors busy here. Public safety ties it together. With violent crime trending down across major cities, he spotlights concrete steps for safer transit and previews a bipartisan DUI package—tougher repeat‑offender thresholds, rationalized suspensions, and broader ignition interlocks—to reduce road deaths without surrendering the wheel to fully autonomous fleets.

Schools close the loop on affordability. Funding tied to average daily attendance punishes districts as enrollment falls; Schultz backs shifting to enrollment-based models and loosening categorical rules so districts can stabilize budgets. The local fix is housing families can actually buy—townhomes and condos that keep students in classrooms and communities intact.

If you care about practical solutions to housing, energy, jobs, and schools—and how to keep Burbank thriving—this conversation is your field guide. Listen, share with a neighbor, and tell us the one change you want prioritized next. And if you’re new here, follow and leave a quick review so more locals can find the show.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
From deep in the Burbank Media District, it's
time for another edition of MyBurbank Talks.
This podcast is presented by thestaff of My Burbank.
Now let's see what's on today'sagenda as we join our program.

SPEAKER_02 (00:17):
Hello, Burbank.
Craig Short here with you onceagain, of course, with our
cohort and our co-host, RossBenson.

SPEAKER_03 (00:23):
Dun dun dun dun dun.

SPEAKER_02 (00:25):
Where's the timpanies?
No, it's so much we can do inour budget here for you.

unknown (00:30):
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (00:30):
Okay, let us know in advance you might like those.
We'll get them for you.

SPEAKER_03 (00:33):
It's okay, my tally light wasn't on.
So are we in the studio?
I think we're in the studio.

SPEAKER_02 (00:38):
Well who's our guest?
Well, go ahead and introducethem, Ross.
Nick Schultz.

SPEAKER_01 (00:43):
When did you show up?
I've been here all along.
Good to see you guys.

SPEAKER_03 (00:49):
You are our assembly member?

SPEAKER_01 (00:50):
I'm still your assembly member for the 44th
district, which includesBurbank.
And I'm really excited to behere back in the studio with
you, Craig.
Thanks for your hospitality.
And of course, Ross,congratulations on your key to
the city.

SPEAKER_02 (01:04):
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Um, Ross, do me a favor.
We gotta kind of not hit thecamera because it's it's showing
me in the earthquake mode here.
Really?
Yeah, you gotta be very carefulon move the table.
That could be me.

SPEAKER_01 (01:16):
That could be me.

SPEAKER_02 (01:16):
I'll be okay.
Well, we'll be fine.
We're fine.
Anyhow.
Oops.
Um, so let's um let's talk alittle about.
Yeah, I'm gonna first get into acouple things here.
I was I was thinking about onyour on your way over here.
And you know, we we got thingsthat we want to get into, of
course.
Oh, it's fine.
But I might be a littlelong-winded here, but I I I want
to I want to ask you how peoplefeel uh the the state government

(01:42):
is really responding to them.
If you look at over the years,I'm gonna start with I'm gonna
go start with back with when thelotto came to California.

SPEAKER_01 (01:50):
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (01:51):
I don't know if you were even around at that time or
anything else.

SPEAKER_01 (01:54):
I remember it, yes.

SPEAKER_02 (01:54):
Okay, but it was a big deal.

SPEAKER_01 (01:56):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (01:56):
And the whole idea behind the behind the lotto was
it's gonna go the all theprofits gonna go to the schools.
And that's a great thing.
So we start the lotto, and it'sdoing really well, and they're
bringing big checks to theschools, and then the California
our our government, either Idon't know, assembly or senate
or whatever it was, they figuredokay, let's say, and I I'm gonna

(02:20):
I'm gonna make up a number foryou.
I have no idea.
Let's say there was 10% of thebudget went toward school
funding, and the lottery broughtin, let's say, I'm gonna say 5%
of the budget toward theschools.
So instead of the schoolsgetting 15% now and doing
better, well, the state cut fivepercent off their share, saying,

(02:40):
Well, they're getting that moneynow from the lottery, they don't
need our money, and we'll use itfor something else.
So the schools never got betterand they never got stronger, and
all the things we're promisednever happened because they
said, Okay, well, they can usethat money instead, instead of
the money that we should beputting into them.
And that was 30 years ago, 40years ago.
Sure.
Um, so and over the years, and Ilook at the the fires recently.

(03:02):
People lost their houses, peoplelost, I mean, their businesses.
And I'm still hearing I'm stillhearing from people that it's
it's the red tape.
We can't, you know.
Why are we not fixing thingslike there's so much going on
out there that we don't seem torespond to people?
The prices in California, thegas prices are$1.25 higher than

(03:23):
anywhere else in the country.
It seems like nothing in isbeing done for the average
citizen on an average day.
That the state just keepsspending more money, and we
don't seem to be really fixingproblems.
Even homelessness.
Um, 1,500 homeless people diedlast year in LA County.
Terrible.
Um that are are homeless.

(03:45):
Uh so 4% died, you know, or andand we got 2% in the housing.
We spend hundreds of millions ofdollars on what?
Where's the money?
Where's the accountability?
How I think you see why peopleare saying they they throw their
hands up in the air and say wecan't control this, or they can
do.
But it's been it's been a longthing for and it's not you

(04:05):
because you've been there forone year.
So I'm not blaming you, youknow, but I'm just saying the
pattern, and that's why people Ithink are are disconnected from
from government.

SPEAKER_01 (04:14):
I think you're right.
Before I jump in, Ross, were yougonna be able to do that?

SPEAKER_03 (04:17):
Yeah, I I just yesterday went shopping.
Can't use plastic bags anymoreas of the first.

SPEAKER_01 (04:24):
Uh yeah, that's uh that's a new law that'll fix it.

SPEAKER_03 (04:26):
And and the whole recycling thing that we had, you
know, we went to recycling, hadto use plastic bags, or bring
your own.
That's that got shit canned outthe window now.
Brown paper bags were back downto brown paper bags.
It didn't work, folks, but howmany millions of dollars did we
piss out the window with thatwhole program?

(04:47):
You know, it just isfrustrating.
I know you're gonna talk aboutthe fires.
What about the the people thatthe the ones that you don't see,
the ones that aren't vocal?
You know, there's a lot of them.
Yeah.
Um, that after the fires, theydidn't have the right insurance.
They their house is burned downand every inch of everything
except the clothes on theirback.

(05:08):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (05:09):
Yeah, let me add out to that too, because uh all the
insurance companies they'rethey're not paying.
And they're and they're leaving.
And they've asked for rateincreases, and we're giving it
to them.
And I'm going to myself, how isour government being responsive
in these situations?
Why is there a why was there acommittee or a a place set up
where everybody could take theirinsurance form into this place
and they tell the insurancecompanies, okay, here it is,

(05:30):
you've got to pay this.
Instead of making these peoplejump through hoops, I I once
again, we're not solving biggerissues as they come up and and
solving them.
We're just doing the best we cando, they say.

SPEAKER_01 (05:43):
No, I uh look, uh guys, I think it's great.
And I'll just maybe we can takea we can take there's a couple
topics baked in there.
So we can.

SPEAKER_02 (05:51):
No, no, no.
I think I'm frustrated like mostother people are.

SPEAKER_01 (05:54):
No, and I'm glad.
And I I I would say like there'sa couple topics you brought up.
Maybe we could piece it andwe'll take that couple.
Um so I'll I'll start in amoment with affordability, but I
just wanted to say, like, ifanyone ever gives you guys
because I've seen it.
I've seen the criticism of, oh,it's all softball and scripted
questions.
I mean, you guys are asking whata lot of people are feeling
right now.
So I just hope your listenersknow, like, you guys aren't

(06:15):
pulling punches, like you'retrying to ask fair, reasonable
punches.
Uh you never have.
I haven't worked aboutcriticism.
I've always sat right here, youguys have never pulled punches.
So um, okay, let me start withjust sort of the big picture,
and that is where I think whatwhat my response would be to the
criticism, and then maybe wecould talk about insurance,
housing, all the good stuff.
Um, but I would say that thefrustration that you both uh

(06:38):
described, I'm hearing it everysingle day.
Um, I think the short answer toyour leadoff question, Craig, is
that I think we actually aredoing a lot of good things, and
I'll try to talk to them, uhtalk about those today.
But I think we're doing aterrible job of messaging it.
I think that to your point,Ross, you're hearing about the
plastic bag ban.
What you're not hearing about iswhat we're doing to bring the

(06:59):
insurance industry back.
And there are things we'redoing, but we're just somehow
not able to communicate thatmessage out to voters.
And I think that heading into26, people want to see results.
They want to see what we'redoing to make California a more
affordable place to live.
So maybe what I can do is startwith let's talk about let's
start with the fires andhousing, kind of that area.
And then we can dive in.

