For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “I’m standing here because of Willie Brown”
Gov.Newsom, on the occasion of the former Speaker turning 90
- Voters Gave Newsom a Lesson in Hubris; Delivered Mods to Legislature
- Latino Legislative Candidates Meet Mixed Election Results
- State Water Board Relaxes Proposed Conservation Rule
- California Must Triple Emissions Reduction to Meet Climate Change Targets
- Can California Legislate Happiness…?
- Willie Brown, “Speaker for Life,” Turns 90
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) curates California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING MAR. 15, 2024
Voters Gave Newsom a Lesson in Hubris; Delivered Mods to Legislature
LA Times commentary from George Skelton
Gov. Gavin Newsom should have learned this four years ago: You don’t try to sell voters on more government spending in a primary election.
Particularly Sacramento spending.
Newsom’s Proposition 1— a proposal to pump more money into treating homeless people who are mentally ill, drug addicted or alcoholics — may finally pass after vote counting is completed. But as of this writing, it is still too close to call, with the yes and no votes virtually even.
Newsom must be shocked.
In January, the cocksure governor told Times reporter Taryn Luna in an interview: “I think it’s going to win overwhelmingly. Period. Full stop.”
Typical Newsom hubris.
Many politicos were surprised last year when he insisted that his proposal be placed on the March 5 presidential primary ballot. Primary elections are often graveyards for liberal causes.
That’s because they typically suffer from low voter turnouts. And that helps conservative agendas. When turnouts are low, the electorate consists of a higher proportion than usual of right-leaning voters, including older white people and Republicans.
In this election, the final turnout will probably be a pathetic 33% of registered voters, says Paul Mitchell, who runs Political Data Inc.
So far in the vote count, 38% of Republicans have returned their mailed ballots, compared with only 31% of Democrats, Mitchell says. Also, 51% of voters over age 65 have sent back their ballots, compared with just 13% of those under 35.
White people account for 67% of those who cast ballots, although they’re only 55% of registered voters. Conversely, Latino voters make up just 17% of the ballots cast, although they amount to 28% of those registered.
“When the youth turnout drops, Latino turnout drops with it. Latinos are younger,” Mitchell says.
Four years ago in a March 3 presidential primary, the turnout was a bit higher: 47%. But it wasn’t pro-Democrat enough to rescue a $15-billion school construction bond proposal that was crafted in the Legislature with Newsom’s heavy input and support. Voters rejected it by six percentage points.
The proposition number — 13 — may have confused voters. The measure’s backers theorized that people feared it would weaken the sacrosanct 1978 property tax reduction initiative, Proposition 13. Maybe some did. But the real reason it failed was that the turnout was low and voters objected to the spending.
That measure should have been placed on the November general election ballot when the turnout was 76%.
In 2008, on an even earlier presidential primary ballot — Feb. 5 — voters rejected a measure to spend more money on community colleges.
You’d think Newsom would have understood the lesson.
“Always go to the general election if you’re going to ask voters for money,” says Democratic consultant David Townsend, who has run many local bond and tax measures.
“There are more liberal voters and they’re younger. They have a longer view of life. They want things to be better for themselves. Primaries have a bunch of old guys like you and me.”
Across California on March 5, roughly as many local school bond measures failed (14) as passed (15), according to the California Taxpayers Assn. Some measures are still too close to call.
Newsom’s Proposition 1 included a $6.4-billion bond. But the cost would double when interest on the borrowing is added. All voters aren’t dumb. Many do the math — and frown about the many billions California already has spent trying to reduce homelessness.
The Proposition 1 money would finance construction of 4,350 housing units. There’d be new treatment facilities for 6,800 homeless people. Newsom hyped the housing number higher.
Perhaps if the governor had focused more on selling his confusing ballot measure and less on promoting his national political profile, Proposition 1 would have fared better. But mainly, the proposal did worse than expected because it was placed on the wrong ballot — despite Newsom raising more than $20 million for the campaign and opponents spending virtually zilch.
It was a bad day for several Sacramento politicians, especially liberals. It’s looking like at least 10 legislators seeking another office failed.
Several moderate legislative candidates did well. But the next Legislature elected in November will still be dominated by liberals.
“By and large, it was a pretty good night for the moderate side,” says Marty Wilson, chief political strategist for the state Chamber of Commerce. “It was a solid performance by business-backed Democrats.”
Latino Legislative Candidates Meet Mixed Election Results
Sacramento Bee
If your name is Carlos Villapudua, Rodrigo Espinosa or Joe Soria, the primary election was not kind to your candidacy.
Villapudua abandoned his Assembly seat to seek a jump to the state Senate, but not enough voters in District 5 chose him to replace the termed-out Susan Eggman-Talamantes. Espinosa, the two-term Merced County Supervisor, lost his re-election bid outright. Soria, a small business owner who doubled the fundraising by his Tulare County supervisor, came up way short in his race.
