If the Democratic candidate’s promises sound vague to the California voters who polls show favor him heavily heading into November, he has an explanation rooted in a decision he made more than three decades ago.

As a freshman congressman from the Los Angeles area, Becerra campaigned against the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, only to be talked into voting for it after being assured that labor protections and a domestic loan program would shield American workers and small businesses from foreign competition. Within a few years, he recalled in an interview with CalMatters, American jobs disappeared anyway.

For the young lawmaker, it was a formative lesson that has stuck with him ever since: don’t back anything until you’re certain.

“Nobody gets my vote unless I know with absolute certainty who I’m voting for,” he said.

Becerra went on to serve twelve terms in Congress, rising into House Democratic leadership, before becoming California’s first Latino attorney general and later the nation’s first Latino secretary of health and human services. Now, as he closes in on the governor’s office, he’s bringing that same instinct for caution — along with a determined effort to avoid overpromising.

As a result, he has largely avoided laying out specific policy targets, resisting pressure to take firm positions or commit to measurable goals. Instead, he leans on his record, arguing that his best pitch to voters is a demonstrated ability to run government effectively.

To fund the state’s public health programs, he says he wants to cut administrative waste and fraudulent billing — without detailing how or how much that would actually save. On housing, he has criticized fellow Democrats for setting what he calls unrealistic targets, like building 2 or 3 million new homes in a four-year term. Yet even as he considers a more modest goal — perhaps doubling the state’s current housing production of roughly 106,000 units annually — he hesitates to commit, worried it “could end up being an overpromise.”

No Incentive to Take Risks

That caution stands in sharp contrast not only to the Democratic rivals Becerra defeated in the primary, but also to his Republican opponent, Steve Hilton, who has rolled out a long list of specific policies and bold pledges — $3-a-gallon gas and halved electricity bills through a deregulation agenda chief among them. Outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, won office in 2018 on a platform loaded with ambitious promises: millions of new homes, universal health care, aggressive climate rules, universal preschool and more. He didn’t deliver on all of them.

While this year’s other candidates zeroed in on proposals to rein in insurance regulations or utility spending as a way to address the state’s high cost of living, Becerra has instead proposed declaring a state of emergency so officials can study the root causes of high electricity and insurance rates — effectively putting off decisions on what to do about them until later.

He’s also been noncommittal about whether he’d keep California’s mandate phasing out sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

“If we invest in it, it’s absolutely doable,” he said on stage at a Politico event last week. “If we don’t invest in the infrastructure, then it’s not doable.”

He also said there’s “a lot of room for improvement” in AI regulation and that the state “could acquire stakes in AI companies to make sure we all benefit from this new technology.” But speaking to reporters afterward, he backed away from endorsing such a policy outright, saying only that “if something like that existed, it wouldn’t be entirely far-fetched.”

Becerra’s vague positioning is “a classic example of political science,” said Melissa Michelson, a political science professor at Menlo College.

Given California’s heavy Democratic voter registration advantage, Becerra is likely to win his general election matchup against Hilton regardless. He doesn’t need to do much to win over fellow Democrats — just enough to motivate liberal voters to actually turn out in the final weeks before November, Michelson said.

“He has no incentive to take risks on policy,” she said. “He doesn’t want to mess up, he doesn’t want to do anything crazy.”

But Becerra’s risk aversion appears to run deeper than simply avoiding controversy. Asked on stage last week what voters could expect from him as governor, he declined to name a single concrete policy commitment.

“I’d rather not build my campaign on overblown promises,” he said. “I’ll run on my record.”

Weighing Things Carefully

Born in Sacramento to working-class Mexican immigrant parents and educated at Stanford Law School, the 68-year-old Becerra rose to political prominence during a wave of Latino political activism in the early 1990s.

In 1990, he won a State Assembly seat in a surprise victory representing suburbs east of Los Angeles. Two years later, he was elected to Congress in a reliably Democratic district, where he served until 2017. During those years, he and his wife, OB-GYN Carolina Reyes, relocated to Washington, D.C., and raised three daughters. The couple has since resettled in Sacramento.

