Jerry Brown's Accomplishments As Mayor of Oakland Reviewed

Mayor Brown, a few months ago TPR reviewed Joel Kotkin's The City: A Global History, a thousand-year history of cities. The essence of his book is that great cities are sacred, safe and busy. You've been the mayor of Oakland, now in your second term. Is Oakland sacred, safe and busy?

It has aspects of all three, but I would have to say that the secular city is not so sacred if we compare it to the ancient cities. It's busy, and getting busier, and in some parts at some times of the day and night it's not as safe as I want it to be. I would have to add that there have been great cities that were not so safe – and often rather profane – so I have to dissent somewhat from Mr. Kotkin.

Share with our readers the proactive policies you advocated when first elected that you believed would allow Oakland to realize its potential both economically and re: livability.

My goal for Oakland was to reduce crime significantly, to bring 10,000 people into downtown, and to encourage the creation of charter schools in order to provide a competitive nudge to the Oakland public school system to improve. I'd say significant progress has been made in all those areas.

It is fair to say that since being elected Oakland's mayor, the business and the development community, former foes of yours, increasingly have come away from forums where you have spoken in awe of your candor and pro-business/pro-development attitude; they particularly like when you admit that you've tried as Mayor to correct/reverse some of the policies you put in place when you were the state's governor. Is that an accurate assessment?

When you've been around for as long as I have you certainly do reflect on the things you've done in the past, and some worked out far better than others. I am very proud of the fact that I took the lead in formulating an Urban Strategy back in the '70s. My Urban Strategy of 1978 had three priorities: revitalizing core urban areas, building in the outer rim of the cities and, finally, developing new areas. I understand this process better now that I've been a mayor. Governors operate on a more abstract level, living in the world of lobbyists and legislators and statewide media, but a mayor deals directly with citizens and developers. I see the same pieces of real estate virtually every day, and that lends a concreteness that is often missing in the more rarefied debates and politics in Sacramento.

Many observers of public policy say that what government does best is incentivize and disincentivize public behavior. Many laws are in place in California that affect municipal government, public safety and land use; are they positively encouraging public behavior? What did you run up against that allowed you to advance your agenda as mayor and likewise, what behavior made it more difficult to advance your agenda?

I think in the planning process there is a certain excess. The notion of planning certainly has a core of real value, but it's vague enough that in the wrong hands it can create some real barriers. Developers hire good architects and we hire good engineers and we're trying to create a high-quality environment that allows the businesses to thrive. Governments still try to bring to bear more general notions of the common good, but because societies are conflicted, there will always be people who don't want to see any changes whatsoever. There are conflicting state rules, environmental rules, local rules on hiring, competing social objectives, and when those social objectives are allowed to operate as expanding restrictions and mandates then you get a growing bureaucracy, you get delay, you get uncertainty, and that uncertainty reflects the fragmentation and cultural cross-pressures that show up in the urban space.

So as mayor and as a strong mayor – in Oakland I have the authority over the planning department, over the redevelopment department, over the economic development department; they report directly to me – I've flattened that reporting relationship. To me there is a constant accretion of more scrutiny and participation, all of which sound good and fair but in practice they are exceedingly redundant. I've found that I've had to clear away the underbrush. We have the planning department, design review, and the planning commission, and we have to appeal to the city council – and all along the way there are people who can jump in. Public participation is certainly the heart of democracy, but with that we need a very strong hand at the helm to push things along.

Let's continue with like analysis. You along with former Governor Wilson opposed Prop 13 when it was first put forward noting that its passage would precipitate a dysfunctional relationship between local and state government. Given the fiscal limitations at the local level, what tools do you have as mayor, given the state's fiscal arrangement, to advance the agenda of a great city like Oakland?

