myBurbank Talks
myBurbank Talks
Meet the Candidate: Nick Schultz (D) - Candidate for the 44th Assembly District
Nick Schultz is back on our podcast, advancing to the general election for the 44th District Assembly. With neighborhoods ranging from Pacoima to Pasadena and Sherman Oaks under his purview, Nick’s insights are invaluable. Our conversation highlights his expansive canvassing efforts and unwavering dedication to addressing the multifaceted challenges of his district—be it fixing potholes, combating speeding issues, or tackling a growing insurance crisis. With a strong commitment to water policy, Nick is set to confront California’s environmental hurdles, including climate change and water scarcity.
Join us as we explore strategies for building safer communities through a balanced approach that invests in both law enforcement and social services. Nick passionately discusses the pivotal role of housing, education, and healthcare in diverting individuals from criminal paths. We spotlight the shortage of mental health professionals and the barriers they face, alongside the complexities of school funding in districts like Burbank. Our discussion underscores the necessity for seamless communication between state and local resources, ensuring equitable access to mental health services and educational support for all.
Turning to California's affordable housing crisis, Nick lays out a vision for revitalizing unused commercial spaces and legislative changes to expedite housing projects. With a focus on reducing car dependency through improved public transportation, he emphasizes bipartisan cooperation, especially on common ground issues like education and job creation. Nick’s vision for the district, particularly Burbank and North Glendale, is clear: he is committed to representing middle-class and working families. Engage with Nick directly as he shares his dedication to improving quality of life and invites voters to connect with him on a personal level.
My Burbank Talks presents another episode of Meet the Candidate, the show where we invite anyone appearing on the Burbank ballot in the 2024 election to join us here and give our listeners a chance to learn about their background and the issues important to them. Now let's join our podcast.
Speaker 2:Hello Burbank and hello 44th District. We're back to another Meet the Candidate segment and something that's a little different in two ways. One is we're talking about the 44th district assembly today and we also have a wider audience because it's a lot bigger district. How big of a district, you ask? Yeah, I hear your questions. The 44th district includes most of eastern San Fernando Valley. The district cuts a somewhat V-shaped swath throughout LA County from part of Pacoima in the northwest to Los Angeles National Forest, above Sunland Tujunga in the northeast, Running down through Burbank and northern Glendale to part of Pasadena in the southeast, A leg then stretching west to the 405 freeway through neighborhoods including Valley Village, North Hollywood, Studio City and Sherman Oaks. Boy, we love redistricting and gerrymandering, don't we? Great things. So, along with myself, today, we've got in studio Ross Benson.
Speaker 3:Oh, I should grab my microphone and be prepared for this. Sorry about that, I'm just I'm late to the game here. This is the first one I've got to sit in Assembly District 44. I don't think.
Speaker 2:I've ever said that we have some of our candidates Nick Schultz, who won the primary and is now off for the general election on November 5th. So thanks for coming back and once again different, because this is the first time we've actually had a candidate on twice. You came in for the primary oh, that's right now you're here for the general, so we appreciate that. So thank you, we'll get into things. So good to have you with us. Happy to be here, his district covers.
Speaker 3:Isn't that half of california? It's a lot, about a half million residents, uh in total but looking through this, how many different languages have you had to learn to cover?
Speaker 4:your district here, not nearly enough, but it's it. It is a. I I'll save it in case you have questions, but I will just say it's a surprisingly diverse district, not just in terms of ethnicity and languages, but, um, as you know, the needs of sunland to hunga are very different than the needs of sherman oaks.
Speaker 2:I mean, there's, there's common ground, but it it's a diverse district, wow it just yeah, in fact, you know, let me, uh, let me ask you about that diversity because, um, um, what you know you're going to deal with the needs of pasadena or pacoyma or studio city or all very different diversity, very different economic structures and neighborhoods, and you know single family and multifamily living and the whole thing. So you know a lot of immigrants in some areas. So how are you ready to deal with all that?
Speaker 4:That's a great question, craig. Um, so, since, gosh you know, february or March of last year, so I mean it's been a year and a half. Going on two years now, I have been walking and talking across this district. I have canvassed in Sunland to Hunga, I've been to Sherman Oaks and everything in between. So I think that that prepares me in two ways, because I'm obviously, for better or worse, I'm a known commodity in Burbank, but I've been building relationships for two years with stakeholders across the district because they deserve someone who will also be available and pick up the phone and try to help where they can. But I've also done a lot of listening over two years and so, whether it is speeding in several of our hillside communities or potholes that need fixing in Studio City, I feel like I've developed a good list of where the needs are.
