O.k., I trust Jerry Hill, I'll vote for Josh Becker.

Posted by pearl, a resident of another community

>> O.k., I trust Jerry Hill, I'll vote for Josh Becker.

Becker, Brownrigg and Lieber all sound credible to me. I would also like to hear what Brownrigg and Lieber have to say, as well as Becker.

Also, sigh, I wish one of these three was running for assembly. I can't stand any of the candidates.

Jerry Hill is not to be trusted. He recently voted against SB 50 which would have required high density housing in all cities near transit. Only Shelly Masur will support this measure to actually make living here affordable again.

^ Yes, SB 50 would make living here more affordable for developers.

Sad that Unions and Money, as well as the Democratic Party are trying to influence a race with good candidates. Thank goodness we have a free and objective vetting Process done by our local newspapers. I thought we lived in a democracy where the people exercise their rights. The lineup of state party officials is unseemly. Why don’t we have term limits on our local conressimen/women and senators. There is a lot of dead weight there. I support Brownrigg!

^ Why don’t we have term limits? Why don’t we have an informed electorate.

Posted by WeNeedHousing, a resident of Ventura

>> Jerry Hill is not to be trusted. He recently voted against SB 50

One reason why Jerry Hill's endorsement actually matters, and, which made it very easy for me to not support Masur. I still have to decide between Brownrigg and Becker.

>> SB 50 [...] measure to actually make living here affordable again.

Pure fantasy. You know what would actually make housing affordable? Start converted SRP office buildings to housing. When we have an approximate jobs/housing balance, housing will be more affordable. Manhattanizing never has and never will make things affordable.

The majority of opinion pieces in the SJM and SFC from out-of-state professional pundits are typically filled with hyperbole to an extreme degree. As are the Letters to the Editor that contort any and all deficiencies in the state system to DT. However found a gem today regarding the debates in process. Much of what the candidates are espousing as their platforms are "aspirational". Aspirational goals are directed at catch words which are enjoying current favor. However given the realities of running the government are a slog.

I am noting an opinion piece that Josh Becker provided to the SJM indicating that he wanted to direct his attention to "world climate change". And looking at his BIO a lot of his many jobs are aspirational in nature. What is the success rate of those jobs?

This job we are talking about is a state senator job in a geographic location that has many plusses and minuses. The minuses are transportation and housing. Those are the problems we are expected to solve at the state level. That and education are what our tax payer dollars are to be directed at.

Unfortunately we have a governor who is busy spinning audacious aspirational goals on an assumed superiority of our states "riches". Note to Governor, County, and city - your retirement fund is going to eat you up. Your lack of attention to our infrastructure is going to eat you up. And if you keep raising the taxes to pay for the aspirational goals that are outside of the basics for running a state then all of the great companies will move sideways to other locations with a lower tax base.

Josh sounds like a nice family man but right now I would like to see my tax dollars directed a the very problems we read about every day in the paper. Our local problems.

ALL politicians are NOT to be trusted & it doesn't take a Dick Tracy or Kojak to figure that one out.

As for SB 50...in some places it may be OK to expand cheaper housing but not in Atherton as measures are even being taken to finally shut that useless train station down. The CALTrain can just keep a rolling by..as in bye-bye.

It is not the responsibility of affluent communities to provided affordable housing for those who cannot afford to live there in the first place!

If the state were to consider removing ALL of the homeless derelicts who are either mentally ill or chronic substance abusers OFF the city streets & into state mandated conservatorships, the need for additional 'affordable' housing would be greatly reduced.

Instead Gov. Newsome wants to expand public housing for these kinds of people...people who are incapable of responsibly living unsupervised in any dwelling or environment.

Far cheaper just to put the derelict homeless away & to provide for them in a controlled setting.

The result/impact...less crime, visual blight, vagrancy, & public annoyances.

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> Much of what the candidates are espousing as their platforms are "aspirational".

This is not a new phenomenon. A lot of people like political speech which is "aspirational". Because of the 2000 millennium, the phrase has been forgotten, but, people used to say that a politician was going to "ring in the millennium" meaning 1000 years of (Biblical) peace.

>> Josh Becker [...] wanted to direct his attention to "world climate change".