(07:20):
I definitely have things to sayon insurance and jobs, but you
know, just because what we'vewe've kind of talked about the
fire situation.
So one of the things that wehave done is we've tried to cut
back the red tape to get housingproduction uh boosted.
And I want to be really clear alot a lot of the conversation
around housing in recent yearsand this year with SB 79 has
been about where you can buildthe housing, zoning.

(07:43):
I'm not talking about that,though that's a it's a fair
point, and we can certainly getinto that.
I'm talking about okay, in thecity of Burbank, we have plenty
of places that have beenidentified for housing
production, but why aren't weactually building the housing?
So there's three things that wedid this year, uh two that my
office spearheaded, and then oneother one I'll briefly talk
about, then I'll pause.

(08:04):
First of all, CEQA, Californiauh Environmental Quality Act.
It's an important piece oflegislation.
It can also be abused.
You can file a lawsuit and tieup a project for years.
One of the things that we didnot author in my office, but we
voted for and we passed was aninfill housing exemption.
So if you are building infillhousing in an urban setting like

(08:25):
we have in Burbank, you're nolonger going to be subject to
the weaponization of Sequa.
Um there are some in theenvironmental community that are
concerned, and I get that, butat the end of the day, Sequa has
been a barrier to housingproduction.
And when we're talking aboutputting housing in an urban
area, we need to cut that redtape and streamline the process.
That'll help not only with therebuild uh of Altadena in in the

(08:48):
wake of the Eaton fire, it'llalso hopefully help Burbank
actually meet its housing goalsand build more housing.
Number two, I'll brieflymention, is the building code.
So uh to your point, Craig,despite all this work around
zoning, we're still not actuallybuilding many more units of
housing.
A lot of things that are beyondcity and state control, like the
tariffs, supply chain, a lot ofthe global economic issues.

(09:11):
But one thing we've looked at isthe building code.
So we ran a bill this year, AB306, that was incorporated into
the governor's budget.
I think I talked briefly aboutit last time, that freezes the
building code, the residentialbuilding code for six years, so
that we already have some of themost energy efficient leading
standards in the world.
It sets the map for the next sixyears and says, this is what's

(09:33):
going to be expected of you.
We're not gonna have changes inum uh in materials or other
things.
So hopefully it'll hold the coststeady and that'll lead to more
housing production.
And then the last thing I'lljust briefly mention, then I'll
pause, is A B 1050.
That was a bill we also ran.
We know we need housing, but anADU here and there is not gonna

(09:54):
fix it.
We need large-scale housing.
We need to develop housing onthe old Kmart location, the old
IKEA location.
A B 1050 passed the legislature,bipartisan basis, Democrat and
Republican support.
Governor signed it, and he evenwrote in his signing message
this is one of the most commonsense kind of measures that we
need more of.
Very simply, it says theconditions, covenants, and

(10:15):
restrictions on commercialparcels that generally prohibit
the development of housing,those are now lifted statewide.
So we're actually building morehousing.
So I'll pause there, but I bringthat up to say I think we are
trying to clear some of the redtape out and help make it easier
to build more housing.
But I bet before I came here,like you guys didn't know that.
Like, like we're not doing agood enough job communicating

(10:36):
what we're actually doing to tryto lower the cost of housing
protection.

SPEAKER_03 (10:39):
Don't be trying to steal our PIO.
No, no.

SPEAKER_01 (10:43):
No, he's fantastic.

SPEAKER_03 (10:44):
He he would get the word out.
No, my question was Al to DinaPacific Valley Saints.
Everything it was barren land.
Power poles got burnt down,utility wires.
While we're fighting all thisout and figuring out why aren't
we putting this utilitiesunderground so it doesn't happen
again?
Instead, we're spinning ourwheels, coming up with these

(11:06):
laws and these local utilities.
Why aren't they digging daily?
You know, and and put utilitiesunderground so God forbid you
have another catastrophe.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (11:18):
It won't be power that caused it, that's for sure.
That's that's a great point,Ross.
And and just so we can getthrough more questions, I'll try
to do a better job, guys, ofbeing faster in my answers.

SPEAKER_02 (11:27):
No, no, I no.
We want to get into gooddetailed responses.
That's that's how we educatepeople.

SPEAKER_01 (11:33):
Okay, well, I I appreciate it.
Uh I'll I'll still do my best tofind that balance.
But but Ross, to your point, um,I would say I agree.
If you look back at the Thomasfire, the Woolsey fire, Eaton,
Palisades, in almost everyinstance you have a high wind
event, and we're gonna see someof that weather here in the next
couple days.
We are and it meets agingequipment, outdoors, high wind
areas, and you see the smackingof power lines and you see these

(11:56):
ignition events with olderequipment.
You're right.
The the safest thing we can dois underground those lines.
It's all a matter of cost andexpense.
And and by the way, um, youknow, folks also complain about
the utility bills right here,present company included, it's
one of the main drivers of yourutility bills.
So the reason that you haven'tseen the state push more in
mandating undergrounding oflines is because it is that

(12:18):
balance of to do it, uh ourpublic utilities like Burbank,
Water and Power, will have tocharge more to have the money to
do it.
And we understand that peopleare hurting right now.
I think that what the stateshould be doing a better job of
is talking about bonds andtalking about public financing
to help our POUs, um, becausethese are all ratepayer-driven

(12:38):
expenses, right?
Um, to help them have morefunding to do those large
infrastructure projects.
Um and then the IOUs, so likeSoCal Edison that operates in
our area, those are a differentstory.
These are per for-profitentities.
And I think we can ask a littlebit more of them to make sure
that they're investing.
But it is a matter of cost.
My point I'm trying to make iswe absolutely should do it.

(12:59):
Um, and we probably could do ittomorrow if we were willing to
let the rates climb to 200%.
So the real question is what'sthat right balance of what is an
appropriate amount of rategrowth that will allow us to
have the funds so we can makethose changes?
But you're you're right.
The longer we wait to make itfully undergrounded in those
high wind areas, we're justrisking another fire.

SPEAKER_03 (13:19):
You know, Burbank, let's your your hometown here.
How many years ago did theydecide to dig underground and
put recycled water everywhere?
Anything that has a large field,the football field, the park,
parkways, they did thatinfrastructure a long time ago.
And it's paying off now.

(13:39):
I mean, with the price of waterand everything, and even now
that recycled water isexpensive, but they did that
many years ago.
Instead of waiting until theevent, let's do it now.

SPEAKER_01 (13:51):
Well, and and to your point, Ross, and then I'll
pause there because I'm sureCraig's got a follow-up.
Um, what I would say is that,you know, we can also be
sensible about it.
So in Burbank, we don't need, Imean, ideally we'd underground
all the lines, but we don't needto underground all of them
tomorrow.
We know where our high windareas are up in the foothills,
so those are the places weshould prioritize.

(14:11):
And I do think the state shoulduh legislate a bit more with
carrot and stick.
We should set targets anddeadlines so we're actually
undergrounding these lines.
We should also try to find moreresources to actually help local
jurisdictions like Burbank Waterand Power do it because they
know just as well as we knowwhere the risks are.
It's a matter of financing it.

