Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla Looks to Partnerships Across Sectors - and the Aisle - to Solve Problems

Assemblyman Canciamilla, when we talked to Assemblyman Keith Richman last year he commented that the budget that had been passed indicated that "the Legislature did not have the political will necessary to make the difficult choices not only for fiscal responsibility, but also for the long-term planning and future of the state." Do you share his view?

I think that it's important to try to build consensus on a broad range of issues. I think that we're not having those types of debates now. We're not even having much in the way of real discussions on issues right now.

Some reform of the system is needed and I think that the Governor began talking about reform in the right way during his campaign. Unfortunately, he hasn't followed through in an effective way, and it has allowed those who oppose reform to make things more difficult. It has polarized the atmosphere. There are interest groups on all sides that are now mobilized and fully engaged in combating any meaningful change. This means that the opportunities for meaningful dialogue or debate are limited. People are unwilling to talk to each other about a lot of issues and as a result, nothing happens.

You and Assemblyman Richman introduced an alternative budget. Could you elaborate on what you think the budget framework should be for the state?

The alternative budget that we introduced two years ago included an additional 3.5 billion in cuts over what was proposed at the time. It also included a half-cent sales tax increase that would have been in place for five years, in order to pay off the debt that had been accumulated to that point. Unfortunately, that budget model doesn't work today since the debt has ballooned to almost three times the level it was a couple of years ago. It would require more cuts. It would require more revenue generation. If you put off making the tough choices, the choices just get tougher every year. That's unfortunately where we are now. The budget we proposed two years ago -- which got no support because Democrats thought it was too tough, and Republicans wouldn't support the tax increase -- wouldn't work today since it does not go far enough to address the current debt.

Turning to transportation issues and AB 850, could you explain to our readers what the bill is designed to do?

Well, AB 850 is one part of the governor's Go California package. It is a package of transportation bills that are designed to streamline the way in which we are conducting our transportation business. It is also designed to allow more options for building projects. The piece that I'm carrying, AB 850, is designed to improve the opportunities for public/private partnerships to create toll roads, high-occupancy toll lanes (HOT), and to provide alternate routes around congested roadways. It is designed to allow for a more creative way to approach how we invest in the infrastructure of California and to allow for private industry to participate.

What are the prospects for reforms like AB 850 and the rest of the Go California package?

I think it is probably too soon to tell exactly what the prospects are. We are beginning to reach out now to other members to discuss the details of the bill. Certainly, there is going to be resistance from some. I expect that Caltrans may resist giving up any jurisdiction or authority. There will be resistance from others who will be concerned about whether public/private partnerships are appropriate for providing basic public infrastructure, but we are prepared for that debate, and hopefully people will be open-minded and willing to discuss this in a serious way.

We are publishing an interview with State Senator Lowenthal about goods movement and the ports of Southern California in this same issue. I know that you have done some thinking about building toll roads at the Port of LA. What can the state do to create incentives for developing regional solutions to goods movement problems?

I have talked with Senator Lowenthal about his concerns regarding goods movement out of the port. I have talked to others about a lot of the transportation choke points we have in the state. I don't anticipate the state having the resources to do much in the way of major transportation projects on its own. We have essentially stripped the transportation accounts down to bare bones. We have put no money aside for these projects. Most of the projects that are moving now are a combination of local money and what's left over from state and federal pots that have been there for some time. I think that once the current project money is gone we are going to be hard-pressed to come up with state dollars for those kinds of projects. Without being able to adopt public/private partnerships, nothing is going to get done; there just isn't going to be any money.

Could you elaborate on the types of projects that could result from public/private partnerships?

Well I think there are a couple of options with regard to moving goods in and out of the ports. One option would be to have a consortium of truck and commercial vehicle transportation companies pay for and construct a commercial vehicle lane that would be dedicated for part of the day solely to goods movement. They would pay for the privilege of using the lane during that period of time. The investors would be repaid from these fees. At off-peak commercial times the lane could be open to the public or it could simply operate as a toll road 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Those are the kinds of options we are considering.

