By Mary O’KEEFE

The first debate for the 43rd State Assembly race was held between incumbent Laura Friedman and challenger Mike Graves.

The debate showed both candidates displaying respect for each other while highlighting their differences in policies. In their opening statements, Friedman shared how serving in the Assembly has been the “biggest honor of my life.” She spoke about coming from a film industry background, then serving on the Glendale City Council before moving on to Sacramento.

Graves said his main issue of concern was the loss of local control over zoning for housing and the state’s interference with local school boards.

Both agreed that COVID-19 has changed the state and the world. One of the questions posed to the candidates dealt with the “$11 billion cuts to the state budget” targeting state workers’ salaries, the court system and schools. If the state received funds from the federal government how would those be spent?

Friedman said that, prior to the pandemic, the California economy, as the fifth largest economy of the world, was doing well with a record surplus of funds put away for a “rainy day.” It went from being the fifth largest economy in the world to running now at a deficit due to all of the COVID related costs.

Since the onset of the pandemic everything has changed and some tough decisions would have to be made, she added.

“I am a firm believer in auditing and looking at all of our programs, and I think the state needs to take a close look at pretty much [everything] they spend money on to look for inefficiencies,” she said. “Just because you funded something in the past doesn’t mean you should fund it in the future.”

She suggested now is the perfect time to go to each agency requiring them to justify every dollar spent.

She added there are priorities, like CAL FIRE and schools, in “crisis mode” right now.

“I can’t tell you which program is more deserving than the other; I haven’t been in Sacramento,” Graves said. “I can tell you that part of my candidacy is that I think that the state tries to do too much. There comes a time when you have to take a pause and assess what’s going on.”

He agreed with Friedman’s call for an audit to look at California’s budget as a whole and there will be difficult choices that have to be made.

A question was asked about how COVID-19 has impacted the environment. A positive aspect was that it has helped air quality because people have been working from home but conversely increased waste and reduced recycling.

Graves said he noticed a change in air quality during the Stay-At-Home Orders due to people doing less commuting to work.

“That is a helpful thing,” he said. “I think there are a lot of people thinking of [continuing to work] from home.”

He does not think all companies will adopt working from home policies and essential workers will still have to report to a work site.

He added that he noticed more waste, especially from restaurants using disposable food containers. 

There is a way forward but it will take some more study, he added.

Then came the issue of the climate.

“I look at the climate crisis and global warming as very real,” Friedman said.

She said the natural disasters that the state, country and world are seeing are just the tip of the iceberg.

“The man-made disasters are not going to take a pause just because of COVID; we have to continue to invest in reducing our production of greenhouse gases,” she said.

She added that a lot more resources have to be put into recycling because at present when something is placed in a recycling bin it does not mean it will be recycled.

The candidates were asked if they felt there was a need for a new and separate agency within government that would be dedicated to reducing fire risks. The agency would focus on several areas including reducing fire fuels, conducting prescribed burns and setting buffers around high-risk communities. The question was also asked about people who have been allowed to build and rebuild in areas of high-fire risk: “How do you think California can best prepare for wildfire risk going forward?”

“Prescribed fires are one of the best ways to take care of these [wildfires],” Graves said. “Unfortunately we have just waited too long. There is too much fuel on the ground and far too often the prescribed burns are a disaster in the making.”

He added that issues like poor air quality are taken into consideration when scheduling prescribed burns.

“Reducing the fuel loads is a start; unfortunately there are so many roadless areas and monument areas that you can’t just take vehicles back there to remove the fuel so it is going to require some changing of existing regulations,” he added.

He also said that people like to build in the foothills but believes residents may have to think of using alternative, more fire-safe materials when they build or rebuild. He does not feel there needs to be another fire agency created.

Friedman is on the Natural Resources Committee where she deals daily with wildfire issues. A bill that she had been working on for two years addressing the issue was recently signed into law.

“[It] upgrades our codes in regard to defensible space and how that is inspected, and what those zones look like for exactly this reason … to help make our homes more resilient,” she said. “There are certain places that we just shouldn’t build, certain areas that because they are in wind canyons or ridge lines that are just going to always be indefensible in a wildfire; but the real focus we should have is hardening homes that are in wildfire areas.”

To watch the debate or to get more information, go to the League of Women Voters of Glendale/Burbank website at my.lw.org or www.youtube.com and search League of Women Voters CA State Assembly 43.

  Mary Okeefe