First of all, the assessments have gone up dramatically because of the transfer of property, which triggers the transfer tax, so a lot of money is coming in via the property tax, so I don't see Prop 13 as blocking Oakland. I've emphasized residential development with Oakland as the heart of a very vibrant economy. San Francisco, Berkeley, Silicon Valley, the corridor on the east side of the Bay, and Oakland had empty space at its heart, and I wanted to fill that in, first, with residential – and as much market rate residential – as possible. That was a radical departure from the past where people had been trying to fill in the hole in the center of Oakland with regional shopping centers, entertainment districts, ballparks, and office complexes. It all failed over a 30-year period. I felt that proximity, or what real estate brokers like to say: "location, location, location," was the key to Oakland because it was next to so many wonderful places as well as having so much inherent potential itself so that was the genesis of the 10,000 residents that we are on track to achieve. I don't see Prop 13 as an impediment, I see it having distortions. There's often a frantic search for retail and sales taxes revenues but in Oakland we're achieving my goal. Of course, the schools still need a lot more money and I'm very sympathetic to that.

What's the health of representative government in California today? When you started your career there was a vibrant political culture in California but in 2005 one senses that the public has far less confidence in government and invests less in the process. What's your take?

The role of money in politics, the flow from the relatively limited sources in this society, the emphasis on opposition research, the exploitative and distorted 30-second commercials, the focus groups, all lend themselves to gross propaganda and massive arms races in the forms of initiatives or actual sponsorship of candidacies. This is a real challenge to democracy, but it's what we've got. In many ways it's protected by the First Amendment so we have to adapt to it while protecting and advancing our basic values of participation, transparency and economic growth.

One more transitional question before we turn to your Attorney General's race. Los Angeles has a new mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. He begins his administration asking his constituents to dream with him. If you were writing an open letter to him re how best to use the Mayor's office to make a positive contribution to his city, what would you advise?

Focus on a very limited number of objectives. Keep the economy vibrant. Respect the neighborhoods. Truly take advantage of the downtown revitalization and the transition that takes place between industrial, turning toward mixed use. And be very careful and thoughtful when working with the schools because the schools are at the heart of society's inequities and great social challenges, and they're under-funded, there's great frustration there and cities are so challenged that to take on the educational responsibility as well presents the kind of problem that you should reflect on long and hard.

Let's turn to next year's Attorney General race. What do see as the role of the Attorney General. Is it a policy-setting role or is more about the efficient enforcement of laws.

Well, "efficiency" sounds very mechanistic. I do think the laws have to be constantly modified and improved to allow the economy to prosper as well as the environment to be protected. With every year there are another 1,000 to 1,200 laws, and each of these laws spawn even more regulations and more interpretations. Such an abundance of laws can hamper our ability to innovate and create and compete. I've seen the accretion of so much law that in many respects it becomes very hard to efficiently interpret it, and certainly as Attorney General I want the state to be competitive. I want the economy to be strong. So, yes, I do want efficiency.

The Attorney General is the counselor for all of state government including the governor, and given my experience as a governor and a mayor I won't hesitate to give my advice nor will I hesitate to embark on legal initiatives that cry out for action. That is the charge of the office of the Attorney General and it's a very important one, and I feel that my experience over these many decades gives me a unique perspective that will enable me to really help local and state government do much better.

While you were governor, Governor Deukmejian was Attorney General. What was your relationship with Attorney General Deukmejian? Is it the model for what you would want in a relationship with a Governor?

Most Attorneys General since the time of Earl Warren in 1938 have fancied themselves as candidates for Governor. I'm going to be the first Attorney General who has already been there and done that. I see the role of the Attorney General as an incredible challenge and I believe this office is where I can best employ my skill and experience.

Elaborate?

The Attorney General's office has specific lawyers that work with specific departments. There's an ongoing relationship, whether it's disciplining doctors, advising the Fish and Game Department, or advising the governor about litigation concerning education. It's a very wide scope. And since there are so many laws, the Attorney General has a policy function in that the enforcement and interpretation of law is at the heart of effectuating policy itself. So I really feel that my understanding of state and local government will serve me well as I try to make these governmental entities work well separately.

