State Senate candidates clash over housing policies, PG&E's future at Palo Alto forum | News | Mountain View Online |

News

State Senate candidates clash over housing policies, PG&E's future at Palo Alto forum

Some say it's time for state to take over struggling utility, others decry too much government control

The seven candidates vying to succeed state Sen. Jerry Hill in Sacramento tried to set themselves apart from the pack at a Palo Alto forum Wednesday night as they clashed over housing, transportation and a new proposal to have the state take ownership of PG&E.

The field of candidates, which includes five Democrats, one Republican and one Libertarian, are all looking to represent Senate District 13, which stretches from South San Francisco to Sunnyvale. The top two vote-getters in the March 3 primary will move on to a showdown on Election Day in November.

The debate, which was sponsored by the Mountain View Voice, The Almanac, Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Online and CalMatters, brought a standing-room-only crowd of about 200 people to the Palo Alto Art Center to hear the seven candidates — Josh Becker, Michael Brownrigg, Alex Glew, Sally Lieber, Shelly Masur, Annie Oliva and John Webster — make their respective cases.

With the exception of Webster, a Libertarian who believes that government is the problem and who likened education spending to "socialism," each candidate indicated Wednesday that they believe the state has an important role to play in solving California's housing and transportation challenges, though they offered different takes on what that role should be.

Becker, a Menlo Park entrepreneur who founded the Full Circle Fund, an organization that provides grants to nonprofits, argued that the state should require tech companies to match their job growth with new housing. He attributed the Bay Area's housing crisis in part to the exponential growth of companies like Facebook and Google since the early 2000s.

"For big tech companies — for every job they create, they should have to fund a unit of housing," Becker said. "It's not going to solve the problem, but it will stop the problem from getting worse — which is a first priority."

Others called that proposal unrealistic and onerous. Masur, who serves as Redwood City's vice mayor, noted that it costs about $600,000 to create one housing unit. Requiring businesses to build housing to match their jobs is "not sustainable," she said. A more effective method, she said, is to rely on the impact fees that cities collect from builders through development agreements.

Annie Oliva, a realtor who serves on the Millbrae City Council, also said she believes Becker's plan is flawed.

"I think it's pretty unrealistic to believe that if we're going to be a business-friendly space, to come in and spend $600,000 for housing unit," Oliva said.

Brownrigg, a former diplomat who had spent 10 years on the Burlingame City Council, offered another ambitious proposal, which borrowed from the carbon-credit market. Under his plan, a developer who creates housing would earn credits that can then be sold to commercial developers. That type of system, he said, would create incentives for new housing and ensure that commercial developers are part of the solution without requiring them to spend $600,000 per unit.

One area on which most of the candidates found some common ground was opposition to Senate Bill 50, a proposal that would have relaxed height and density limits for housing projects in transit-friendly and jobs-rich areas (the bill failed in the state Senate last week). Masur was the only candidate who said she supported SB 50, whose author, Sen. Scott Wiener, is among her most high-profile endorsers.

"As a local city councilwoman and a former school board member, I'm all about local control," Masur said. "In this instance, he's really jump-started the conversation and made us all pay attention."

Lieber, who served in the state Assembly between 2002 and 2008, alluded numerous times throughout the debate to her history of championing progressive causes, including efforts to tackle homelessness and to invest in public transit. While she didn't endorse SB 50, she also credited the bill for sparking a critical conversation.

"What's important is that it's kicked off a discussion that is so far overdue — that is the accountability of cities to not just plan for but actually see that affordable housing — extremely-low income and low-income housing and supportive housing — is actually built," Lieber said.

Oliva argued that each municipality should be allowed to plan for its own needs and used as an example the residential and commercial developments around her city's transit hub.

"We do not need to solve the housing crisis by disrupting our single-home neighborhoods," Oliva said.

Glew, for his part, called SB 50 an "abomination." Housing policy, he said, should be handled by city councils and local commissions.

"We want the state to help us, not control us," Glew said.

