I believe that the best way to address this crisis is to incentivize new construction by cutting or eliminating fees imposed by the government and eliminate burdensome and unnecessary zoning provisions to secure more, and more affordable, housing in California. Greater supply to meet the demand both for home buyers and renters will lower prices and decrease the cost of living in the state. Property owners are moving to dump their holdings as they begin to lose profit and equity, and it often results in either the eviction of renters or in the termination/nonrenewal of their leases. This means they have very little time to find somewhere else to live and fewer options to turn to. That cannot be allowed to continue in California if we are to truly protect renters. We need to address the housing crisis by lowering the artificially inflated costs of construction and ensuring a ready supply of homes for those in need. It is vital that we cut the costs of construction on the government's end as well as other regulatory mandates so that housing becomes more affordable and quality of life can improve for every income group in California.

I believe that it is essential that California, particularly Southern California, invest in infrastructure to meet water needs for Californians. As it currently stands, much of the snow runoff and other water resources of the Northern part of the state are diverted to Southern California. However, in years where there is a leaner snowpack not even this is enough and it leads to shortages throughout the entire state. I think that we need to look, even down to the local level, at water building more retention systems, water recycling programs, and construction of more desalination plants to meet the water needs of all Californians. One way that we may be able to incentivize municipal governments to take up more responsibility would be grants or tax credits if they can prove that they are increasing water availability in their jurisdiction (whether through increased retention, recycling, desalination, etc.). In order for greater efficiency, we need this to be a program spearheaded at the local level so that people with intimate knowledge of the needs of each community can spearhead this issue at the local level and ensure accountability of the program.

We can decriminalize consensual/victimless crimes within the state so that there are fewer things to arrest people for. This should dramatically alleviate the burden upon our prisons, courts, and our people. It should also increase both safety for civilians and on the job safety for our law enforcement officers. This would also help return them back to being peacekeepers and investigators rather than placing their focus on revenue generation for local and state governments; allowing them more time and resources to go after thieves and violent offenders like rapists and murderers. This would make our communities much safer and alleviate the financial and infrastructure issues associated with our overburdened criminal justice system.

At this moment, I would not make changes to Proposition 13 protections. In some cases, this provides necessary protections for families and small businesses by providing sanctuary against rising property taxes. To roll these back could put families and businesses in jeopardy, and to do so at such a time when many people and businesses are either losing their homes and place of business or barely scraping by due to the mass closures would not only be incredibly insensitive, but wrong. I don’t believe that it would be right to contribute to such malicious actions by repealing the protections that Proposition 13 has set in place. If we need money, there are other ways that the government can get it, including by trimming pork from the budget and reallocating funds already accounted for without raising the burden on those that are vulnerable.

I believe that the best way to address this crisis is to incentivize new construction by cutting or eliminating fees imposed by the government and eliminate burdensome and unnecessary zoning provisions to secure more, and more affordable, housing in California. Greater supply to meet the demand both for home buyers and renters will lower prices and decrease the cost of living in the state. Property owners are moving to dump their holdings as they begin to lose profit and equity, and it often results in either the eviction of renters or in the termination/nonrenewal of their leases. This means they have very little time to find somewhere else to live and fewer options to turn to. That cannot be allowed to continue in California if we are to truly protect renters. We need to address the housing crisis by lowering the artificially inflated costs of construction and ensuring a ready supply of homes for those in need.

No, the government of California should not enter into the prescription drug business to force prices down. Time and time again, it is proved that government market manipulation has negative impacts on industries and society at large and creates artificial monopolies. Rather than interfere and further regulate the prescription market, the California government should take a step back and free up the market. Relieve regulations on generic drugs and allowing more promotion of their availability, as well as competition in the pharmaceutical industry would be more effective ways to drive down prices without as many of the externalities commonly associated with government price fixing and market manipulation.