Former colleagues describe Becerra as meticulous — the kind of boss who would send back memos over spelling errors and treat even a few thousand dollars in costs as a potential “fiscal impact” worth scrutinizing when reviewing legislation affecting the attorney general’s office. On policy matters, they said, he consistently focused on how proposals would affect immigrants or lower- and middle-income Americans.

“I think he always kept people like his parents in mind,” said Sirat Attapit, who worked for Becerra in Congress and later served as his liaison to the California Legislature when he was attorney general. “You could tell from the kinds of questions he asked that it was always on his mind.”

Attapit said Becerra’s reputation for slow, careful decision-making reflected sound policymaking, allowing him to weigh multiple viewpoints “even if we had diametrically opposed positions.” In the early 2010s, Becerra was part of a bipartisan group of House members who met privately to hash out immigration reform.

“He was thoughtful and methodical, to the point where maybe some of his colleagues thought he overanalyzed things or took too long to decide,” Attapit said. “To make a decision, he needed to be well informed and hear from all the stakeholders. He wanted to hear from everyone who had an opinion.”

That approach was on full display in one of his more controversial decisions as attorney general. In 2019, he declined to release police misconduct investigation records as required under a new state transparency law. Police unions had challenged the law in court, arguing it could jeopardize officers’ privacy.

Becerra said he would wait for further guidance from judges on whether the law applied retroactively to older records sought by journalists — even after an appeals court ruled those records were public. Brian Marvel, president of the influential Peace Officers Research Association of California, said he appreciated the attorney general’s caution.

“He just wanted to make sure there was clear direction on what needed to be released,” Marvel said.

But David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said it was clear the law covered the records being requested and called Becerra’s stance “baffling.” A coalition of news organizations sued, and courts ultimately ordered Becerra’s office to turn over the documents and pay more than $1 million in attorneys’ fees.

“To be fair, I suppose it was a brand-new law,” Snyder said. “But I don’t recall another instance where an agency simply refused to interpret the law and said, ‘We don’t know what the law means until a court tells us.'”

Asked whether his deliberative style might work against him as a decisive leader, Becerra pointed to moments when he moved quickly — such as suing the Trump administration to preserve the DACA program for young immigrants, or intervening in a lawsuit with Texas to protect the Affordable Care Act.

A Pragmatic Progressive

If elected, the cautious Becerra would become the de facto leader of a state Democratic Party that has been drifting further left.

Supporters like Amanda Renteria, who worked in the U.S. Senate and helped draft portions of federal health care law alongside Becerra, say his understated style doesn’t reflect a lack of progressive ambition.

He was an early champion of LGBTQ+ rights and universal health coverage. From his earliest days in Congress, he took firm stands defending asylum seekers and immigrant access to public benefits — positions that sometimes put him at odds with fellow Democrats.

“He can operate between two worlds,” Renteria said, praising “his ability to be part of Democratic leadership while also being one of those members of Congress who pushed the progressive agenda wherever he saw an opening.”

Still, Becerra himself was reluctant to frame a potential governorship in those terms. He describes himself as a “pragmatic” progressive and suggests his agenda remains adaptable.

When President Joe Biden, in nominating him as health secretary, made clear he opposed a single-payer health system, Becerra — a longtime advocate of the idea — said he accepted the constraint and agreed to focus instead on expanding Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollment. During the primary campaign, Becerra reportedly told the state’s physician association he would not push for single-payer health care as governor.

“The fact that I haven’t achieved universal health care doesn’t mean I’m not progressive, and the fact that I haven’t fought for it in a certain way doesn’t mean I’m part of the establishment,” he said. “At this point in my life, I just want to get results.”

To that end, he has traded sweeping ambition for achievable wins.

Last week, he proposed an “energy hour” that would give low-income utility customers two hours of free electricity around midday, during the sunny-but-mild stretch when solar power often produces a surplus.

