Around 2017, as my wife and one-kid-at-the-time and I all wandered from open-house to open-house in Alameda's Bronze Coast, I recall walking past a fellow sitting on his porch next to his massive "RESIST" flag waving in the breeze. It was rainbow (or maybe it was all black like a pirate's flag?) His front yard was decorated with similarly striking decorations, such as fake skeletons in a giant bird cage. This vibe — even though we didn't use the word "vibe" so often in 2017 — was 100% steampunk (or 100% pirate?). I shouted out "nice flag," we chatted momentarily, and then I continued on to the next open house with my family...

That said, I'm not sure if "RESIST" ever fully satisfied me as a means of articulating a positive and caring political position during the first Trump administration. Neither did that "IN THIS HOUSE WE BELIEVE..." laundry list of a yard sign. If you have found value in these sayings, I won't disagree — but I, for one, am looking for more pointed ways to distill political goals and values this time around.

So far what I'm hearing and reading is starting to cohere into something like "DEFEND and BUILD."

I've been mulling over these concepts for a couple weeks and was pleased to hear both touched on at today's opening of the new "season" of the California State Legislature.

Defend

Not just resisting across the board and in the abstract, but rather defending specific vulnerable populations, defending at-risk civil liberties, and defending orderly process and rule-of-law.

As reported today by the San Francisco Chronicle:

Specifically, [Governor Newsom is] asking lawmakers to approve up to $25 million in additional funding for Attorney General Rob Bonta to defend California policies in court against efforts promised by Trump to erode them.

They include California’s policies that forbid local police from helping federal immigration authorities with deportations and its nation-leading car pollution rules. Trump has also threatened to withhold funding from California schools and federal disaster assistance over California’s liberal policies.

San Francisco's state senator Scott Wiener went even further today in requesting additional funds:

Today, as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, I introduced SB1X 1 in our Special Session. It provides:

$25M to Dept of Justice to enforce the law when Trump violates it

$25M for legal services, eg deportation defense

$10M to ensure cities & counties can defend against Trump

Wiener announced the above in a post on the quickly growing Bluesky social network. But if you don't trust what you read on social networks (and you shouldn't!), here's a link to the official text of his bill.

During the first Trump administration, the City of Alameda adopted local policies designating itself as a "sanctuary city." Today East Bay Insiders counted 7 other cities in Alameda County that have adopted similar policies — the County of Alameda has done so as well. Senator Wiener's bill aims to provide additional funds to support local jurisdictions like Alameda to defend those policies, as well as to take legal action should the Trump administration try to withhold federal funds that are already due to these cities or counties.

Ideally we'll never have to choose between receiving federal funds and honoring local commitments to residents and local policies. The second best option is having state resources to use all relevant legal means to simultaneously protect these commitments, policies, and funds.

Build

At the same time as California seeks to defend people and defend policies, it's also all the more important that we get our act together in other long-overdue regards.

As reported today by the Sacramento Bee:

California lawmakers have a duty to balance taking on the incoming Trump administration with making the state a more affordable place to live, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said Monday.

Rivas, who was again elected Speaker by his Democratic colleagues at the start of a new legislative session, called housing affordability “the civil rights struggle of our time” and said he heard two distinct messages from California voters in the last election.

“First, they continue to believe deeply in the California values of tolerance, equality, and human rights,” he said, referring to voters’ passage of a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage freedom. But Californians are also “deeply anxious” about the cost of living and doing business in the state. The speaker said it’s a feeling he remembers “in the pit of my stomach from my own childhood” growing up in a tiny farming community.

“Our task this session is clear,” he told members of the Assembly. “We must chart a new path forward and renew the California Dream by focusing on affordability.”

Rivas announced he would limit assembly members from introducing more than 35 bills during the two-year session, down from 50 in previous years, to help focus on that priority.

“We want every leader in this room to have the greatest possible bandwidth to focus on laws that uplift affordability and prosperity,” he said.

Rivas also said he would be directing leaders of relevant legislative committees to investigate rising energy costs and review every state agency that oversees housing supply.

“We have to understand what’s working and what’s obstructing real progress right here in California. It’s our responsibility,” he said.

To make the abstract notion of "affordability" more concrete, let me try putting it this way: Instead of making peace with California's stagnating population numbers, it's time to prepare for a California of 60 million people.

Seriously.

Currently California has a population of ~40mm, while the United Kingdom has a population of ~60mm with land area significantly smaller than California. California already has a larger GDP than the UK — imagine how economically productive this place could be with 50% again as many people.

It's time to grow again in the ways that California used to grow:

• Having a growing number of housing units means moderating (or at least stable) housing costs and moderating (or at least stable) cost of living.
• Having a growing state population means having growing political power.
• Having a growing state population means a higher percentage of Americans living carbon-lite lifestyles.
• Having a growing state population means a higher percentage of Americans living under California's abortion-access laws.
• Having a growing state population means having places for the next generation to live here, rather have to move away to cheaper (and more carbon intensive and less liberal) Sun Belt states.

Do we have the resources to support 50% more people? Yes, we do.. if we want to.

One example: We have enough water for 60mm residents — if we want to have 60mm residents

Take water, for example. Only 8% - 12% of the state's water goes to urban uses (as opposed to agricultural or environmental uses):

On a per-capita basis, urban use peaked in the last century and has gone down since:

Even setting aside self-imposed cuts during the most recent drought period, usage is clearly down on a per-capita basis since 1995. We can serve even more residents with the same amount of urban water than before.

And should we need to realize even more efficiencies in urban water use, all we have to do is take a closer look at where half of it is currently going – 31% to residential landscaping and 15% to commercial/institutional landscaping:

I'm no expert in California water-resources management. (My basic knowledge comes from skimming those PPIC reports and reading Cadillac Desert twice over the decades :) But you don't have to be an expert to take away this high-level conclusion: If we want to welcome 20 million more Californians, we can.

That future may not involve as massively lush residential landscapes in Montecito — but that future may be a future in which the majority of existing Californians and new Californians lead healthy, prosperous, and comfortable lives. (And if those who live in Montecito still want to maintain their irrigated acreage, maybe they'll have to pay a significantly higher price to do so.)

To switch to considering a topic I do know much more about: Can we build a state-wide transportation system that can move 60 million Californians and their goods in a manner that is effective, safe, and climate friendly? Yes, we can — if we want to.

This blog is more or less focused on Alameda, but as we look across the state and the country as a whole, I'll be looking for — and cheering on — leaders from the Democratic Party who can simultaneously defend our people and our policies and build a significantly bigger, more inclusive, and widely prosperous tomorrow.