SPEAKER_02 (14:30):
We've got a candidate right now for
governor.
Um, and his commercial says, Oh,if you elect me, I'm gonna lower
all water and power bills 25%.
And I look at that and I listento that and I say, people are
gonna believe that.
And it's it's it's it ourpoliticians now are making they
make statements that they don'tkeep and they don't care about

(14:50):
keeping and they're not heldaccountable to because how are
you gonna lower Burbank waterand power by 25% when we own our
own utility here and the statedoesn't control the the rates?
How are you gonna do that?
And you can't do that.
So it's it's a blatant lie, iswhat he's saying, and nobody
checks them on it.

SPEAKER_01 (15:06):
I I agree with you, Craig.
And and for you guys and foryour listeners, I would say if
you're wondering why rates areso high, generally speaking,
it's one of three things inCalifornia.
Um, obviously we have our energygoals, clean energy economy.
So that's probably what thiscandidate's referring to.
We're we're gonna forget aboutgetting to 100% carbon neutral
by 2045.
That would lower cost.

(15:27):
But the other thing I worryabout is uh wildfire mitigation.
That's another third of the hugedriver in rate increases.
The only thing presumably thiscandidate wouldn't want to cut
back on is we also need moredollars, and this is why your
rates go up for for transmissionand distribution.
You know, as we're getting moreenergy from projects out of
state, like it actually costsmoney to bring it here to

(15:47):
California.
Um so, you know, like you said,this candidate's out there
promising something that reallyresonates with people right now.
What he's not saying, or she,whoever they are, what they're
not saying is that to actuallyachieve that, we would have to
make backwards progress in termsof wildfire mitigation, to your
point, Ross, and in in in termsof all those climate goals.

(16:07):
But what you just hit on, Craig,is people are struggling right
now.
People are hurting.
And so, yeah, we want cleanenergy, but how much are we
willing to pay?
How much can we pay to achieveit?

SPEAKER_02 (16:17):
So look at the electricity costs.
Uh, you know, Trump made astopped all the wind farms.
All the you know, it says no, wecan't do the wind farms anymore.
But yet how many of those windfarms were supplying the power
for Northern California for allthose AI computers that's
pulling a ton of energy and nowthey are restricted from using
that cat.
So once again, where is thepower going to come from?
Yeah, and and where the youknow, because we're going

(16:38):
backwards and not trying to useclean energy.

SPEAKER_01 (16:41):
Yeah, I I I I agree.
And I also think um, you know,something that I maybe is a
little controversial, but I Idon't think it's that
controversial is nuclear power.
Uh, I'm not saying we shouldembrace nuclear tomorrow, but
what I'm saying is we used tohave uh a larger portfolio of
nuclear energy in our energyportfolio.

SPEAKER_02 (16:59):
Yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 (17:00):
And now look, we we we've shied away from it because
there are truly unansweredquestions about how you properly
handle and dispose of thatwaste.
But at the same time, we have tobe honest with the public and
say we can't meet all of ourenergy demands in a really cold
winter day or a high peak, youknow, hot summer day with wind,
solar, and geothermal.
There just isn't enough that wecan generate.
Um perhaps if we could solve thelong-term battery storage

(17:23):
problems, you could store it fora day at a time, maybe.
So if the point is if we're notgoing to seriously look at
nuclear, is it green hydrogen?
What is the stable baseloadpower source that we can rely on
and we can crank up on a reallyhot uh heat dome sort of day?
That's where I don't think we'veanswered that question.
We we spent a lot of timetalking about all the things we
don't like, but we have to get alot more realistic with people

(17:45):
right now because whenever wedon't do that and we have to
fire up those peaker plants thatBurbank Water and Power
operates.
Well, for all of usenvironmentalists out there, I
mean, that breaks my heart thatwe have to do that, but we
haven't answered.
Well, if we're gonna transitionoff of fossil fuel, what do we
actually replace it with that'sreliable and affordable?

SPEAKER_02 (18:04):
Okay, I think I think it's those are good
responses.
I think it's for people to thinkabout.

SPEAKER_00 (18:10):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (18:10):
Um I'm gonna throw another off top another change
of topic here.
Something you might have, youknow, some it's not inside
knowledge, but you uh you willunderstand more than most
people.
Um because you used to work yourformer boss, the attorney
general.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Um he has now, I think, filedfifty-five lawsuits against the

(18:31):
Trump administration for variousreasons.
Those lawsuits need lawyers.
There's fifty-five lawsuits, andprobably there's two or three
lawyers in every lawsuit.
Where where are we justifyingthis expense of all those
lawsuits and all those lawyersto litigate this?
And what what so what what arewe not spending that money on

(18:53):
that we're because that's I'msure his budget in advance
didn't include enough for 50 or60 lawsuits against the federal
government.
So money has to be come fromsomewhere for that.
And w isn't that money that weshould be using for other things
in this world besides suing thefederal government?
I mean, that's that's a lot ofmoney.
And you have inside informationbecause you used to be working
for the attorney general'soffice.

(19:14):
Now, I don't say you haveanything to do with these
lawsuits, but you have anunderstanding of what goes on in
the situation like this.
So what do you what do you thinkabout the amount of waste we're
we're wasting money on theselawsuits, in my opinion, because
in three years, life will goback to normal again.

SPEAKER_01 (19:29):
Well, I I think, you know, um I I I'll respectfully
disagree, Craig, that we'rewasting money, but I will
acknowledge that what you justbrought up are legitimate
concerns and points that wedebated on the assembly floor.
So so just to give a littlecontext, and then I'll I'll more
directly answer your question.
About a year ago at this time,uh, you know, one of the first
votes I took in the assembly wasto allocate$25 million from the

(19:52):
general fund so that DOJ couldinitiate all these lawsuits.
And and look, there were a lotof folks, uh Republicans.
Moderate Dems who raise thesevery points.
And look, it does come at acost.
What I would say though is thatI do think that at least to a
degree, some of that spendinghas been warranted.
So I'll give you one concreteexample.
You might remember earlier thisyear, there was a point in time

(20:15):
where President Trump was sayingthat he was going to impound
money that Congress hadallocated to California and just
not send it.

SPEAKER_02 (20:28):
Or is that a different one?
There was a couple of times.

SPEAKER_01 (20:32):
The universities, SNAP.
And so I would say I don't thinkthe point I'm trying to make is
you know, we shouldn't just filelawsuits for the sake of filing
lawsuits.
And 50 does seem like a highnumber.
On the other hand, I think thereare some righteous times where
we have sued the administrationas overstepping their authority.
And certainly when Congress hasmade a decision to give the

(20:53):
state of California X million orbillion dollars, whatever it is,
and the president is justsaying, I don't feel like it,
I'm not going to allow it tohappen.
Certainly, I think in that case,a lawsuit more than pays for
itself.
But I can tell you, havingworked for Rob Bonta, you know,
generally speaking, he's had apretty good track record of
success.
And in fact, last time in thefirst Trump administration,

(21:14):
granted it was Javi or Becerra,I think we won about two-thirds
of the cases that we brought.
So if we are having similarsuccess, then I think that you
can make the case that there'ssome value to it.

SPEAKER_02 (21:25):
Do we recover costs in those lawsuits when that
happens?

SPEAKER_01 (21:28):
It depends on the circumstance, you know, but ja
so it depends on what kind of alawsuit.
Generally speaking, if you're ina civil case, uh you can
recover, in theory, uh the costof litigation.
But in this case, you're dealingwith the federal government, so
probably not.
Um What I would say though isthat one of the things that we
included when we appropriatedthe money is we said that DOJ

(21:52):
has to have a public-facingportal.
And I can provide you guys thelink after this where you can
actually go and see how muchmoney is being spent on each
lawsuit, the success metrics.
Certainly, Craig, I would say ifwe start losing more cases than
we're winning and we're notgetting a good return on
investment, that would be achange in circumstance.
And the$25 million isn'tforever.
Clearly, they'll have to comeback for more.

(22:13):
So when it does, we're gonnahave to look at are we getting a
good return on our investment?

SPEAKER_02 (22:18):
And I think you have to also look at the, you know,
if a lawsuit takes a year to twoyears to go through.
True.
And by the time it goes through,he's got a year left.
Yeah, you know, I mean, I Iunderstand if it it would go
quicker through the system, butsometimes it does not go very
quick, and that's a lot of a lotof lawyer hours being spent.
So that that's that that's asfar as I mean, I just I look at

(22:41):
that and and as a taxpayer, Igo, well, that's kind of well,
and I'll give you one moreexample, Craig, because I, you
know, to validate your concern.