Asked by CalMatters whether that idea amounted to a campaign promise, he walked through his reasoning aloud: there are still stakeholders to consult, including utility companies and the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates electricity rates. On the other hand, he noted, low-income households are already enrolled in utility discount programs, making it relatively simple to extend them free electricity. And since it wouldn’t apply to all customers, it wouldn’t strain overall demand too much, he reasoned.

“I’d like to turn it into a promise, because it’s not pie in the sky,” he said. “Is it realistic? Can I turn it into a promise? Probably, yes, because I’ve limited its scope.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Xavier Becerra Plays It Safe in Governor’s Race, Steers Clear of Firm Promises appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In response, state leaders have passed a wave of laws aimed at pushing cities to clear the way for more affordable apartment construction. But even in places that have loosened zoning restrictions, the basic economics of building in California remain a stubborn obstacle. According to a 2025 RAND study, the average cost to build an apartment unit in California is about $430,000 — nearly three times the $150,000 average in Texas. For income-restricted units aimed at low-income renters, California’s costs run more than four times higher than comparable projects in Texas, with some developments in expensive coastal cities topping $1 million per unit.

Facing pressure to produce affordable housing without shouldering the cost themselves, many California cities have turned to a strategy known as inclusionary zoning. Under these policies, developers building market-rate apartment complexes are required to set aside a portion of units for lower-income tenants at below-market rents. More than a third of cities in the state have adopted some version of this approach, though the details vary widely from one municipality to the next.

The policy hasn’t been without legal turbulence. In 2009, a state appellate court sided with a developer, Palmer Sixth Street Properties, in a dispute with the city of Los Angeles, ruling that requiring affordable units in a rental project effectively violated California’s ban on rent control. That decision froze cities’ ability to impose inclusionary zoning requirements on rental housing — though it left such rules intact for for-sale housing developments.

The pendulum swung back in 2015, when the California Supreme Court upheld inclusionary zoning for for-sale housing. Then in 2017, state lawmakers passed what became known as the “Palmer fix,” legislation specifically designed to override the earlier appellate ruling and restore cities’ authority to require affordable rental units in new developments.

Since then, cities across California have once again required developers to include below-market apartments in their projects. But nearly a decade later, a new academic study is raising serious doubts about whether the strategy actually works.

Noah Kouchekinia, an economist at UC Irvine, conducted an extensive city-by-city analysis of inclusionary zoning programs and their effects on housing production. His conclusion: the policy tends to backfire, shrinking the overall housing supply rather than expanding access to affordable units.

According to Kouchekinia’s research, a typical inclusionary zoning ordinance reduces annual new residential construction by nearly 32 percent. He estimates that the true cost of producing one affordable unit through inclusionary zoning — factoring in the higher rents paid by market-rate tenants as a result of constrained supply — comes to roughly $800,000. That figure, he notes, exceeds what it would cost to simply fund affordable housing units directly through public subsidy.

The findings raise uncomfortable questions for city officials who have leaned on inclusionary zoning as a politically convenient way to appear responsive to the housing crisis without committing public dollars. Kouchekinia’s data suggests the policy may function less like a solution and more like a hidden tax — one ultimately paid by renters who don’t qualify for the below-market units, while overall housing production slows.

The study also underscores a broader pattern in California policymaking: officials frequently adopt housing measures with confident promises of impact, but rarely circle back years later to rigorously assess whether those policies delivered the results intended.

Original source: CalMatters

The post State Housing Incentive Meant to Boost Low-Income Rentals May Be Slowing Apartment Development appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Across 14 sessions, 33 speakers took the stage to weigh in on topics ranging from the tense relationship between state and federal government to the fiscal and political obstacles awaiting California’s next governor. Attendees also explored the state’s outsized role in the national debate over artificial intelligence, with audience members able to ask questions and interact with panelists throughout the day.

The event drew a notably diverse crowd. In partnership with the California Association of Nonprofits, organizers invited nonprofit directors from across the state, broadening both the geographic reach of attendees and the relevance of the conversations to those directly affected by the policies discussed.

A high school newspaper adviser and her student journalists from Roseville spent the full day covering the festival, landing extended interviews with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano — a rare opportunity for young reporters to question two prominent public figures at length.