The candidates largely concurred on transportation policies, with everyone agreeing that California's high-speed-rail project was a massive failure in the way it was executed. Most candidates said they support investing more funding in grade separations at rail crossings and other Caltrain improvements.

Masur said she would like to see better coordination between Bay Area's 27 transit agencies and used as an example the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, an agency which is charged with making sure that the various transit services are working together effectively.

There was somewhat less consensus on the subject of PG&E and Wiener's proposal to have the state take over the utility. Masur noted that the takeover would not be legal under existing law, while Glew, an engineer who is the lone Republican in the field, said he opposes a public takeover of the utility.

Instead, Glew said, PG&E should be segmented, with different utilities serving the state's rural areas and its high-population hubs. He also suggested that the utility is now overregulated.

"PG&E is a business," Glew said. "If they’re going to fail, let them fail."

Becker, Lieber and Brownrigg all said they would support having the state take over the utility. Brownrigg said that while he has no problem with investor-owned utilities in general, he does have a problem with PG&E in particular. Making the company public, he said, would allow the state to take the company's 10% profit margin and invest it in infrastructure.

"The current structure isn't working," Brownrigg said.

After Glew suggested that reorganization may be a better option, Lieber noted the company has already completed a management changeover. The former executives, she said, "jumped off PG&E like rats off a sinking ship the moment their misdeeds came to the public." The state needs to plan for publicly owned, renewable and locally resourced energy, she said.

Becker agreed.

"They disproved the notion of 'too big to fail,'" Becker said of PG&E. "Because they're too big and they're failing."

Becker and Brownrigg also fielded questions about large donations that their campaigns had received, in some cases from independent committees. Becker received a $500,000 from Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, through an independent committee, while Brownrigg received a donation of $460,000 from his mother, Linda Brownrigg, also through a committee.

Becker said he has worked with Hoffman at Full Circle Fund, which makes grants to nonprofits, and that he was "shocked" by Hoffman's contributions. He also noted, however, that Hoffman is spending $2 million to oppose President Donald Trump.

"I don't have money from tech companies, but I do have money from individuals and they want something we all want — they want great schools, great public transportation systems and they want California to be the national and global leader on climate change," said Becker, who is leading the field in fundraising.

Brownrigg and Lieber also talked about their decisions to contribute to their own campaigns. Brownrigg said he was told by his advisers that he would have to spend about three hours per day on the phone trying to get funds to get his message across the broad senate districts. Instead, he opted to participate in house parties in cities throughout the district to talk politics, a decision that required him to rely on his own funds.

Brownrigg also said he was "incredibly touched" by his mother's donation, which came in the aftermath of her losing her partner of 45 years.

"The most my mom will ask of me is that I'll come visit more often," Brownrigg said. "And that will happen anyway."

Masur and Oliva were also asked about the major contributions that they had received from teachers and realtors, respectively. Both said that while they are grateful for the donations, they are not coordinating with these donors.

"I'm very humbled and honored that they noticed my work and I'm very grateful for their support," Oliva said when asked about the $409,000 she had received from the California Association of Realtors.

Lieber said she's had to use her own money in every campaign she's run. That, she said, has to do with the fact that most big-money interests aren't keen on donating to her "progressive campaign," she said.

"I think I'd get agreement that I'm the most progressive (candidate)," Lieber said. "That's not something that special interests appreciate. Having been in Sacramento, I've seen the emotional toll it takes on you to have to call lobbyists for money, when you're voting on a bill that they're lobbying on and that they're concerned about."

The tensest moment in the debate came during the discussion of charter schools, when candidates were asked what they would do to make sure these schools are accountable to the taxpayers who fund them. While Masur, a former Redwood City school board member, touted recent efforts to require charter schools to have open meetings and to make their records accessible to the public, Lieber broadly criticized charter schools, which she said should be ended.

"I have never voted for any charter school at any point in time and, frankly, that’s a difference we have," she said, alluding to Masur.

