There is no single solution to homelessness. It’s a multifaceted problem involving issues of employment, housing affordability, mental health, and substance abuse among others. As such, there are several things we should be doing:

1)      Rezoning of retail (not industrial) areas to accommodate mixed-use construction (ground-floor retail with residences on upper floors, etc)

2)      Living-wage jobs

3)      Move-in assistance programs for those who can afford monthly payments but are cash-poor and thus unable to afford move-in costs (eg, low- or no-interest loans to finance move-in costs so that they can be spread over the first 6-12 months of tenancy)

4)      Official State classification, standards, and certification and regulation of sober living homes as a treatment modality for substance abuse

5)      Additional assistance through CalWORKs for victims of domestic violence to help victims and their children escape their abusers and obtain safe housing and job training as needed

6)      Expansion of high-speed transit to connect high job density areas with more affordable existing housing in outlying areas

7)      Realignment of revenues from incorporated cities with very low population and very high tax revenue (such as the City of Industry) to cover regional affordable housing construction, assistance programs such as those above, and regional infrastructure improvements to streamline both passenger and freight transit

8) Multiple innovative small-scale temporary housing ideas designed by private citizens (such as dome housing and small-footprint single-room houses)

9) "Sweat equity" programs like Habitat for Humanity

Whether or not I'm elected, I'm going to continue to stand for focusing on issues rather than on personalities. I've been doing this as a candidate, and being an elected official will simply mean that message will reach more ears. I refuse to engage in personal attacks as a candidate. In my prior runs for the Assembly, there have been a few supporters who wanted to put out negative information about at least one opponent. I made clear to those supporters that they were on their own in those efforts and I wanted no part of them.

Because water is essential for everyone's survival, we have to look at water access as a right of every Californian.

In addition to ongoing conservation education and local conservation measures, we need to protect the water we have by preventing contamination with toxic chemicals. Our current water shortage only underscores the need for existing regulations on businesses over drainage, as well as prohibitions on releasing contaminated water or toxic chemicals into the ground where it may commingle with previously uncontaminated groundwater.

Technological interventions like cloud seeding or saltwater desalination cannot bring us out of this water shortage. Cloud seeding can only be expected to bring small increases in precipitation, and desalination remains very expensive.

I've looked at measures currently taken by the State, and one element that appears to be missing is the application of the State's eminent domain over its water supply to claim water held within communities in high-precipitation areas, such as along our mountain ranges. Historically, heavily-populated but less water-rich areas have had to negotiate with more water-rich ones in counties like Mono and Inyo to obtain an adequate water supply for the residents of those heavily-populated areas. But exporting water to distant counties provides a benefit for those less-populated but water-rich areas beyond the monetary compensation, by reducing the need for more people to move near those areas, preserving open space and a quiet, rural atmosphere that makes those areas desirable places to live for those who already reside there. Rather than negotiate, it's not at all clear to me that the State can't claim a portion of the water in these areas for public use as provided under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution to ensure that no Californian goes thirsty and no family farm runs dry. The State can then determine just compensation to the water source municipalities based on local water supply rates.

In recent years, community mental health service providers have begun providing services on school campuses. As a social worker, I've witnessed firsthand this partnership in action, and have seen its effectiveness in improving school performance by at-risk youth. As a legislator, I would fight to increase our investment in partnership programs like this that would draw funding from General Fund as well as Proposition 98 education fund revenues, so that no student is left behind.

Working in partnership with other public agencies (mental health, juvenile probation, etc) is an essential component of such an effort. In addition to mental health counselors as I have mentioned above, every campus should have community workers who can reach out to families of at-risk youth, including those in foster care and/or on probation.