REINETTE SENUM: WE WON’T SOON RECOVER FROM NEWSOM’S MISTAKES
Q:Housing affordability has been a central focus for state lawmakers for years, yet home prices and rents are soaring, and investor speculation is greater than ever. How do you address this?
A:
First of all, we need
to look at the root causes of why many Californians are unable to afford the quality of life of their grandparents and parents. The inability to make ends meet is only exacerbated by the lack of affordable housing.
Most Californians don’t know there are massive corporate companies buying single-family homes under the auspices of home rental companies like Invitation Homes (and larger ownership companies like BlackRock and Blackstone) which collectively own tens of thousands of single-family homes in California. The companies purchase homes with cash offers, paying over the asking price, with the intention of having them be foreverrentals, and the average potential home-buyer (even with two incomes) is unable to compete.
Additionally, legislation like the current Assembly bill proposed by San Diego Assemblymember Chris Ward makes things worse while attempting to make them better. Assembly Bill 1771 has been proposed as “a tax up to 25 percent on an investor’s net capital gain from the time of purchase until the final sale or exchange of a property. This targeted tax penalty would provide a disincentive to housing investors, giving traditional homeowners the edge in securing a home purchase, and stabilizing home prices for all.”
AB 1771 would actually harm and disincentivize hard-working California middle-income contractors and real estate investors and, instead, open the door for the corporate offenders and investor speculators while reducing competition.
Q:
Homelessness has
exploded statewide despite unprecedented attention and state aid. What should the state be doing that it isn’t? What’s working and what is not working?
A:
We need to be smart
with the assets that we currently have and retrofit our commercial buildings into mental facilities and drug and alcohol centers, as well as interim low-income housing.
As this gets underway, we must also conduct triage on the streets, utilizing the most current data from our homeless shelters and county Continuum of Care committees, and identify those who are on the streets and most at risk to themselves, the surrounding businesses, and
residents. Those who are in crisis on the streets will never be able to lift themselves up if they continue to stay in the very environment that is keeping them down.
For those who are not grappling with mental issues or drug and alcohol addiction, we need to provide interim low-income housing while providing reskilling opportunities and job placement.
We have many successful models that provide different opportunities for providing a way out of homelessness and living on the streets.
One such example can be found in San Antonio, called Haven for Hope. This is a 22-acre all-inclusive campus that provides a one-stop shopping of 183 different service providers so as to increase accessibility and efficiency of resources. Haven for Hope is currently serving 1,700 people daily on its campus. In addition, Haven for Hope serves over 700 people daily through its lowbarrier, emergency shelter program called the Courtyard. This offers guests a safe place to sleep, hot meals and showers, laundry services and outreach services, including mental health care and housing services.
Q:
How would you
address concerns about rising crime overall? What do you feel about current efforts to revise criminal justice reform laws like Propositions 47 and 57? What changes would you support?
A:
Proposition 47 has
done nothing but raise Californians’ regret over their decision in passing it. I completely support legislation to repeal the law altogether.
Originally, Proposition 57 was intended to allow “parole consideration for nonviolent felons” and to “authorize sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education.” By approving Proposition 57, voters agreed to allow early parole opportunities for certain inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes; however, many violent criminals have been released, and the public is now bearing the brunt of this.
We need to focus on evidence-based rehabilitation so as to address the core behavioral issues that result in criminal activity. We can do this by identifying an inmate’s individualized “criminogenic,” such as criminal history, substance abuse and education level. By doing this, we can ensure an inmate is receiving proper services, treatment and monitoring.
While controversial, in order for California to reduce its recidivism rate, we must do everything in our power to prepare those for release for integration into society.
While many believe those who serve time should not have the benefits of education or should have “hard labor,” this is a recipe for disaster in the end.
If we focus on mental health treatment, drug and alcohol addiction, developing marketing job skills and maintaining family ties while incarcerated, we will see a reduction in recidivism rates and the overcrowding of our prisons.
Now with that said, we also need to address the root of the cause, and reduce the pipeline into the prison system to begin with.
Q:
How did Gov. Gavin
Newsom handle the COVID-19 pandemic and how would you manage a pandemic as governor? A:
As mayor of Nevada
City in 2020, I originally supported Gov. Newsom’s stay-at-home orders because we had nothing more than predictive models to base our decisions upon. In fact, in March 2020, I signed a declaration of emergency.
However, as the realtime data began to roll in, my opinion changed. Gov. Newsom’s overreach continued while never considering the unintended consequences of an immediate surge in domestic violence and child abuse, economic devastation and hunger for many struggling families, suicides, an uptick in drug overdoses and substance abuse, loss of businesses and income, a rise in obesity, the foregoing of important medical treatment, the negative impact of isolation, child developmental delays and the evisceration of communities, to name a few.
Never did Newsom allow discussion regarding improving Californians’ immune systems through improved diet, the distribution of Vitamins D, C and A, and zinc tablets, community gardens and a focus on food as medicine. This could easily have been encouraged, and it would have come with no negative consequences.
Californians should have been afforded options that were not so severe and costly to their lives and well-being, and yet Newsom was never willing to adjust his overbearing measures according to the developing data. Now, as it currently stands, Newsom’s decisions will take years to recover from.