The festival also served as a gathering point for California’s Latino Media Collaborative, whose members met to discuss shared editorial and business challenges while also reporting on the day’s events. Meanwhile, organizers held the first meeting of what will become the CalMatters Creators Circle, bringing in digital content creators who cover the news and issues CalMatters reports on. Those creators were given a dedicated interview space in the green room and had the chance to sit down one-on-one with many of the day’s speakers, followed by a half-day workshop after the main event concluded.

Sessions throughout the day covered a wide range of subjects. CalMatters CEO Neil Chase and Editor-in-Chief Kristen Go opened the festival alongside California Poet Laureate Lee Herrick, who reflected on the state through verse, in a discussion moderated by CalMatters Board Chair Hema Sareen Mohan.

Other panels examined the widening distance between government institutions and the communities they serve, featuring Amy E. Lerman of UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab. A keynote conversation with Cesar Fernandez of the AI company Anthropic explored whether California can lead the nation in both developing and regulating artificial intelligence, a theme picked up again in a follow-up panel featuring UC Berkeley law professor Deirdre K. Mulligan and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan.

Immigration enforcement and its ripple effects on communities were addressed in a session featuring Julián Castro, CEO of the Latino Community Foundation, and CalMatters health reporter Kristen Hwang. The tension between state and federal authority took center stage in a conversation between Attorney General Bonta and Napolitano, while Lincoln Project co-founders Mike Madrid and Rick Wilson offered their take on lessons learned from recent political battles.

Workforce and education issues were front and center in a panel featuring Alysia Bell of UNITE-LA, Don Howard of the James Irvine Foundation, and Eloy Ortiz Oakley of the College Futures Foundation, who discussed how the state must adapt to shifting labor demands.

Looking ahead to California’s next gubernatorial race, Hoover Institution fellow Lanhee Chen, California Federation of Labor Unions President Lorena Gonzalez, and CalMatters columnist Dan Walters outlined the steep challenges — from budget pressures to political gridlock — that will confront whoever takes office next.

The festival closed with a discussion on the state’s ongoing housing crisis, featuring Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty, and Gustavo Velasquez, director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, who acknowledged progress made in recent years while emphasizing how much work remains.

Video recordings of all 10 mainstage sessions are available for public viewing through CalMatters’ online archive.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Elected Officials, Educators and Residents Convene for CalMatters’ Second Ideas Festival appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The measure passed on a 23-11 party-line vote in the State Senate. The proposed legislation has been sent back to the Assembly for its final vote of approval before being sent off to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The bill, formally known as AB 1840, would expand the eligibility requirement for the state’s first-time homebuyer loan program, the California Dream For All Shared Appreciation program, to allow undocumented immigrants who live in the state to use it.

The California Dream For All Shared Appreciation loan program launched in 2023 and helps qualified first-time homebuyers with down payments.

The program was initially created to help low-and middle-income individuals buy homes. Still, Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno), who introduced the bill, previously told KTLA that the program doesn’t address eligibility based on immigration status.

“The program hasn’t been clear about eligibility for undocumented individuals, and AB 1840 addresses that issue,” Arambula told KTLA in an emailed statement.

Republican California lawmakers have pushed back on the bill’s progression.

“This is outrageous. Democrat politicians care more about handouts for illegal immigrants rather than improving the quality of life for legal California citizens. I will strongly oppose this measure when it comes to the Assembly Floor this week,” Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Corona) said in a statement.

GOP Assemblymember Joe Patterson, who represents a largely suburban district north of Sacramento, during a committee meeting this summer said that he “just can’t get behind using our limited dollars for people who are in this country undocumented,” Politico reported.

Democrats who support the bill have said that those applying for a loan must have a taxpayer identification or social security number, emphasizing that the loans won’t be given to just anybody.

The bill would need to be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom before it officially becomes law.

The current legislative session ends on Aug. 31 and Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign any bills passed by the Legislature.