Speaker 4:It is a diverse district but is different as all these communities are. The one thing that I see as a common thread is that across the 44th we're largely talking about suburban communities. Immediately outside of a very large metropolitan area, and to differing degrees, you have these smaller communities that are dealing with big city problems and don't necessarily have all the resources and tools that they'd really like to have in addressing a homeless crisis, or or in housing affordability crisis or climate change. So that's where I look at it and I say, ok, maybe traffic patterns are different, but at the end of the day, all across the 44th is just one example. We're dealing with an insurance crisis where people are losing their coverage, and that impacts everybody similarly, no matter where you call home. So in that way, I find a lot of commonality with what we're seeing across the 44th.
Speaker 2:Well, let's? Um, I went to your website, took a look at it, um, and saw you had some, basically the bullet points that you really want to focus on. So I'm going to bring up some of these bullet points and and let you expand upon them and let people hear your, your opinions and your views on them. So let's start off with, um, uh, protecting our environment, which I'm sure is a big thing nowadays everywhere oh yeah, so, um, you know, I would say in a nutshell here here's what I see.
Speaker 4:The the 44th is, like the rest of California, grappling with climate change.
Speaker 4:We have diminishing supplies of fresh, clean drinkable water.
Speaker 4:The situation with the Colorado River has probably never been worse than it is right now, and yet there's more demand for water, both from our residents, from our businesses right now.
Speaker 4:And yet there's more demand for water both from our residents, from our businesses, and so what I would say is that in the legislature here, I don't think that we have nearly enough water policy experts and I'm not saying that I'm that guy yet but it's an area that I really want to develop an expertise in, and I think that we need to be talking about yes, for communities in Southern California like Burbank, how we keep the water that we're importing, how we keep that supply moving, but we also need to be more efficient, especially in new construction, with how we use and reuse that water. We need to be using more recycled water for irrigation and landscape maintenance, and something I'm really excited about is direct potable reuse the idea of taking this gray water, the water that's going down your shower drain, for example, and converting that into safe drinkable water. Now, that is an incredibly expensive but proven technology. But if we can develop that on the scale that I think we can, that could do so much to really alleviate our water crisis.
Speaker 2:We have this little pond next to us here in California called the Pacific Ocean and as smart as we are and we can send men to the moon and all these things, why are we not being able to develop a way and I hear it's very, very expensive to take the salt out of the water? Why can we not find a way to streamline that?
Speaker 4:We've got an abundant water source right next to us that we seem to we need more state leadership and funding on, because it's expensive to develop the facilities to do that, and that's where the state can do better Politically. You know, desalination is, it's a political football. That's what I was looking for. By the way, you got it.
Speaker 3:That's a tongue twister in itself, isn't it? I've practiced it.
Speaker 4:So, yeah, it's a political football because the concept is great, but then of course, you know you're going to have environmental impacts when you're not only cleaning and purifying and desalinating the water, but then you're moving it from offshore into the valley. So it's not that it can't be done, I just think that, to your point, it's not really an issue that I think the legislature has tackled in a meaningful, significant way. And when I look at the next 10 years, I think about Ross. I know, you know our shared friend, bob Frutos used to always say water is life. In California, there are very few issues that I see as bigger than the issue of water in the next decade in California, and so that's something that I really want to be an expert on. And then the very last thing, craig and I'll kick it back to you, just in terms of climate change, sustainability is we've talked a lot about water.
Speaker 4:Energy is the other big one, so we're moving towards an economy where we're phasing out the sale of gas-powered cars. We're trying to get off of oil and gas in terms of powering our grid and powering our homes. The question is, what are we going to replace all that with? So hydrogen is a promising technology green hydrogen but it's still developing. We have solar, which I know we're going to talk about on a totally different podcast, more next month, on a totally different podcast, more next month. Solar is great, but the issue is how do we develop longer-term battery storage so that you can use that energy that you capture at four o'clock and tap into it at nine o'clock? So long-term battery storage is gonna be great, and then we have to be looking at how we expand our portfolio of wind, solar and geothermal.
Speaker 4:So I will wrap on this. Water and power is something that I've obviously spent a lot of time with at the local level dealing with these issues. I don't know that that water and energy are necessarily the subject of a big, splashy press conference in Sacramento, but I can think of no two bigger issues to Burbank and bigger issues to the 44th district than how we're going to address our water needs and continue to power our homes and our businesses over the next decade plus. So serving on, for example, the energy and utilities committee in the assembly is something I would really love the chance to do well, you know, you brought up a good point climate change.