Masur responded by noting that Lieber had never served on a school board and, as such, didn't have an opportunity to vote for a charter school. Lieber then took a shot at Masur for supporting Rocketship, a chain of charter schools that has run into trouble over the past year for charter violations relating to inadequate financial reporting.

"Sometimes you just have to kick the ball downfield and try as hard as you can to block a troubled entity from coming into a school district," Lieber said.

Read our profiles of each candidate, alongside videotaped interviews with six of the seven contenders, on our Atavist page.

Candidates debate

The seven candidates for state Senate District 13 faced off in a debate on Wednesday night, Feb. 5, from 7:30-9 p.m. A video from the event will be posted here and on YouTube.

---

Follow the Mountain View Voice on Twitter at @MVvoice, Facebook and Instagram at @MVvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

27 people like this
Posted by Local
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Feb 6, 2020 at 3:16 pm

I was glad to see an overflow crowd at the event, and thought the answers (as well as the questions) told us a great deal about each candidate. We are lucky to have such a broad field running for State Senate, but Becker came out on top here, clearly. He has an excellent background and has proven he can successfully bring positive change.
The bickering between Lieber and Masur was distracting and unnecessary. Glew's comment on PG&E lost my vote, as it solved nothing. Olivia was clearly a spokesperson for the Realtor Association. Webster appeared sadly unprepared to comment except to blame government for everything. Brownrigg had good ideas, but was clearly outshone in all respects by Becker.


8 people like this
Posted by Solve Housing
a resident of North Whisman
on Feb 7, 2020 at 9:27 am

Becker is just a continuation of the failed policies that got us here. He is opposed to building affordable housing via SB50.

Becker's comment on tech companies building housing makes ZERO sense. Tech companies aren't real estate developers, how/why on earth are they supposed to build housing? And as long as he holds NIMBY, anti-housing policies, nobody can build housing no matter how much money they have.

This is just lip service. We need real change, and we should support candidates who have real actual solutions to housing. Masur is the ONLY candidate who supports SB50, a bill that would actually create housing. Vote for real housing change, not fake lip service from Becker.


35 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Feb 7, 2020 at 10:38 am

Thanks for the report. SB 50 is high-density in single-family neighborhoods for high tech. Becker seems to have the right idea. Cities (and counties) should not continue to add or greatly expand job centers without space and a plan for adjacent housing. High tech itself builds neither office space nor housing. If cities face such limits, high tech will expand in areas with space - such as San Jose


8 people like this
Posted by Build More Housing
a resident of North Bayshore
on Feb 7, 2020 at 3:20 pm

Glad to hear we have candidates in favor of SB50 and building more housing. Too many candidates claim they want to solve the problem, but don't have any solutions.

The solution is simple--build more houses! Prices will come down. This is economics 101. Any candidate who is opposed to housing, or proposes non-sensical solutions, (like Becker) will not get my vote.


7 people like this
Posted by Amazing
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 7, 2020 at 3:25 pm

While most are well educated, none of them have a clue about building affordable housing or solving transportation issues. Masur is correct about building expensive “affordable” housing. Inclusionary Zoning is a miserable failure , reducing market based housing and making it more expensive for everyone else.


3 people like this
Posted by Community Minded
a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2020 at 5:40 pm

Shelly Masur’s strong background in serving on both a school board and city council equips her with the breadth of experience to address the most important issues in our area and in California. For California senate, I like candidates who have been elected to public office, and understand what it means to negotiate policy solutions with peers in public, make public decisions, and be publicly accountable to constituents. I would also like to see a woman in this seat. The California senate needs more women and the greater Bay Area needs a female senator.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Umami Burger calls it quits in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 9,282 views

Couples and Premarital : "Who we are . . . depends in part . . . on who we love."
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,644 views

Flying: How much is enough? It's personal.
By Sherry Listgarten | 9 comments | 2,189 views

Wait, wait – we’re working on it
By Diana Diamond | 10 comments | 1,433 views

My Pet Peeves
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 7 comments | 1,247 views

 

Short story writers wanted!

The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 27, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.

View Details