The post California Senate passes bill allowing undocumented immigrants to get homebuying loans appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

ADUs are one of the few bright spots for the state’s housing market at a time of rising construction costs, high interest rates, and continued local resistance to greater housing density. These unassuming units, often basement apartments, backyard cottages, and converted garages, are far more affordable to build than other housing options and have become a politically palatable infill alternative to apartment complexes.

With median construction costs of about $150,000 in California, ADUs cost less than a third of traditional, federally subsidized affordable housing. As a result, the median ADU in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Coast is affordable (costs less than 30% of income) for a low income family, 31% of ADUs in Los Angeles County are affordable, and large numbers of ADUs are affordable in other regions, as well.

Over the past eight years, ADU construction has skyrocketed. California went from about 1,000 ADU permits in 2016 to 5,000 in 2017 to 25,000 in 2022.

This boom did not come easily. Many local governments have resisted ADUs, fearing they would overcrowd single-family neighborhoods. While some of these concerns are legitimate, the state’s housing crisis has persuaded state lawmakers that cities must allow more housing construction, even in built-out areas — and ADUs are one way to achieve that.

California lawmakers have worked for decades to limit local governments’ authority to block construction of these units. The effort began in 1982 when the legislature prohibited cities from categorically barring ADUs. Local governments responded by placing what a report from the Furman Center at New York University called “cumbersome and unpredictable discretionary  review requirements on applications for ADUs.”

Local resistance prompted the state in 2002 to mandate ministerial (rather than discretionary) local approval of ADU permits. Yet ADU production remained low.

Reforms in 2016 finally made inroads. That year, the legislature adopted two bills, AB 2299 and SB 1069. These required cities to allow ADUs on single-family lots. They also prohibited them from requiring design features such as direct pathways to the street and setbacks for garages converted into ADUs. These laws also eliminated parking requirements for ADUs near transit stops and for ADUs attached to existing houses; prohibited cities from requiring new water, sewer or utility connections for ADUs, or from charging utility fees for ADUs; and required ministerial permitting of ADUs to occur within 120 days.

More state laws followed, as legislators and advocates identified and removed other barriers to ADU construction.

Suddenly, ADU production surged across the state. According to the California Department of  Housing and Community Development, ADUs will meet 3% of the state’s housing needs for the period from 2021-2028.

Yet this growth has been uneven. In a recent study, the Rose Institute of State and Local Government analyzed differences in ADU production in Long Beach, San Diego, Anaheim, Pomona, Ontario, and Corona in light of the state’s assessment of these cities’ housing needs. In  Long Beach, the state’s per capita ADU leader, these units have met 5% of housing needs. By  contrast, ADUs make up only 2.6% in Anaheim. Within the Inland Empire, only 1% of housing needs are met in Ontario, 1.1% in Corona, and 2.2% in Pomona.

The report found that variations in ADU production can result from several factors, including the local housing market. For example, Ontario, like other cities in the Inland Empire, is still developing outward into greenfield sites, potentially reducing the demand for ADUs due to the availability of new single-family homes.

Familiarity with ADUs also matters. Planners in Long Beach, a leading producer of ADUs, describe these units as part of the fabric of their city, and say the knowledge they have gained processing ADU applications helps them approve permits faster than in some other cities. By contrast, other cities have less experience with this form of housing.

Local policies can affect ADU production, as well. Although the state has limited local control over ADUs, standards can still vary on several important dimensions. This is where local governments can most make a difference.

To help meet housing production goals, cities should assess where their regulations may be holding back ADU production and consider loosening standards in those areas. In particular, local lawmakers should look closely at three factors: parking requirements, structural setback requirements, and fees.

Parking requirements can add significant costs to new development, making them infeasible for homeowners without access to large capital flows. Structural setbacks can make larger ADUs geometrically infeasible, limiting the variety of options available to would-be buyers and renters. Finally, fees place high up-front costs on ADU developers, who often are individual homeowners,  further dissuading them from realizing their property’s potential.

Giving homeowners a little more wiggle room in how they build their ADUs could make the difference between catching up to statewide ADU production levels and missing out on a powerful tool to meet housing needs.

The post ADUs can help the Inland Empire meet housing needs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.