Speaker 3:Um, a couple a week ago, we experienced temperatures over 110 degrees here. 117 is my very command center, yep, and okay, our temperature's going up. We've lived here for a couple years and I remember going to school when it was maybe 90, 100 degrees. They let us go home. Now we're at 110, 117 degrees. Well, we used to have smog days too. Well, that's when you couldn't even see Mountains Mount Lee, but we're in a desert. Mm the mountains, mount Lee, but we're in a desert. And we need to think about this soon. Yeah, it's not going to get any cooler. No, are water problems going to be there tomorrow? I mean and you brought up a good point about re recycled water for watering lawn. Now, burbank, the city that we're from. Yeah, they brought in for city stuff, mm-hmm Down, chandler and a lot of the locations. I think the schools use recycled water, but they haven't gotten it to the houses yet.
Speaker 4:Right, that's going to be the next critical stage. Imagine if you can use recycled water to water your lawn. Obviously, many people will choose to convert from a lawn to more drought-tolerant landscaping, but for those who still have it, being able to use recycled water to meet those needs, that's going to. So the point is, it's infrastructure, it's all infrastructure, and where the state can lead on that is giving more dollars to it and, by the way, that creates jobs. It's an economic opportunity if we do it the right way. And to your point, ross, you know I think the state in the last decade did a really good job under many good leaders of setting these really commendable goals of carbon neutral economy by 2045. It's going to be even more challenging. How do we actually get there, so that it's not just some goal on paper that we never actually meet? And you know that's why I want to serve in the C is because you know I got two kids under four at home whether we meet that goal. It's it matters to me.
Speaker 3:Well, you know, we in my sidebar, here in my notes, you do have two and you need to look at them growing up. That's right. What part of this world is going to be here for them and to deal with and so forth? But last week we witnessed this truck that had batteries on it down in Long Beach. It overturned.
Speaker 2:They used more water for 24 hours to cool that down until it was out. Did you also hear the PIOs? The Fire Department's Public Information Office, said that we have no playbook on this. We don't know really what to do and that's become a huge problem in the next decade of more and more of these NICAD batteries and catching fire Exactly, and we don't even know how to put them out right now.
Speaker 3:Well see, that's what gets me. We're putting the cart before the horse. We got the batteries, okay. Now I talked to, uh, one of our commissioners on a. One of our city agencies drives a lexus or a um tesla. It always. You know the batteries on it, you know the fire department. If they go on a tesla fire, those things burn. We're putting the cart before the horse if we don't know how to extinguish that or whatever. I listened to that la city incident for over 12 hours. It was going on the background. People think no wonder I have a boring life, but I listen. I mean, they did not have a playbook, they protection wise, they were scared to death. You know they've had some explosions on other things. It's kind of, um, well, battery again. Are all of our cars going to be running on batteries, solar, um?
Speaker 2:yeah, the governor signed a bill says they have to be. Let's move on, because I don't, I want to take all day here. Let's on. Let's move to criminal justice reform. Sure, now you are a deputy attorney general by trade, um, your day job, as they call it yep, um. So let's talk about your, your your thoughts on because I'm sure if anybody has thoughts it's gonna be you about criminal justice reform. So what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 4:I appreciate the question. Yeah, I got. I got, I got tons. So, um, as you both know and to your listeners, who most probably know me, I mean my day job. I am investigating and prosecuting public corruption, human trafficking and all sorts of organized crime. Um, so, look, I absolutely believe, and I think my four years on city council and Burbank have shown that I fundamentally believe we have to support and invest in our law enforcement personnel. You know more, more boots on the ground, better training, better equipment, all of that but what I've also seen is that, look, you can have, you can have an officer on every street corner, but all you're doing is responding to crime. It's reactive.
Speaker 4:If you really want to have sustainable like, if you want to drive crime rates down, you have to invest in people, and especially early in life. So that's where addressing housing instability and food insecurity, giving kids a quality public education and access to health care. When you invest in people, you divert them from other paths that they might take in life, and that's a better use of your dollars and it's going to be a more sustainable impact in terms of really building safer communities. So it's an all the above approach when criminal activity happens. Yes, we need to be. We need to have good first responders that are ready to address it. But you know, for every dollar you put there, put two or $3 into investing in people and building that human capital. That's the best way to have safe communities Well.
Speaker 2:I always hear a lot of cops, but it's also mental health issues too, and there's a huge problem with not enough mental health people in the field. I know Burbank has problems getting their med people to put in the streets, and mental health issues are our biggest problem of all. So how do you also incorporate that?
Speaker 4:I. That's the phenomenal follow-up. So I would say you're right, we have a shortage of mental health providers and just mental health infrastructure in the state and it's a tough issue to tackle. But there are two or three things that I think the state can do. So the state is responsible for the licensing of professional officials professional officials like so everything from accountants and doctors to lawyers everyone's licensed by the state. So we should be looking at how we can speed up and get more folks that are in learning, in training, that are new to the field, get them into positions to have licensing, even with supervision, faster.