SPEAKER_01 (22:48):
So I'll I'll give you a the flip side of the coin.
So one of your earlier questionstonight was was, you know, do
people should people feel likewe're actually listening to them
and responding to them?
I'll give you one example whereI think that we did, but there
is cost and there's riskassociated with that.
So we've had ICE operating inour community and in Los Angeles
more more re uh more broadlyspeaking.

(23:10):
So we passed two bills thisyear, SB 627 and SB 805, um,
which did two things.
One bill prohibited the maskingof federal law enforcement, so
they can't wear a mask.

SPEAKER_02 (23:21):
Right, but they said they were not gonna respond to
they're not gonna respect thatlaw.
So that's what we do.
It's like we got to release thefiles in 30 days.
They didn't do that.
Nobody seems to they they dowhat they want to do, they don't
care about deadlines and laws.

SPEAKER_01 (23:33):
Well, exactly.
And and to your point, the otherbill just by the way, had to do
with identification that theofficer wears.
But I I do agree with you,Craig.
Like we did something that thecommunity was asking for.
We listened to constituents, butnow the consequence is the
federal government hasn't justsaid they won't follow it.
They're taking us to court, theydon't think it's constitutional,
and then now our Department ofJustice has to defend it.

(23:56):
More money.
It's true.
And and the other thing that'sreally sad about this entire uh
entire equation is that I don'thave a great degree of
confidence in the Supreme Courtto be fair and neutral when the
vaccine is.

SPEAKER_03 (24:07):
You know, you know where the fair is.
It's in Pomona, and it starts inMay.
That's the only thing when youtalk about fair, and Supreme
Court should go out there andvisit.

SPEAKER_01 (24:17):
I agree.
But but but I but I will I willsay this, and I will I know
there's more topics, but I willsay when I'm voting on
legislation up there in theCapitol, these are all the
things I'm considering.
Because you're right, sometimesthere's competing there's
competing values.
Like, yes, we want to stand upfor our immigrant community, we
want to make a point, but toyour observation, Craig, we also
have to be realistic that itcomes at a cost, there's always

(24:39):
a trade-off.
It's like the utility rateconversation.
We want to achieve our climategoals, but who's gonna bear the
brunt of it?
Who's gonna pay for it?
Working people that need to dotheir laundry at 6 p.m.
and are gonna pay a lot throughthe nose because rates are going
up.
And so that I think that's thechallenge is that politicians at
the local level, yes, butespecially at the state level,

(25:00):
it is so easy to look for thequick win or you know, the the
flashy headline.
It's really hard to think likeabout the policy thoughtfully
and say, okay, what is the inthe long-term best interest of
our okay?

SPEAKER_03 (25:12):
Let's take, for example, you are our assembly
member for Burbank in severalother local cities.
Sure.
How many how many people are notgoing to doctor's appointments,
aren't going to church anymore,are afraid to leave their front
their house for that fear.
That fear is gonna take years toget over that for people.

(25:35):
You know, and and the what areyou know, here in Burbank, are
they picking up what have theypicked up?
One or two, a couple of peoplehere in town?
You know, um, and it just itkind of gets you that there's
now I call them, I don't want tosay vigilante groups, but
there's we started a radio watchgroup how many years ago to pick

(25:56):
up when people wouldn't wouldtheir dogs would poop in the
park and we were on patrol forthat.
Now there's these groupsgathering to watch for ice
agents coming into your city.
Yeah.
You know, they could be doing alot more stuff than sitting
waiting for ice to come intoBurbank.

SPEAKER_01 (26:13):
Well, I think it it it's a challenge because um, you
know, to the folks that are partof, I think it's Burbank
Community Defense, I I I applaudthem in the to the extent that
these are people that feel, Iwould imagine, kind of helpless,
powerless in the situation whereyou see a federal government
resembling more and more likeHitler on the rise in in the
1930s in Germany.

(26:33):
I mean, it's just all rules offair play are out the window.
But to your point though, Ross,I mean, there is that line of
how much is it helping?
And then at what point are youalmost instilling more fear by
riling people up?
And and that and that's the proand that's the environment in
which Donald Trump operates.
It's all about fear.
I mean, they may only have twoICE operations any given day,
but all of Los Angeles, all 12million people that call the

(26:56):
region home, are fearful of iftheir community is going to get
hit that day.
And so that that's his playbook.
He's driving an entire immigrantcommunity underground.
And and the last thing I'll say,Ross, uh, because I Craig, you
might want to jump in uh or havea different topic, but the the
real cost in all of this is thatthis is really going to hurt
public health and public safety.

(27:17):
Um, when you're afraid to call911, crimes like domestic
violence go unreported.
When you don't go to the doctorbecause you're afraid that
you're going to get picked upand you'll never see your family
again, medical treatments go,medical procedures go
unfulfilled, things areuntreated, and then they do wind
up in the ER.
And guess what?
They get the services they needbecause physicians have taken

(27:38):
the Hippocratic oath, and thenwe all pay more for it anyway.
I mean, that's the ironic thingis if we really want to promote
public health, public safety,you want these communities that
are feeling more isolated thanever right now to actually
engage with public healthentities.
You want them to engage in lawwith law enforcement and report
crime.
And doing the opposite, it playsto the crowd, uh to Donald

(28:00):
Trump's base, but it actuallymakes a less safe community.
And that's again, that's thetruth.
But we as Democratic electedofficials, because we've been
railing against Donald Trump, weought to do a better job of
connecting those dots for peopleand saying if you want public
safety, do not embrace what thisman is selling.
Well, you're right.

SPEAKER_02 (28:19):
I'm gonna change topics a little bit for you.
We've been some pretty seriousstuff here going on.
Let's talk, and and this isserious, but it's a little not
not as, you know.
Sure.
Let's talk about theentertainment industry a little.
Yeah, something that reallyaffects that affects Burbank and
all that.
It's number one, we have the bigmerger possibly going through.
Yep.
And you know, we don't know whatthat merger really is gonna mean

(28:39):
for the future of WarnerBrothers land.
They may decide to come in andmake it like Universal Studios
and put a city walk type thingin and amusement rides and
everything else into thatproperty.
Um, and I kind of talked to themayor about that and said, are
we zoned?
Uh you know to make sure thatdoesn't happen.
There's really no answer tothat.
So okay, that that's the bigmerger is is a huge thing.

(29:01):
But what about the the localpeople, you know, the jobs and
everything else?
You know, it's it's too bad thatin all the tariffs that Trump
did, he couldn't have put atariff on going to other
countries for production.
Yeah you know, keep productionin the United States, and
especially in California, andespecially here in Burbank.
So what what are your thoughtson because this is your your

(29:22):
backyard?

SPEAKER_01 (29:23):
Oh yeah.
I mean, Craig, I appreciate thequestion.
Um, and I'll just give thebackground of saying, as you
guys know, we we bolstered thefilm and television tax credit
program this year because weunderstand how critical it is to
our economy.
Um let me ask real quick on thisbecause I don't know the
specifics.

SPEAKER_02 (29:39):
Oh, are we matching other states or other countries?
Or are we even are we better toto really lure people to stay
here or to come back here?

SPEAKER_01 (29:48):
It's it's a great question.
Generally speaking, we're one ofthe top in the nation.
Um I can't remember I can'tremember at this point if New
York has doubled up and and andpassed us again, but we're one
of the top states in the countryin terms of those that have set
a cap, uh a limit.
We're one of the highest, if notthe highest.
There are other states that havean uncapped program, meaning

(30:09):
that they will spend howevermuch comes to their state.
So like Georgia.
So in that way, we'd be trailingthem.
Um, you know, but I would say onthe whole, the what we did this
year was uh made a$330 millionprogram, a$750 million program,
which is huge, and we expandedthe kind of content that can
take advantage of the tax creditcredit program.

