With the elections finally over, what’s the aftermath for congress? What changes, improvements or dangers will we see to government and policy?
The end of the 2010 election cycle has delivered a shift of power in the House of Representatives that will unfortunately bring in a new wave of challenges and partisan agendas. In fact, the majority leadership has indicated that Republicans will seek to overturn some of the historic legislation passed by the 111th Congress, which today is expanding access to healthcare and helping families survive our country’s economic uncertainty.

But as is inherently the case, new challenges bring the possibility of new opportunities. I am committed to moving forward, and continuing to work aggressively for the Central Coast. However, we will all need to do so under an air of caution, because of the uncertainty of Republicans’ intentions to deal and work for progress.

Some of your constituents are currently fighting a proposal before the City of Santa Cruz to build a 40-unit development just across the county line from their homes on Ocean Street Extension. Among their concerns are traffic and density impacts. How have county/city relations and disconnects played into this situation?

Land use decisions are the heart of any local jurisdiction’s authority and responsibility. Retaining local control over those decisions in an environment of increasing state regulation is key to any locally elected official. Whenever a jurisdiction, using its land use authority, considers a new project, it has the responsibility to consider the location and other details of its setting. But what happens when that project is located adjacent to constituents in a neighboring jurisdiction? In this case, the project is proposed within the city limits, but clearly affects residents county living in the neighborhood.

Since passage of the state budget in early October, the governor vetoed $1 billion in line item vetoes— including the elimination of funding for Stage Three Childcare programs that serve mostly women who are transitioning from welfare to the workforce. What are you and the legislature doing about this?

The governor’s line item vetoes went counter to the bipartisan agreement achieved in the legislature. The vetoes cut funding to disabled students, HIV/AIDS patients, mental health programs for children, and Stage Three Childcare programs.

The loss of childcare will directly impact more than 260 families in Santa Cruz County where mostly single mothers will have no other choice but to leave paying jobs in order to take care of their children. Additionally, private childcare providers will lose business and California will forfeit federal dollars. 

The county recently created new rules on medical marijuana dispensaries. Why, and what will they accomplish?

In 1996, the voters of Santa Cruz County passed Proposition 215, the California Compassionate Use Act, by a 74 percent margin. This overwhelming support demonstrated the resolve of our community to ensure access to alternative medicines that provide relief to those suffering from illness.

Since that time there has been an evolving set of regulations to fulfill the voters' wishes. Thirteen other states have passed compassionate use regulations. The election of President Barack Obama led to a new direction in federal drug policies; a memo from Attorney General Eric Holder specifically articulated that U.S. Justice Department law enforcement agencies would not pursue cases involving dispensaries operating within local laws.

Are you endorsing candidates and measures in the November election?  If so, which ones?

On the Nov. 2 ballot I am urging everyone to vote yes on Proposition 21, the state parks initiative that would establish an $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to fund state parks and wildlife programs, and to vote yes on Proposition 25, the initiative to change the legislative vote requirement to pass a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority.

I am urging everyone to vote no on Proposition 23, the initiative to suspend the implementation of air pollution standards established in Assembly Bill 32 that requires major producers of air pollutants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to vote no on Proposition 26, the initiative requiring certain state and local fees to be approved by a two-thirds vote.