Speaker 4:It's also really expensive and cumbersome. Just the administrative burdens to getting your license it can discourage many people from doing it. So we have to look at where we can cut back the red tape and make it easier for people to enter this profession. And here's the big one it's compensation. You want to go into the mental health field. You can get a master's level degree and be at or near the federal poverty line. The money simply isn't there. So raising the wage and raising compensation so that people want to enter these professions, that's going to solve the biggest issue and that's just not having enough providers. The other aspect is just going to be really bolstering the communication between state and county and local resources, so it's more available well, I you, you bring up the point about education.
Speaker 3:You know we continue to hear that the, the school districts don't have money. Yeah, you know um the, the kids they.
Speaker 2:They give them not to hurt you. But yeah, go ahead and ask your question. Let's get into education a little bit here.
Speaker 3:sure, you know it, it always comes down to money and I know, Craig and I we have mentioned it before this lottery that we, you know you, win the lottery. The school district gets money. But oh, we need it for something else, so we're going to take it.
Speaker 2:Well, I think what's happened and not to take this over, but five cents or whatever it is is supposed to go to schools out of every dollar spent. And, yes, all that money started coming in. And they said, well, since all that money is coming in this way, we don't need to keep putting the same money we used to put in. We'll put that money somewhere else. So yeah, the schools get the money from the lottery, but now they don't get the money from the state anymore. So I think to Ross's question is how are we going to Bur? So I think to Ross's question is how are we going to Burbank's? In a lot of trouble and it's because of the funding formulas the state has put in. So what can we do to help districts like Burbank who are not in the economic or the social situation that other districts are in? They're a little more higher economic here and they're having problems economically. So what do we do?
Speaker 3:Well, you know, let me just tag on real quick is I'm looking at your district, your new district, schooling is a little different in parts of pasadena sure that it is? In sherman oaks, burbank's, in the middle. There, I mean, you have a melting pot, yeah, of kids that need to learn and they all need to learn the same thing. I was real surprised at what our superintendent put out not too long ago, what the requirements are of kids that need to learn and they all need to learn the same thing. I was real surprised at what our superintendent put out not too long ago, what the requirements are. I have a seven-year-old granddaughter. She has to be able to read and write and figure math out by the end of her. What second year or so. It's blowing me away, but some of these kids are not making it. And it's again, it comes down to money education. It's blowing me away, yeah, but some of these kids are not making it. And it's.
Speaker 4:Again it comes down to money. Education. No, I totally agree, and kind of piggybacking off of your point, ross, and then I'll get back to your question, craig. It's challenging because this is a district that cuts across this assembly district cuts across three separate education districts, just K through 12. You're talking Burbank, glendale and LAUSD. Then add on top of all that the community college districts. Everyone's experiencing a similar problem. They all have slightly different needs and different thoughts on the solution. But here's what I've developed so far.
Speaker 4:So I really applaud our outgoing state senator, anthony Portantino. He had Senate Bill 98 this last year, no-transcript, but on any given day it's only 95 students that are in, and that's reasonable. You know people get sick, kids can be out. We fund the school based on 95, not the 100 kids that are actually registered to go there. And yet and I know, I know, craig, you know this it's there are real baked hard costs to a school, whether it's staffing, food, water, electric. I mean they have to plan for 100 kids. So why are we only giving them funding for the 95? Senator Portantino's bill wanted to change that and make it based on enrollment. It got watered down in the legislature. It's now what we call a study bill. So the legislature hasn't committed to anything, but they're at lead on that issue in the next decade and finish what he started and make that change in terms of school funding.
Speaker 4:The other thing, especially when we talk about the L cap and other local funding formula components. So if you have a student that has, you know, extra needed attention maybe they're learning the English language right or there's a few categories they fall into there's sometimes a little extra money that the school will get to help for that student's needs. But what about when a student meets two or three categories of different expanded needs? They only get the extra funding one time. That's wrong, because that student might need more resources to really thrive in the classroom. If they meet three categories, let's give them triple the funding that they would have not triple the funding at the base funding, but triple the the specialty funding that they're allotted.
Speaker 4:Those are the kind of changes that I think we make. It's about shifting resources around, and then we can get into another conversation another time, just about how we fund public schools in general. But it's very antiquated in California because it's really only tied to property tax, which makes it much more subject to fluctuations in the market, whereas a city, on the other hand, we can tap into sales tax, parking tax, hotel tax, we have a much more diverse tax base. In the long run, california voters might need to be presented with a choice on how to come up with a more stable funding model, but in the short term, those are a couple of things that I'd love to champion at the state level to try to get more resources into our public schools.
Speaker 3:I we got to come up with a figure, we got to figure it out. I will say I've witnessed kids that go to preschool and they get go to public education, kindergarten and the kids that haven't been in preschool in at home at a disadvantage they sure do.