(30:30):
So like animation's a hugeemployer in this town.
They can now uh uh buy into theincentive program and have a
reason to stay here.
So those are the good things wedid.
Um, but to your point, Craig, Imean, I'm concerned.
Um, you know, obviously I'mconcerned for two reasons.
The the first and foremostreason is jobs.
What's the future of WarnerBrothers Studios?
How much content's gonna becreated here?

(30:51):
Um, are people going to get pinkslips overnight?
And and I want to be clear, I'mnot trying to sound the alarm.
It's gonna be a while before themergers finalize.
We don't know what the impactis.
I do think that policymakersshould be both sounding the
alarm to the public and tofederal regulators, but also
engaging with the parties at thetable, saying, whoever, however,
this works out, we want jobs tostay in our community.

(31:13):
And we should be looking atlocal incentives and cutting red
tape locally to make it moreenticing to film here and to
keep jobs here.
Um, quick note I'll mention isuh council member Adrien
Nazarian in City of LAintroduced nine motions to make
it um easier to film content inLA.
Burbank should do the same thingtomorrow.
They should take his blueprintand say his concepts of like a

(31:34):
one dollar per day uh to uh fora film permit, do that in
Burbank.
Like like all of that should bedone locally.

SPEAKER_03 (31:41):
Well, you know, when you talk about this merger, if
it happens or if it doesn't,yeah, I don't know.
I don't think I have talked toone person that works in the
industry that says Netflix isgood to work for.
Um they they take theirproduction out of the US, going

(32:02):
to Canada, going to Europe allthe time.
Yeah, London's a big location.
Yeah.
Um I just watched a special, butalso how many households have
Netflix?
Oh, everybody has one, right?
Doesn't it?
Yeah.
They're the largest, so where dothey get the money?

SPEAKER_01 (32:16):
From you and me, folks.
Well, and and to your point,Ross, uh so going back to the
merger at hand, it is concerningbecause you're right.
Um, look, you could I'm I'mgonna take another local
example.
So we had NBC, it merged withUniversal, and then Comcast
bought that entity.
So we've seen this before.
The difference about this time,though, is that Netflix operates
under a model.

(32:37):
I mean, their mission is to makefilm studios and going to the
movies a thing of the past.
I mean, so I would say this is aunique threat to the industry
that we haven't historicallyfaced.
That's right, you're holding upyour phone and that's where
people are watching theircontent.
On the other hand, you know,what I would say is I have my
concerns about Netflix.
I also have separate concernsabout Paramount.

(32:57):
I think we would all agree thatwe would love it if Warner
Brothers could just continue tooperate as Warner Brothers.
Unfortunately, this industry isconsolidating and changing.
And so I think change is coming.
I think what we should be doingis trying to steer it towards a
better outcome and reallyemphasizing that no matter what
that merger looks like, who's incharge of that studio, it can't

(33:17):
just be uh a museum toHollywood's past.
It needs to be an active placefor film production.
We've got to keep jobs locally.
At the state level, Craig andRoss, you know, we're gonna be
looking at even building on ourwork this year, more incentives
to keep production inCalifornia, where we need the
locals to do even more.
I'm not saying that they haven'tdone anything by any stretch,
but where they can do evenbetter, uh, in my view, have a

(33:40):
film commission or a dedicatedfilm office.
Look at like what Santa Claritais doing.
Um, they have an actual localfinancial program that they've
committed to being an extraadded incentive to film in their
city.
Look at what LA is doing, tryingto cut the red tape any place
that they can.
Um I in the legislature can tryto keep cut production in

(34:00):
California.
We need the city council and weneed city staff really
hyper-focused on how do we makesure that production comes to
Burbank and not any other city.

SPEAKER_03 (34:08):
They need to lure, you're right, these these film
companies, because the majorityof these people, when you drive
down the street, I didyesterday, Frank's famous
restaurant.
It's been in how many shows?
Oh my goodness, so many.
They're filming out there.
Those are local folks, those arelocal people that are working
those jobs.
They're not flying in from othercountries and other states.

(34:30):
They're local.

SPEAKER_02 (34:31):
I think the assembly member from Burbank needs to
write a letter to the BurbankCity Council outlining these
steps and saying we need to actnow on this instead of down the
line.
Five months from now, a yearfrom now.
I think we think it's a prioritythat would help our city.
I think maybe you should spillout a list of things that we
should be doing immediately andlet's see if we can get get it
on the agenda.

SPEAKER_03 (34:51):
We are in a crisis.
We are in a crisis, folks.
The the production here is nil.
You talk to anybody.
You know, um excuse me, uh talkto the local dry cleaners how
how their business is affected.
We need to do something now.
Not six months, not a year.

(35:12):
Let's get it done now.

SPEAKER_01 (35:13):
Well, and and the last thing I'll say, Craig, is I
I appreciate your comment.
I appreciate your comment too,Ross.
But you're totally right, Craig.
I will be engaged on this issue.
I like to come to the table, andI'll say, by the way, I've had
great conversations with um uhcouncilmember Anthony, um with
our incoming mayor or new mayor,uh Mayor Takahashi about this
issue, and I look forward tomore conversations.

(35:35):
Look, I I want to becollaborative.
I'm not the duly elected councilmember for Burbank, so I'm not
going to tell them what theyshould do, but what I will do to
both your point is I am morethan happy to say this is what
I'm seeing other jurisdictionsdoing.
This is a toolbox from which youcould pick.
And I think any or all of theseideas are great.
And I am more than happy to showup and voice my support for the

(35:55):
council taking any and all kindsof action.
And I I think it's on all theabove approach.
Um, so I'm hopeful that theywill.
I'm cautiously optimistic thatthey will.
I think all five of them uh careabout the community, they get
it, they represent the mediacapital of the world.

SPEAKER_03 (36:10):
They're hearing from their constituents exactly.
They're getting evicted, they'regetting kicked out of Burbank,
they can't afford to keep theirkids in the local school.

SPEAKER_01 (36:19):
It's a trickle-down effect here, folks.
That's right.
And so my and to the extent thatany of them may listen to this,
I mean, I would just say mymessage is I'm not here to tell
you what you should do, but whatI am here to do is say we want
to help, we want to be helpful.
We'll gladly share any and allof the ideas that we're seeing
around the region.
And if there's something that wecan do, show up a meeting, show
support, get data for you foryou from the state phone

(36:41):
commission, like we are here.
Um again, like I want productionin California, but Burbank's my
home.
Allie works in the industry,it's deeply personal to me.
So um the council will have myfull and complete partnership on
that.

SPEAKER_03 (36:54):
Yeah, okay, there's a good example.
Your wife works in the industry,you know, and who knows where
her job is in six months to ayear.

SPEAKER_01 (37:05):
Yeah, it's a pressure we face.
We we talk about it every day.
I mean, what when people aresaying they're they're uncertain
and they're worried about thefuture of Warner Brothers, it's
not an abstract concept to me.
That's dinner table talk in ourhouse.
So, like I I I get it, and Iwill say that the state did
something this year.
We need to do a whole lot more,but we did something this year.
I applaud the city for startingthe conversation about the film

(37:28):
commission and getting theconsultant on board.
But 2026 has to be the year ofaction.
No more talk and it needs to beabout delivering results, and
the state can't rest on ourlaurels either.
We got to build on what we didand do more.

SPEAKER_02 (37:40):
Ready to turn the page again?
Sure, let's do it.
What do you got?
We're kind of new script.
We're gonna we're gonna move tothe let's move to
transportation.
Okay.
Let's talk about infrastructureand and uh things like that.
Okay, so Burbank's got twobridges that are over 60 years
old and both need replacing andmodernization.
We have a thing called this BRTthat they want to kind of shove

(38:02):
down our throats down all ofAvenue.
Um now I know that's that's moreof the Metro Board, which is not
a state thing, but but what whatare your thoughts on on
infrastructure and on uhtransportation and it affects
the local Burbank people?

SPEAKER_01 (38:16):
So I would say two things.
Um going back to ourconversation about housing,
Sacramento does a really greatjob.
I'm being a little facetious,but like a really great job of
talking about more housing, morehousing, mandating it, uh
upzoning, all that.