To give you another example, there is a connector between housing in Contra Costa County and jobs in Alameda County. It's a two lane road. The state doesn't have the resources to expand it. If private investors wanted to build an additional lane as a toll lane, it would increase the capacity of the road and give the public the choice of using the toll road or the free road. Basically, we are trying to find ways to expedite the use of private funds and make it more attractive to private investors to create transportation options.

The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation is about to publish a report suggesting that there are 500,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs at stake because of infrastructure issues, and that to find a balance among environmental concerns, economic growth, and mobility there needs to be a regional mechanism to manage the infrastructure investment for the region. Further, the report suggests that the state has a role to play in creating such an entity. What do you think?

I think that there is a growing debate in several areas of the state about how to best manage these transportation projects with an eye towards maintaining the economic integrity of manufacturing in California. I think that at some point the state is going to have to decide on a course of action. We have to ask whether we can continue with the centralized, Soviet-style Caltrans and its 22,000 employees trying to manage projects all around the state, taking very narrow views of how they fit into the rest of the state's economic survival, or are we going to move to more regionalized planning agencies that can consider the economic impacts of their decisions and how they fit into the broader scheme of commercial growth. I think it makes more sense to move to a regional approach. I think it makes sense to give more autonomy.

We are certainly seeing that debate here in the Bay Area, given the cost overruns and other problems associated with the Bay Bridge. It is a debate that we should have as a state and not only piecemeal as specific regions advocate for handling more of their own affairs.

There is a task force on CEQA reform that involves The Public Policy Institute of California, the Keston Institute at USC, and the California Center for Regional Leadership. As a Democratic member of the Legislature, do you think there is a need to reform CEQA?

There is definitely a need to reform parts of CEQA. The Bay Bridge, again, is a good example why. The bridge has gone through years of environmental review in order to reach its current state. Yet, we are faced with the prospect of spending 10's of millions of dollars on updating the environmental work because some of the design work needs to be changed. This situation makes you realize that something is wrong with the process.

To get projects in the ground faster and to help stabilize the state's economy, we need to streamline the CEQA process. My concern is that CEQA has turned into merely a consulting business. A lot of the material that goes into the CEQA reports is just rote, prepackaged verbiage. It really is not helpful when it comes to protecting the environment. I think that we do clearly need to change the way in which we manage these projects and get them approved.

An interview with Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing Sunne Wright McPeak will appear in this issue also. She is spending significant energy trying to link transportation and housing and attacking "dumb growth". Where do your priorities overlap with the Secretary's?

I've known the Secretary for a very long time and I know that she is concerned about creating opportunities for affordable housing. I certainly know that she is working hard to streamline the transportation planning process. While I think that encouraging transit villages and more high-density development around transit hubs makes sense, we have to be careful about tying transportation projects to affordable housing projects. Some approaches get the state too involved in the land use business, and until we straighten out our own house with regard to the budget, the pension system, the education system, transportation issues and others, I would be reluctant to tell local governments how to build in their communities. I am cautious about moving too far in that direction too quickly.

To conclude, two years ago we asked Assemblyman Richman about the loneliness of being an Assembly centrist. What is it like being a centrist on the Democratic side today?

It is lonelier today than it was two years ago and we are more of a target today than we were two years ago.

The debate in Sacramento now is very polarized. The focus of our side is keeping and maintaining order. That means speaking with one voice. That means accepting a party line on many issues. Those of us in the middle, who will try to argue for compromise and who try to work toward real solutions tend to be targeted both by the Republicans and by Democrats. We are either not Democrat enough for our Democratic colleagues and we are still Democrats to our Republican colleagues. So it is a very lonely place to be and there are actually fewer of us now because there is no constituency that supports centrists. The constituencies in Sacramento support the extremes.