Speaker 3:I will say, you know, again, I, I look at my two granddaughters, yeah, yeah, who both went to preschool for three, three years. They can do quite a bit that you look at a trial. That couldn't. Parents couldn't afford it. Maybe it is required. Some of our large companies, we are the media capital of the world, but California is the richest state there is. We've got to come up with a way that these kids can learn and be, you know.
Speaker 4:And I think to your point, ross, the last, the last, the last thing I'll say on on education. I know you guys have me, may have a few other things you want to talk about, um, but to your point, it can't just be K through 12, as much as we focus on access to community college, higher education, the trades, we need to be building a much more robust infrastructure in terms of early childhood development, really trying to achieve universal pre-K for every kid, because at least if we can start everyone off well in life, you can hopefully reduce, if not eliminate, any of the inequities that exist between different communities. But it goes back to our question on public safety. When you give kids a good education and they know where they're going to sleep at night and they have food to eat, you know, I fundamentally think a lot of the problems we see in our society can be addressed if we just intervene at an earlier point in a person's life.
Speaker 3:Well, that brings up a good point Our crime situation right now. You know it changed. The whole spectrum changed. I mean California. People look at us where they're driving vehicles into liquor stores and jewelry stores and the crime is just going crazy. And it's where are these kids coming from? I'm sorry. Last week I saw 100 kids go into a 7-Eleven in the middle of the city, destroy the store. Where are they learning this?
Speaker 4:It just blows me away that you know they think they can get away with it well, and and you know, that actually brings up one other thing I forgot to mention, ross is um. So we talk about early intervention for for young people and a good response. You know when crime happens, you know making sure our first responders have everything they need to do the job safely. The other thing we don't talk about nearly enough is rehabilitation and re-entry. So when you look at the state budget, you look at, for example, the money that is allotted to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Over 90% of those funds are devoted to corrections, locking people up.
Speaker 4:And I'm not saying that there isn't value in taking someone who's dangerous off the streets, totally. But what do we do when that person's done their time and they have to reenter society? We don't devote the resources that we really ought to to helping that person get placed in housing, find a job and become a constructive, participating member of society, because we don't make that investment. No wonder we see recidivism rates where we do. So. I think it goes back to something I've said a few times now on the Burbank City Council A budget's a reflection of your values. We want safe communities, but we want lasting safe communities. So that means investing in law enforcement, sure, but it also means we want to divert people from entering the justice system altogether, and if there's a chance to give them a real second path in life, we should make that investment.
Speaker 3:Some of these guys that are getting out, that are doing great things, and you hear their story, it's just like you want to slap yourself and go God, why can't we get more people that are, yeah, you know, doing this and so forth and have great jobs and so forth?
Speaker 2:I agree, let's move. We could actually do a podcast on every one of these issues in itself.
Speaker 2:Because they're all complicated, no easy answer issues. Let's move on to something. Right now, that's a very hot button issue in California. We have a couple state propositions about rent control and all that and housing. But let's talk about affordable housing Because right now that's a huge thing. Landlords have good points, renters have good. Let's talk about affordable housing because right now that's that's a huge thing. Uh, landlords have good points, renters have good points. California is a very hard state to live in, you know. It's just a very expensive state, yep, um. So what are your thoughts on affordable housing?
Speaker 4:Well, we don't have nearly enough of it. We're not building nearly enough of it quickly enough. So here here's my thought in general. I've said it before in other contexts, but I'll say it again. I know I'm not going to please everyone, but I do support rent stabilization. I do, but I also acknowledge that it is simply a bandaid on a much bigger problem. We need more housing. We have a shortfall of over a million homes that we need to build in California, and that's assuming that we built them all tomorrow. In the time that it's going to take to build those homes, we may fall further behind the eight ball.
Speaker 4:So I think what we have to do is is two things. Primarily, in terms of the private housing market, we have to find a way to incentivize and streamline more housing development, but in areas that make sense in our communities. With all due respect, an ADU here and there on this street or that street isn't going to solve the housing crisis. When we have an abandoned Kmart, when we have an old Ikea location Sunland Tonga has this amazing old location where they had a Home Depot that's just sitting vacant those properties could have hundreds of units of housing on them and those properties could also handle more water, sewage, trash, parking, everything. It's all right there. So why aren't we baking in more incentives to get the developers to put the housing there?
Speaker 4:My thought is let's change the law. Ross, if you have a hundred million dollars, you know you get lucky tomorrow and you decide not to go to Aruba and you instead want to build some housing, if you to go to Aruba and you instead want to build some housing, if you want to put housing on a site like that, especially if it's affordable housing, let's move you to the front of the dang line. Let's find a way to save you every nickel that we can and let's get you in and out the door quickly, because that's that's a value to a developer. That is, and if you and if you offer like a concierge level service like that, you're going to get more developers saying I'll build that rather than a 20-unit townhome project here.