SPEAKER_02 (38:31):
We are we love SB35, by the way, you know.
What is that?
We love SB 35.
Thanks for coming back to ourthroats.
We all appreciated that.

SPEAKER_01 (38:38):
I know.

SPEAKER_02 (38:39):
Like we were not at farming.

SPEAKER_01 (38:40):
I was not involved in that one.
No, but but but but what we'renot doing a good enough job is
actually building theinfrastructure to make these
communities that plate peoplewant to be in or the uh and
places they can get in and outof.
So the point I'm trying to makeis we absolutely have to do a
better job.
Um look, a big part of what thestate can do is more resources.
Um we uh I I'm a big believer intalk about our wins, but I also

(39:03):
think it's important that youguys and your listeners hear
about our failures too.
We introduced uh Assembly Bill939 this year, which would have
been a$20 billion infrastructureand transportation bond for
bridge replacement, for um uh uhnew roads, new alternatives to
driving.
Like it was all abouttransportation infrastructure.

(39:23):
Now, that one did not get ahearing, it didn't get out of
transportation committee.
Um, I think it was a missedopportunity, although I would be
remiss if I didn't mention thatthe reason that was given was
that we couldn't afford moredebt servicing at the state with
our budget deficit.
And I can't say that's a totallyunreasonable answer.
But what I would say though isthat in future years, we've got

(39:44):
to find uh more opportunitiesfor revenue generation that is
focused and dedicated ontransportation and building
those infrastructure projects.
Because when you build thosereplacement bridges, including
the Olive Avenue Bridge,whatever the future of the BRT,
we need a new bridge.
You're gonna put a Lot of peopleto work, a lot of crafts
building that bridge.
So I look at it as it's not justgood for transportation, it

(40:07):
certainly is, especially if youbuild a bridge with like
dedicated bikes, all that stuff.
Yeah.
Exactly.
It's about creating jobs.
It's the one thing thegovernment can really do to help
actually create jobs.

SPEAKER_02 (40:19):
Okay.
Well, I'd like to see some, youknow, hopefully you get some
progress.
I mean, transportation, we canhave all the bus routes in the
world.
We have the Burbank bus thatnobody really rides.
Yeah.
You know, if if if we did thatshow when you were mayor, or we
did on the bus.
Yeah, if the results aren'treally helping people or or or

(40:39):
having people use them, then youknow we can have all the systems
in the world, but they have tobe convenient for people to use.

SPEAKER_01 (40:45):
I mean, and safe.
And safe.
And to your point, Craig, Iwould mention in terms of
success, one thing that we didthis year was we worked with
Laurie Wilson, an assemblymember from Northern California,
to run a bill about violence onpublic transit.
So it was a bill brought by thebus drivers, the operators of
public transit.
And we actually stepped up uhboth the punishments and the

(41:06):
stay away orders to try andbuild a transit system where if
somebody's coming on andaccosting a transit operator,
they don't get to keep abusingthe system and putting everybody
else at jeopardy.
Those are where I think morethings the state can legislate
and make sure that we have uhhopefully uh affordable and
reliable transit, but alsotransit that is safe.
That's a really critical thing,too.

(41:26):
If people can ride the red lineand know it's safe, they'll use
it.

SPEAKER_03 (41:29):
Well, I I'm curious, and um we've talked about it
before.
You sit on several committees.
Yes, sir.
Committees that you have wantedto sit on with your experience
working for DOJ, being anattorney, are there currently,
you know, all the committeesthat you're on, it's like a
chest match or checkers.

(41:50):
I mean, are are things movingforward?
Are you, you know, getting billspassed that you specifically are
really pushing for currently?

SPEAKER_01 (42:00):
Oh, absolutely.
And if I'm looking down at myphone, um, I apologize, but I
wanted to pull this up.
So I would say in terms ofpublic safety, which is the one
committee that I chair, it'sbeen a really productive year.
We had over 200 bills that wereintroduced that we processed.
Not all of them made it throughthe other house, not all of them
were signed by the governor, butwe did a lot of legislation this

(42:22):
year around not only uh lookingat new crimes, new enhancements,
new new sentences uh for, forexample, criminal threats,
people that are putting in abomb threat to a mosque or a
synagogue, for example, wewanted to deter that.
We also put in place um a lotmore bills around re-entry, uh
folks that are leaving prison,making sure that they have

(42:43):
access and connection tohousing, job placement.
Um incarcerated firefighters wasa really hot topic this year.
But the reason I was looking atmy phone is I wanted to bring
this up.
Uh, you know, when I took officeuh a little more than a year
ago, people were really feelingunsafe in Los Angeles and in
California.
I don't share this to suggestthat the work is done.

(43:04):
And I certainly don't want totake credit for this.
This is not all the work of NickSchultz, but myself, my
colleagues, the governor, andlocal electives working
together, these stats came outfrom the Major Cities Chiefs
Association.
So these are the police chiefsfor all of the major cities in
California.
Homicides are down 18%statewide, robberies down 18%,

(43:25):
aggravated assaults down 9%.
I bring that up to say thatviolent crime is trending
downward and substantially.
So I think that if we continuedoing what we started this year,
hopefully those numbers aregonna get even better.
And I think that's how we startto bring back safety in
California and people all of asudden maybe do feel more
comfortable riding the bus,riding the train, walking in

(43:47):
their neighborhood.

SPEAKER_03 (43:48):
You mean your neighbors might leave their
front doors unlocked like theyused to twenty thirty years ago?

SPEAKER_01 (43:53):
I don't know if we're there yet.
But um I would say, look, ifthat was a report card uh for my
work this year, I would takethat as I'm not gonna give
myself a name, but that's apassing grade.
I think if it's trendingdownward, that means that what
we're doing is working.
And now it's about okay, great,we had one good year, fantastic.
But it's only gonna make adifference if we have two,
three, four, five good yearsback to back.

(44:15):
So back to work in two weeks, asthey say.

SPEAKER_02 (44:18):
Well, new chapter?

SPEAKER_01 (44:20):
Sure, let's do it.

SPEAKER_02 (44:21):
I know your time's limited and we got a lot of
topics.
Sure, we jump in, let me jumpinto schools and school funding.
You have uh a daughter aboutready to start the Burbank
school system, and and you'regonna be part of that whole
system?

SPEAKER_01 (44:32):
Yes, sir.

SPEAKER_02 (44:33):
Um, we're in financial trouble, substantial
financial trouble.
Like I said in the beginning,the lotto is supposed to solve
that.
But what's happened is themoney, the extra money we got
for the lotto became money thatwas then taken away from from
the state.
So we're still in the samesituation we were 40 years ago.
But our schools are in direneed, not only of

(44:54):
infrastructure, but also to payteachers and everything else.
So kind of my comment orquestion is is, and once again,
you can't do this all yourself.
You're not the king ofCalifornia.
No, but um, what what do you seefor to help these schools and
and get through this financialuh their schools going bankrupt
right now, and their schools arethey have to close down schools,

(45:17):
their schools are uh endingsports and like in Pasadena,
combining the sports into oneschool.
I mean, there's a lot of seriousthings and stuff going on that
is gonna really affect the theaverage student development in
most formative years of theirlives.

SPEAKER_01 (45:32):
Yeah, it it's a great question, Craig, and I
would add that like theentertainment industry question,
this is one that's personal tous because as we look at the
district's financial situationand as there's concerns about
what could happen down the road,look, if there were school
closures, heaven forbid, likethat could impact us directly.
So we're we're we're feeling it.
I would say there's a couplethings.

(45:55):
At the state level, we have tolook at school funding.
Um, these are the things that wecan control.
Uh well there we go.
Sorry, Ross with the selfiethere.
I love it.

SPEAKER_02 (46:04):
You know, you know that um the always the big
thing, you know, when peopletalk about school funding, they
always say, remember, studentsdon't vote.
That's why they always get leftbehind.