I think I would take a more active role in the government because I've been governor. I know the drill, so I would be helpful. I would be collaborative. If I thought something was wrong I'd say so. It's an unusual relationship because under law the Attorney General is the lawyer for the governor, but they're both separately elected and have their own separate agendas. So there's a professional responsibility to work with the governor and all his appointees, and I certainly respect that.

And there's an independent role where the Attorney General could bring a lawsuit dealing with polluters or corporate malfeasance, land use or something like that so there's an independent public responsibility role. I would protect the public interest and also act as a counselor. I would certainly like to give some advice to the governor, and I would hope that he'd listen to me since I've been there. I know Arnold Schwarzenegger; I know Steve Westley and I know Phil Angelides. I understand the role of Attorney General. The AG's role is very different from that of the Governor, and I see it as an important opportunity to assist in making our governmental process work a lot better than it does. We are facing a degraded political environment, in part because of the media, in part because of the enormous sums of money, but also in part because of the polarization that takes place in some of the communities as well as the state at large; people pulling in so many different directions and through the representational process, this fragmentation really slows down effective decision-making.

Let's speculate about what the first 100 days of your Attorney General tenure would involve. What issues would you take on first?

First, I want to make California a safer place. My experience in Oakland with serious crime is such that I want to make sure our state officials are moving and working with local police, sheriffs, crime labs, and local prosecutors to enhance public safety, particularly in our cities. Then terrorism is a serious problem. Most people expect a terrorist attack, and the Attorney General as the chief law enforcement officer has to take that as the number-one responsibility. So, crime is obviously the first topic. Secondly, I'm very concerned about the deterioration of the environment. The Attorney General now has a lawsuit pending against eastern utilities for emitting greenhouse gases that constitute a public nuisance. That's certainly a case I would pursue vigorously, and I would look to the laws that exist and ensure that they are creatively and strongly enforced to maintain the ecological integrity of the state. As we get more people and we have more cars, as we have more chemicals moving in the stream of commerce. It's very important that the laws are enforced vigorously but intelligently. I won't want these cases to go on forever. I think we need to sit down with business people who are causing the damage. We have to get them to stop it but we have to act in a way that makes sense in a business point of view but also from an ecological point of view.

Some of your supporters have analogized your campaign and potential leadership in the AG's office to that of Elliot Spitzer in terms of your ability to speak to the public and attract attention. Some of your opponents have said that not being a practicing lawyer or one that cares that much about details, you won't be a good lawyer for the state. How do you respond to those characterizations?

None of those running for Attorney General has ever dealt with over 10,000 separate pieces of legislation. I've reviewed these laws. I've vetoed some; I've signed most, but I've heard careful arguments by opponents and proponents on every conceivable aspect of our growing legal system. This puts me in the unique position of being both an intelligent person and a very seasoned interpreter of what California law provides. Not only that, but I've practiced private law in Los Angeles and I've also personally argued before the Supreme Court of California, as a former Secretary of State. I've appointed hundreds of judges and, given that kind of experience, I'm ready for the role of the Attorney General, which for the most part has nothing to do with going into court. It's more about setting the policy and providing accountability for this very large law office that has the people for its client. And that's where I really see myself working with the governor because the Attorney General is the lawyer of the people, and so the people's laws and the people's constitution are the guidelines for my actions as Attorney General, and I'd say I'm very well prepared.

Last question, Mayor. Given that the race for AG will have no incumbent, how you will differ from the current Attorney General in terms of priorities?

I think my experience in fighting crime in Oakland sets me apart. I have operational responsibility in regard to police work. I've hired two police chiefs. I fired one. I've worked with two police chiefs in setting strategy and reviewing operations. That's certainly a hands-on, street-level view of the dilemma of crime in this society. I'm going to be spending a lot of time working with local sheriffs and police. Our quality of life in California depends on safe streets. We have to reduce crime. On the subject of the environment, I'm going to be creative in looking for ways in which we can protect both California's natural treasures and the health of its citizens.