Speaker 3:But what gets me about that is look what our state has done with SB35. A good one is the project that is on Empire in the city of. Burbank how many units with seven parking spaces? I?
Speaker 4:think it was 147,. I think.
Speaker 3:And there's a bus stop out front. Not everybody's taking that bus right.
Speaker 4:I mean, and that's and that goes to the other point of it's not just underutilized or vacant commercial areas, but also areas that are hopefully adjacent to transit, um, but it's all got to be balanced. I mean, yes, not everyone, hopefully, you know, will need a car, but you know some will. And the other thing is you want it to be accessible to frequent, reliable, affordable bus service, rail service. It also goes to this bigger issue of of. When we were talking a few minutes ago about climate change, what's the big biggest single emitter of carbon emissions into our atmosphere? It's the transportation sector. It's everyone driving their car, um, and yes, we can talk about EVs and we should have more bus and rail and more protected bike paths.
Speaker 4:I know we agree on that, but the biggest thing we could do is really redesigning our cities so that people could live close to where they work and not have to get in the car.
Speaker 4:And when I look at opportunity sites like the Kmart, the Ikea, that old Home Depot, they just screamed to me like that's where we should be putting the housing that we need. The other thing I just quickly say, craig, is we also can't be naive and think that private developers, the private market's going to build all the truly affordable housing that we need. So we really got to take a playbook out of what we saw under Jerry Brown. Before he got rid of redevelopment agency funding to solve the last budget crisis. Before he got rid of redevelopment agency funding to solve the last budget crisis, burbank Housing Corporation used that as a revenue stream to build hundreds of affordable homes. So we really need to pursue sort of a redevelopment agency 2.0. Find a funding stream where nonprofit partners like Burbank Housing Corporation can go out there and build truly affordable units and if that complements what we're going to get from the private market as well, we're not just building more housing, but we're hopefully building more truly affordable housing units.
Speaker 3:But the argument that I hear and I see it okay, studio City there was a little golf course next to a school there that has now been Howard.
Speaker 2:Wesley took it over. Yeah, and they're developing it.
Speaker 3:They're developing it for housing or for schooling.
Speaker 2:Well, for their needs. I mean they bought the property to expand their school.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and they're okay. But you also gave a good example. How many years have we seen the old IKEA site here in Burbank sit dormant? Sure, they're using it for Hell's Kitchen and some movie jobs sit dormant. Sure, they're using it for Hell's Kitchen and some movie jobs, but I saw plans at one time to build a 10-story or five-story. Burbank has a limit now. Multiple, yeah, Multiple story to house hundreds of people, Yep, but it stalled. We're not going anywhere and I get it. Somebody owns that. They're just counting their money as it goes up. But you know that. And, like you say, the old um Kmart site, you know you can only make it so that parking lot for kids to race around in when we have people that need to be living there.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and and just one last thing I'll mention on that point, ross, is that, look, I'm not trying to build out our communities for the sake of building out. I'm looking at it from what I think is a very common sense approach. There's a problem when the average, the median home sale price in Sherman Oaks I'll use a non Burbank example for once, sherman Oaks is $1.5 million, I don't know many young people your granddaughter like how are they going to be able to buy and invest in that? And so when you have a three-to-one jobs-to-housing ratio like we do in Burbank the very little housing that exists, comparatively speaking, like I own my home we can charge whatever we want when we sell that thing and someone will probably buy it. That's what drives the price up for everyone. Same goes with rent. I mean people are paying $2,000, $3,000, $4,000-plus a month because they want to live in Burbank and there's not that much.
Speaker 3:You got it and every year I got a rent increase. Last year I got another rent increase. This year I won't tell you what I'm paying, but you just hit the number on the head, because I want to be close to my kids. I love this city. It's your home it is. It has been for over 60 years and you know I mean that price is going up up up.
Speaker 4:And the only way we're going to solve it and that's where I come back to is we have we do have to add more housing, but we can do it in a sensible way and we start with those sites, like you said, that are just vacant sites sitting in the middle of our cities.
Speaker 2:Let's steer the housing towards there. Let's play some politics Okay. Because this actually is election and there's people like myself who are completely fed up with partisan politics. Absolutely, you know we're. We're only going to stand up when this person talks and I'll clap and we're all. We're not going to. You know all the stuff they do in Congress and and then down. How are you going to stick to your ideals and not get caught up in in party politics and things like that? What's your commitment to doing that?