SPEAKER_01 (46:13):
That's right.
So so look, you know, we had weactually upped uh per pupil
funding in California over, Ithink,$26,000 this year.
The issue with that's specificto Burbank is you have a
district with consecutive yearsof declining enrollment.
So I would say there's a couplethings that we can do.
And by the way, both of theseideas came as a product from

(46:33):
conversation with the boardmembers and with the interim
superintendent Oscar Macsias.
So I share this to say whetheryou agree with these folks or
not, I can at least report toyou and your listeners that
they're engaging with ouroffice.
They are coming to the assemblyand saying, we need help.
Here are our ideas for change.
We're obviously taking theirideas, but we're vetting them,
right?
We're making sure that theyactually make sense and we make

(46:56):
good policy.
But I think the major thing wehave to look at is how we fund
our schools.
As you all know, we fund itbased on average daily
attendance as opposed toenrollment.
That's something that SenatorPortantino talked about for
years.
Uh we agree, and that'ssomething that we're hoping to
champion this year.
We want to make it so that evenif you only have 95 out of 100

(47:16):
students reporting every day,you get funding for all 100.
Because that 5%, to your pointearlier, Ross, they might not be
coming to school because they'reworried about whether their
parents are going to get pickedup.
We have to account for that.
That's that's one thing.
Uh, the other thing I would sayis that there have been some
proposals from the BurbankSchool Board and from the
superintendent related to thecategorizations of funding.

(47:40):
There's a lot of funding thatthey actually can't touch
because they don't meet criteriato tap into.
So they've asked for moreflexibility or at least to apply
it to the strategic reservesthat they have to maintain.
So these are the things thatwe're looking at.
Point I'm trying to make is atthe state level, it's all
funding.
Um, I agree with what you'resaying.

SPEAKER_02 (47:58):
I know that I don't know the specific r reasons, but
I know that some districtsreceive money for certain things
and diversities and things likethat that Burbank can't get.
Why can't we open up thatfunding to all the districts so
Burbank's not even footing withother districts?
Because other districts aregetting the funding and then the
recruiting out of Burbank.

SPEAKER_01 (48:16):
Well, and that's exactly it.
So at the state level, we cantalk about looking at the
criteria, expanding it, givingmore flexibility to transfer
funds between differentcategories.
Those are all the tools that wecan do at the state level.
The local solution is going tobe we have to find a way to
reverse the downward trends inenrollment.
And I think that where thatbecomes difficult is we can do

(48:38):
all this zoning reform and allthis stuff at the state level.
Um, we need our our city staffand council to the extent that
they can, and not saying theydon't want to, but we need them
to find more opportunities formissing middle-income housing in
our community.
Because when the average homesale price is$1.4 million and
your kids and grandkids can'tafford to live here, there are

(48:59):
fewer kids in our schools.
We have to solve theaffordability crisis.

SPEAKER_02 (49:03):
Not only that, but the um you believe so many
apartments that are just one ortwo bedroom apartments where
it's just a couple, they don'thave children moving in.
So there's less children evenmoving in.

SPEAKER_01 (49:13):
Yep.
And I'll say the council membersI've talked to is special credit
to Constantine Anthony, havetalked to year for years about,
for example, the the liabilityuh uh uh that that applies to
condominium development and thatleading to less condos being
built.
We need more townhomes beingbuilt.
Um, it's not that we're tryingto take away from our stockpile

(49:33):
of single family homes, but thereality is we have we have a ton
of apartments, we have a nicehealthy stockpile of
single-family homes, and we donot have a lot of in between.
So, how do you, paying, youknow,$2,000 plus dollars a month
for rent, ever save up enough toput that down payment down for
your$1.4 million house?
It just you can't.
What you can do is havesomething in between, like a

(49:55):
condo, like a townhome, wheremaybe a young prof, and it's
still going to be beyond reachfor so many people.
That's the sad thing.
But maybe some hardworking youngprofessionals can scrape
together enough to get thatcondo at$600,000 and then build
that equity and maybe upgradeone day.
We're not doing any of that.
At the state level, we can lookat things like liability, we can

(50:16):
look at other impediments toconstruction, we can do a lot of
it, and where we'll need thelocals to help and assist is
just actually green light theseprojects with more of a home
ownership component, I think.

unknown (50:26):
Okay.

SPEAKER_03 (50:27):
Ross, you need to follow up or well it it it
concerns me because you look ata town like Burbank, there's no
stock to buy.
You're not building singlefamily homes, you know, you're
kind of locked into it.
But what I noticed that we're ina situation now that it was
caused way before your timebeing elected, you know, and how

(50:51):
do we correct so many issues?
I don't think our listeners, youknow, and followers understand
how much there is going on.

SPEAKER_02 (51:01):
Like you were saying before, though, we have all
these lands like the uh the IKEAproperty, like the other but the
problem is these are privatelyowned.
You can't make somebody developthem.
You're right.
They're sitting there andthere's and the banks aren't
gonna finance them.
Well, we're gonna solve thoseproblems because that's not
publicly owned land.
So it's all catch 22 in a in oneway.

SPEAKER_03 (51:19):
Well, what kind of gets me is the fries property.
Let's take that for uh example.
They do they leveled that friesbuilding they were supposed to
build.
That project is now nothappening.
Yeah, you're talking how muchland out there's the old Bob
Hoop Museum, too.
That's a system.
It just there's these the IKEA.
How many years have we looked atthe old IKEA not getting

(51:43):
developed?

SPEAKER_02 (51:44):
Or like you say, and then you look at the ranch
property, which is now thenumber one production facility
in the United States as far aswhat they can do, and that got
built in within two years.
So you they can do what theywant to do, it because they're
making money.
Exactly.
So um, anyhow, we let's get offof that.
Sure.
Your time is short.
I we understand right now.

(52:05):
So we're in the epilogue now.
We the chapters are over withinthe epilogue.

SPEAKER_03 (52:08):
Yeah, we got a call from we got a call from uh the
Southwest Airlines that's ohthey need me back, okay.

SPEAKER_02 (52:13):
Yes.
So 2025 was your first year, andI'm sure a lot of new
experiences and a lot oflearning curves and all that.
But 220 2026 is now on thehorizon.
So talk about you know, kind ofwhat you learned in 2025 and
what you foresee in 2026.
What are your goals?
What are your ambitions?
What do you what do you thinkyou can do better now that you

(52:33):
have a lay of the land?

SPEAKER_01 (52:35):
Yeah, I I appreciate the question.
And and by the way, um, youknow, we're sitting here and
it's uh I'm just looking at mycounty.
It's Monday, December 22nd.
I have a little uh digital clockon my desk.
My I go back to session in lessthan two weeks.
So our first session is January5th, one o'clock.
So 2026 is we're on the eve ofit, right?
Like through the holidays, likeless than two weeks, we are back

(52:56):
in session.
Um, I would say what I learneduh when I think about all the
bills that I worked this year,really two things.
Understanding the importance ofquality legislation as opposed
to just doing something to looklike you're doing something.
Um, I'm really proud of thebills that we got signed by the
governor.
Um and when I look back at thestart of the year, there are

(53:18):
maybe one or two bills where I'mlike, you know what, maybe I
wouldn't have run that inhindsight.
Uh, you know, we don't, youdon't need to run 30 bills.
If you run 10 quality bills thatcan actually solve problems in
California, that's a great year.
If you can get all those signedby the governor.
The other thing I would say is,you know, when I walked in,
especially being on council, Iwas so in the weeds on policy,

(53:38):
and I still am, as you guysknow.
But I've learned in the courseof this year there is that
disconnect.
Like we're doing great work inthe Capitol, and yet so many
people don't know about it.
So it's understanding thepolitics of you can be working
on all this great stuff, butwhen people are just worried
about making their rent today orwhether their job's gonna be
there next year, unless you'retalking their language and

(54:00):
talking about affordability,cost of living, making it easier
to survive, they're not gonnahave the bandwidth or the
attention to just let you droneon and on about something else.
So I think in that way, I'mgonna be more focused next year.
Um, I'll give you twohighlights.
Obviously, you know, we're gonnacontinue to focus on jobs and
housing, front and center.
Those are gonna be everything.