I guess you think that this is above his pay grade, but, local and state government actually have a lot to do with respect to climate change, both reactively-- forest, wildfire, water project, and PG&E issues, and proactively-- working public transit that takes people out of traffic will help with all the issues that we talk about here-- specifically, housing and traffic. Working public transit helps us do our part with respect to greenhouse gases, and, our local livability.

>> This job we are talking about is a state senator job in a geographic location that has many plusses and minuses. The minuses are transportation and housing. Those are the problems we are expected to solve at the state level. That and education are what our tax payer dollars are to be directed at.

I agree with you 100%.

>> Unfortunately we have a governor who is busy spinning audacious aspirational goals on an assumed superiority of our states "riches".

I never cared for Gavin Newsom, but, the problem isn't aspirational goals. Money, and, execution. As has been discussed here, many public projects are coming in way over budget and with poor quality. We can't afford to throw away resources like that. We need to change the law and the culture surrounding these public projects.

>> Note to Governor, County, and city - your retirement fund is going to eat you up. Your lack of attention to our infrastructure is going to eat you up. And if you keep raising the taxes to pay for the aspirational goals that are outside of the basics for running a state then all of the great companies will move sideways to other locations with a lower tax base.

I agree with your concerns, but, I disagree that aspirational goals are a problem. We have to get public transportation working better in order to meet housing needs and keep traffic under control. That, in itself, will reduce GHG emissions.

>> Josh sounds like a nice family man but right now I would like to see my tax dollars directed a the very problems we read about every day in the paper. Our local problems.

See above. Addressing California transportation and housing problems and needs intelligently can also address the global problem of needing to reduce and eliminate fossil fuels use.

When someone says they want to address "global climate change" that is a dog whistle for the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord as originally written benefited the EU countries financially with the US paying the main financial budget for these efforts. Note - that is why it is the PARIS accord = EU domination. With China and India with no goals or financial responsibility. That is because Brown was setting up the coal sales to China which would sell to India. That scheme was in process at the Oakland Port. Law suits still in process over that situation which defies global warming.

If anyone follows this then it is obvious that certain groups will benefit at the financial cost of others. The Paris Accord as reported in Wikipedia has been continually updated as new countries join and other countries argue about what their goals are. And a shift in responsibility to a UN organization. Wikipedia evolves with the circumstances.

But bottom line that is not a state responsibility to subsidize what is a federal activity. At the state level we need to direct our attention to our fires, flooding, dam breakdowns, etc. We need to direct our taxpayer money to fixing our direct issues. And closer to home our wharfs in SF which are falling apart, hills collapsing in to the ocean due to high sea surge, etc. And SFO which suffers from flooding at high tide.
We have specific issues here at home. No tickets to Paris on the taxpayer's dime, thank you.

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> When someone says they want to address "global climate change" that is a dog whistle for the Paris Accord. [... ]. We have specific issues here at home. No tickets to Paris on the taxpayer's dime, thank you.

Climate change as a result of GHG emissions has happened and is accelerating.

BUT, regardless, if we are agreed that addressing public transportation, traffic, water, wildfire damage avoidance, and housing are priorities, let's work on that. Let's work on the things we can agree on.

(Addendum to previous post:)

For example, regardless of the cause, average flow down the Colorado has been significantly reduced, and, the actual reduction is consistent with the simulation models.

Web Link

It makes sense to include the updated, reduced average flow in plans for California's water systems. Regardless of what the root cause is.

Joshes big mistake from where I am sitting - checked out his web page and he features Kamala. I voted for Kamala for State AG then state senator. She then proceeded to display the worst aspirational goals possible - run for president with relatively little experience other that skewering people on congressional TV shows. Not good. Then badgered Biden about busing. Poor little girl. Excuse me - I grew up in the LA unified school district a whole generation before she was born and EVERYONE was bused. It happens when the child bearing parents move to the growing new housing in cheaper areas. The system then has to shift people to keep the schools open. Since she is in California then she is required to understand the dynamics of living in CA. Her bio depicts aggressive desire for upgrade. So Joshes' pick for a "model/mentor" of how it all works indicates some traits of future plotting using the taxpayer dollars for self promotion. Not my choice. Other more grounded choices.