Speaker 4:Well, I I appreciate the question cause. It brings up a couple of things. Um, first of all, you have to understand I know you guys do, but a person running for this office has to understand that while I may be a Democrat and my opponent may be a Republican, one of us will win, the other will not. Office has to understand that, while I may be a Democrat and my opponent may be a Republican, one of us will win, the other will not. And yet the winner needs to represent all nearly 500,000 people in this district that call it home. So, whether you're Democrat, republican, declined to state or something else, you're going to have a representative, and it's going to be either Tony or myself, and we have a responsibility, I think, to focus on the issues of common ground, the things we're talking about today. We all want good schools. We want a good health care system. We care about the future of the entertainment industry, for example. We want to create good jobs. Safe communities like these are non at their core. They're nonpartisan issues and that's the way I want to structure my framing around it. How can I help make sure that everyone has a good, safe neighborhood that they're happy to call home?
Speaker 4:Inevitably, there are two parties in power in Sacramento, but it's predominantly tilted in favor of the Democratic Party and, if elected, I would be a member of that caucus. But there's two things I'm going to do right out the gate. I'm already developing relationships with some of my Republican colleagues from other parts of the state. We may not agree on everything, but I think that there's still value, when you introduce a bill, to say that you have truly bipartisan support, especially if it's something like infrastructure, transportation. That's a signal to not just your colleagues but to the state that we are still about finding common ground and getting things done. So I'm going to have as many good relationships on the other side of the aisle as I can. But then, more specifically in district, you know I had a debate with Tony the other night and we agreed look, whoever wins this thing it shouldn't be me I'm going to go up and meet some of his folks in Sunland Tahonga and we'll talk about what we can do together. We can disagree on the other you know 30, 40% that we don't agree with, but the stuff that we do have in common, we absolutely have to prioritize that and and and.
Speaker 4:The last thing I'll say is this Craig, look, at the end of the day, there's always a hierarchy to everything, and nobody wants to make the speaker of the assembly unhappy who's the leader of that house. But I also understand at my core I have to do the same thing in this job that I did as a prosecutor, that I have done in representing all of you. I have to do what I think is right for my district, what I also just believe is fundamentally the right thing to do. If I'm asked to do something by the leadership team or by the speaker that I don't personally agree with, that I can't sit at this table with you guys and explain why I did it.
Speaker 4:I'm I'm willing to risk making the speaker unhappy, but to be able to live with myself and look you in the eye and say I think I did what I thought was right. That's my top priority. And I also think if you're, if you're doing your job, you're not going to agree with anyone a hundred percent of the time, and so the way I would approach it is I'd go right into the speaker's office and say look, I have tremendous respect with you for you. I'm with you on 98% of things, but on this thing I have to be with the people of my district. It's not personal, but I have to break with you on this one.
Speaker 2:That, sir, I was going to hold you to. Okay, we'll see down the line real quick. You talked about your opponent, oh yeah, um, tell us how you differ from him. What, what, what is the difference between you?
Speaker 3:and him More hair on his head.
Speaker 4:Oh, that's not a reason. Um, no, I would say, uh, there there's two primary differences. Um, you know, you can look at his website and mine and you can see policy, and I won't go through all of them, but they're immense policy differences. I'm I'm very concerned and a proponent of public education. I think Tony has a different way of looking at public education. You know, in terms of climate change, I believe it's here and it's real and not a hoax. So there are policy differences that are enormous. And I will just say to your viewers and your listeners research the two of us and you will see those differences really quickly. But look, tony's not a bad guy. At the end of the day, he sees the world his way and there is at least probably a quarter of this district that sees it the way that he does. I am optimistic that come November, the majority of the district is going to see the world the way that I do.
Speaker 4:But I will say this politics aside, policies aside, the one big difference is that Tony is he would be a newcomer to the political scene, first time in office, and that's not a bad thing. I actually agree with you on that, craig. It's nice to see new names like new blood in politics, but I took office at the height of the pandemic and nothing I did I did alone. I mean, it was part of a lot of great people on a team guiding the city of Burbank. But I took office at the height of the pandemic. We not only reopened our economy and eliminated a budget deficit. I think Burbank's come out stronger.
Speaker 4:Although there's still issues. I still think we're moving in the right direction post-pandemic. That is experience that I think we need in Sacramento right now. Sacramento's facing a $70 billion with a capital B budget deficit in the upcoming year, facing a 70 billion with a capital B budget deficit in the upcoming year. I granted our, our budget deficit in Burbank was only 12 million, but I have rectified and remedied, as part of a team, that large of a budget deficit.