(54:20):
So building on the film taxcredit, finding ways to um not
upzone everything, but I'msaying for all those parcels we
already have identified theFry's, the IKEA, the Kmart, how
do you actually get housingbuilt on there?
What are the other costs andimpediments and barriers?
That's gonna be the focus.
The other thing I'll quicklysay, and then I'll hand it back
to you, Craig, is in terms ofpublic safety, um, because I get

(54:43):
this one a lot.
You know, I think there's athere's a couple categories
where it's gonna be um this isgonna be a hot topic this
upcoming year.
Probably the biggest one thoughis DUI enforcement.
I know the LA Times, CalMatters,folks have been talking about
how state of California has moreuh driving under the influence
of fences and fatalities andinjuries than almost anywhere

(55:04):
else in the country.
And that makes the road lesssafe for pedestrians,
bicyclists.
You guys are the first mediasource I'm announcing it.
Uh, but at the end of January,we'll be holding a press
conference in the Capitol.
We might also do one locally, sowe'll keep you guys posted.
But I'm spearheading um withLori Wilson a bipartisan
legislative package, probablyabout four or five, maybe even

(55:24):
six bills, all aimed at DUI uhdetection and enforcement in
California, um, from what we cando to prevent people from
getting intoxicated and drivinga car in the first place, to
having a penalty structure thatincentivizes them to do the
right thing but takes dangerousdrivers off the road.
So that is something that lastyear in the first year, Craig, I

(55:47):
was more just surviving andtrying to come up with some good
ideas.
Being a year in, now I'm lookingat it more holistically.
Here's a problem, and we needour chair of transportation who
oversees DMV, all the regulatoryside, to work with me over here
in public safety, handling thecourts and the justice system.
And how do you have a package ofbills that actually tackle the

(56:07):
issue from every angle?

SPEAKER_03 (56:08):
Well, you know, that that kind of gets me because we
have state-of-the-art cars now.
You don't even have you can tellyour car to start.
You know, you don't need yearsago you had to put a key in the
key slot.
If you were drunk, you probablycouldn't find the key slot.
Now you don't even you have akey fob sitting in your pocket,
you push a button, your carstarts.
I've shot my you know, plenty ofDUI related accidents, fatality.

(56:35):
Just two weeks ago, right here,uh half a block from our studio,
Burbank Police posted a video.
You might have seen it.

SPEAKER_01 (56:44):
I did.

SPEAKER_03 (56:44):
The guy came around.
Thank God there weren't peoplemore people coming to the ball.

SPEAKER_01 (56:48):
Down right off the wall of uh Warner Brothers.

SPEAKER_03 (56:51):
Yeah.
Deuced, drunk.
Yeah, he went to jail, but wegotta do something to stop these
people from driving, you know.

SPEAKER_02 (57:00):
Our cars are I wonder how many how many times
has that that been has beenarrested for doing that.
I find most people arrest forDUI.
It's not the first time.

SPEAKER_01 (57:09):
No, no, I I I agree, and I'll I'll I'll give you a uh
just a slight preview of whatI'm looking at.
So in California, uh assumingyou don't hit and injure someone
or hit and kill them, heavenforbid, um, if it's just what we
call a technical DUI, so you'repulled over, you're drunk, okay.
You can only be charged for afelony on your fourth in 10
years, that's a lot.

(57:30):
Uh most states it it's lower.
So we're looking at what makessense.
Should it be eligible for felonyfiling at say your third?
Um, another thing we're lookingat is the license suspension
period.
So you actually can have alonger license suspension for
injuring someone than killingthem.

SPEAKER_03 (57:47):
But you know what gets me?
Those people, and I've witnessedit mu uh numerous times, those
people that get their licensesuspended.
Yes, they go into court, give usyour license.
They still get behind thegoddamn dr wheel and drive.
And I'm I'm gonna make a pointhere.
Craig and I don't drink.
I never have, uh, my whole life.

(58:07):
It's not sitting at a bardrinking your scotch and whiskey
and whatever, folks.
It's that one glass of wineafter another glass of wine till
that bottle is gone until youopen another.
You're the ones that are outthere killing people and getting
DUIs.
People need to takeresponsibility with their
drinking.

(58:27):
And I don't mean hard liquor, Imean wine.
Wine's a big thing now.
You know, I witness it when I goplaces.
I just can't believe how muchwine people go through.
That's alcohol, folks.

SPEAKER_01 (58:38):
No, bottom line.
Well, and and here's the thing,Ross.
I mean, if I can if I can havemy crystal ball for a moment and
look at the future, another billin the package will likely be
regarding the installation ofignition interlock devices in
your car and making thatprobably mandatory for most
first-timers.
But what I'll say is this ifthis package of bill and other
bills like it don't solve theproblem, and then this is my

(59:00):
plea to the public, then youmight find a day where every car
is a Waymo vehicle and you justdon't have the option to drive.
And and I have concerns aboutyou know autonomous vehicles
driving on our roads.
I already have concerns aboutthere.
But at the end of the day, theepidemic of road violence,
whether it's road rage or DUIfatalities, it's unacceptable in
California.
Um, so I bring all that up tosay, Craig, back to your

(59:22):
original question.
When I took the job a year ago,I knew like individually kind of
the things I wanted to work on.
Now, a year in being inleadership, I see these broader
problems at play in Californiaaffordability, public safety,
you name it, transit, housing.
And now I'm thinking in terms ofyou can't fix you can't fix that
in one year or with one bill,but how do you have a real

(59:44):
effort to make it better thisyear?
And then how do you startbuilding on that next year?
It's it's that longer term kindof higher bird's eye view
perspective that Laura had, um,that Adam Schiff had, we know
both the uh in the state senateand then the Congress.
It's like as you get moreexperience, you start thinking
beyond your time there andreally thinking about how do you

(01:00:04):
have lasting change.

SPEAKER_03 (01:00:06):
Well, you know, a good point.
You know, what it takes to getinto your phone.
Difficult.
But what what it takes to getinto your car and just drive
away, make it that difficult.
You know, I I I'm not a drinker,as I said.
So I'll go through.
Yes, it's a pain to do double assyndication and all that.

(01:00:27):
But you know what?
Getting into a car if I wasdrunk, if that would save one
more person.
That's right.
That's right.
It should be done.

SPEAKER_01 (01:00:35):
That's I I I I think that's that's that's totally
right.

SPEAKER_02 (01:00:39):
Well I think we've reached the end.
Never the end.
We've we've we've reached apause because this is always be
a continuing conversation.

SPEAKER_03 (01:00:48):
Well we always welcome you know you live here
in the media district you knowyour backyard you were mayor
here in Burbank that was yourfirst elected position.
That's right.
You you've got some ground underyou now.
We'd love to have you in thestudio because it's your it's um
a medium for people to hear you.
I mean you probably shake a lotof hands every day you run into

(01:01:11):
a lot of people but with withlike a podcast where thousands
of people can listen to yourtopics and so forth it's a great
medium and you know that we wantto keep giving to you.

SPEAKER_01 (01:01:22):
Well I I I appreciate it Ross and I'll I'll
take that as my as my curtaincall but I'll just say I look I
I appreciate the opportunity andI'm always happy to come back
and I want to be really cleary'all have a great council you
got great staff you got greatpeople running the city um you
know I'm always here you know II'll be happy to share my
perspective I want to be aresource I never want to be

(01:01:44):
perceived as meddling in thelocal issues because I respect
the fact that you got fiveindependently elected people
that were chosen by the votersto represent them.
But Burbank's my home I amcertainly going to do everything
that I can at the state level toset it up for success.
And you know whether you're acommissioner or a council member
or just a concerned citizenlistening to this if if we can

(01:02:05):
be helpful in any way our officeis here third on uh still on
third in Magnolia right in thecity of Burbank I mean when I'm
not in Sacramento I'm here andwe'll keep working all right
well that's it for another showum for Ross Benson and Nick
Schultz this is Craig Sherwoodsaying of course like subscribe

(01:02:27):
I know you hear that all thetime but you know what it really
does help.

SPEAKER_02 (01:02:30):
And if you're just listening to us in the car and
driving keep two hands on thewheel and we will talk to you
next time.

SPEAKER_03 (01:02:36):
Happy happy New Year's and don't drink and drive
everyone