Speaker 4:That's the kind of experience that I don't think Tony has and it's the kind of experience that I think we really need in Sacramento right now, because all the big picture things that I want to do if you can't take your care of your financial affairs and get your house in order and fix that budget deficit into a surplus, you're not going to be able to get very far on anything else. So that's my top priority. And the very last thing I'll say on that, craig, is I think that that's where we are having some traction and getting support from declined to state non-democratic voters is my commitment to being financially responsible, fiscally responsible, first and foremost. That's going to be the very first thing I tackle out of the gate is fixing that budget.
Speaker 3:Well, you know we I didn't bring it up in the beginning, but I know for your local, for Burbank you are the mayor of Burbank. Still, when you decided to run long, many, many, many months ago, you had explained it to me pretty well that we won't have anybody if you decided not to run. Burbank does not have anybody up in the assembly and that was one of the reasons why you've chosen to run is you wanted Burbank a voice for Burbank yeah and we didn't have anybody because Laura's going to be moving on and so forth.
Speaker 3:And that was the reason you chose to run for assembly, because I know some people are still quite sore about that. You know, you came in and just boom, but you explained it to me pretty well. Yeah, you know, because you wanted Burbank to be represented.
Speaker 3:You know Burbank pretty well well, yeah, you know, because you wanted burbank to be represented. You know burbank pretty well and who's going to fight for burbank? If you didn't, I don't know if tony would, or whoever you're, you know another person running. But I'm glad you have some experience, not only with your legal background but also how the city operates and so forth.
Speaker 4:So well, I, I appreciate that and yeah, you know, look, I'll, I'll do everything I can to represent the entirety of the district. But Burbank's my home. It's where we're raising our kids and, contrary to some rumors that were out there, no, we're not moving like win or lose, like we're staying in Burbank. So what's happening in the issues that our city is facing and then that goes to North Glendale too there's a lot of commonality between our two cities. Those are going to they're going to have a huge impact on my perspective as I'm arguing for and against legislation coming out of Sacramento that could impact our community. So, yeah, I put my name forward cause I think I, I want to and I think I can do a very good job serving Burbank in this new capacity and I'm excited by the prospect.
Speaker 3:Well, we learned Senator Portino now lives in Burbank, even though he's turned out and leaving office pretty soon. But when you get to see somebody on a weekly basis or so worth it at some community event. We'll be seeing you. You will A lot more stuff.
Speaker 2:All righty. Well, we're at about the end of the show here, and what you always do at the end is you know where your camera is and I tell people look in that camera and take whatever time you want to take and tell the voter why, when they get their little ballot in the mail very soon now, why they should be checking right next to your name on that ballot to send back in. So the time is yours.
Speaker 4:Well, thanks, craig. You know, the first thing I would say is, if you're at all on the fence or you want to learn more, you can go to vote Nick Schultz dot com and you can read about my background and things that I want to do on your behalf. But the one thing I wrap with is this In two years I've walked every corner of this district. It's worn through a couple pairs of sneakers and I will tell you that the one. There's a lot of issues facing the 44th, but the one word that keeps coming up is affordability. Cost of everything's through. The roof rents up, housing prices are up, gas and groceries are up and it's crushing working people and it's crushing the middle class and it's impacting not only my family but everyone that I know and I care about.
Speaker 4:So I'm not going to sit here and BS any of you and tell you that I have all the answers, and anyone who does that is your stereotypical politician. I don't have all the answers, but what I can tell you to a point that you made earlier, ross, is that these issues, whether it's public education, health care, the future of the entertainment industry, these issues matter to me. They matter to me, they matter to my family, to my kids. It's important to you and it's important to me, and I'm going to fight like hell over the next two years to do everything that I can to not only safeguard our way of life but to really improve quality of life for all of you. And I wouldn't be standing here, or sitting here, as the case might be, asking for your support if I did not believe in my heart that I am the right person for the job, the most qualified for the job, the most ready to go on day one. That is the only reason that I'm in this race. So you do have two choices.
Speaker 4:On November 5th, I encourage you to do your homework. Look at my website. I am going to give the phone number out, guys, as I always do 818-806-9392. If I always do 818-806-9392. If you have a question, a concern, a comment, an idea, you can text me, you can call me. I want to hear from you, I want to earn your support and, frankly, I'm going to need you if and when we win, because winning an election is the easy part. The hard part is actually getting to Sacramento, not losing yourself in that madness to your point, craig, and getting things done, and that's where I'm going to need every good idea and every ally that I can to get it done.
Speaker 2:So thank you all so much. Very good, nick Schultz. We appreciate it. Ross, thanks for joining us today. That's it for another Meet the Candidate episode. This is Craig Sherwood and once again saying if you appear on the ballot in Burbank in any race, all you got to do is email us at news at myburbankcom and we'll be glad to have you on a show. So all you do is request it and you will be on. Also, so many candidates have. We're still waiting to hear from a few more, so that's it for another day. Thank you very much for watching or listening, and we will see you next time.