Villapudua, Espinosa and Soria were among Latino candidates that were sunk in the primary election. Election experts believe a dismal voter turnout rate, especially among Latinos, doomed some of them.
Money didn’t appear to be a problem, as Soria and his sister, Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, found out. His sister raised $1.8 million for her re-election but finished second to a newcomer in Assembly District 27. (She will move on to the November election).
So much for political dynasty Villapudua, who was elected to Assembly District 13 in 2020, could have run for re-election. Instead, he sought to move up to the state Senate while his wife, Edith Villapudua, campaigned for his Assembly seat. Both lost.
The Assemblymember, who raised $950,000, finished third among three candidates and out of the runoff. His wife, who raised $700,000, finished last among three hopefuls for his Assembly seat.
There were successes – outside of Carlos Villapudua – where Latino Assemblymembers made the November runoff for state Senate seats. Democrat Sabrina Cervantes in District 31 and Eloise Gómez Reyes in District 29 are among four Assemblymembers who will face voters in November for a chance to move to the state Senate.
Latino incumbents who advance in the state Senate race include Democrats S. Monique Limón (21st District) and Lena A. González (District 33), and Republican Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (19th District). Latinos in the final two for state Senate include Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín (District 7), and Alhambra Vice Mayor Sasha Renée Pérez (District 25), who are Democrats.
Republican Latinos in the state Senate final include Former Assemblymember Suzette Valladares (District 23), business owner Carlos A. García (District 29), educator Cynthia Navarro (District 31), and accountant Mario Paz (District 33). Assembly: Six races pit Latino against Latino
There will be at least six Latino candidates elected in the state Assembly. That’s because the runoffs in six races feature a pair of Latinos.
They are: Democratic incumbent Joaquín Arámbula and Republican Solomon Verduzco (District 31); Coachella Valley school board member José ‘Joey’ Acuña Jr., a Democrat, and businessman Jeff González, a Republican (District 36); San Fernando Mayor Celeste Rodríguez, a Democrat, and attorney Victoria García, a Republican, (District 43); Etiwanda school board member Robert García and Fontana school board member Adam Pérez, both Democrats (District 50).
And Democratic incumbent Lisa Calderón and Whittier City Councilmember Jéssica Martínez, a Republican, (District 56); and, Democratic incumbent Blanca Pacheco and pest control manager Raúl Ortiz Jr., a Republican, (District 64). Licensed psychotherapist Leticia Castillo, a Republican, has qualified for the District 58 runoff. Democrats Clarissa Cervantes and Ronaldo Fierro, both Democrats are battling for the second runoff spot with a 168-vote difference in results as of publication deadline.
Democratic incumbents in the November race include Cynthia M. Aguiar-Curry (District 4), Mía Bonta (District 18), Liz Ortega (District 20), Esmeralda Soria (District 27), Robert Rivas (District 29), Juan Carrillo Ventura (District 39), James C. Ramos (District 45), Blanca Rubio (District 48), Rick Chávez Zbur (District 51), Mark González (District 54), Sharon Quirk-Silva (District 67), Avelino Valencia (District 68), Kate Sánchez (District 71), and David A. Álvarez (District 80).
Republican incumbents in the runoff include Josh Hoover (District 7), and Juan Alanis (District 22).
Other Latinos in the runoff include Contra Costa school board member Anamarie Ávila Farias (District 15), real estate worker Manuel Noris-Barrera (District 17), Los Ángeles County Commissioner Ricardo Ortega (District 34), businessman Robert Rosas (District 35), construction manager Tony Rodríguez (District 44), justice advocate Franky Carrillo (District 52), public safety commissioner Michelle Rodríguez (District 53), Assembly district director Mark González (District 54), businessman Efren Martínez (District 57), restaurant owner Alfonso Hernández (District 61), Lynnwood Mayor José Luis Solache (District 62), police officer Joshua Rodríguez (District 69), and Lemon Grove Mayor Racquel Vásquez (District 79).
State Water Board Relaxes Proposed Conservation Rule
Sacramento Bee
Sacramento and cities across California caught a break from the state’s water regulator this week after the agency faced criticism that its water conservation rules were too complicated and costly to meet.
Regulators at the State Water Resources Control Board proposed new conservation rules Tuesday that would ease water savings requirements for urban water suppliers and will ultimately lead to less long-term water savings than initially planned.
Under the new rules, the city of Sacramento would have to cut its overall water use by 9% by 2035 and 14% by 2040, far less than an initial proposal that would have required it to cut back water use by 13% by 2030 and 18% by 2035.
Statewide, experts analyzing the new rules say they will cut urban water by only 7% instead of 12% and on a much slower time frame. That will mean savings of only 180,000 acre-feet a year by 2030, instead of 750,000 acre-feet under the old rules. “There’s real world implications to this change,” said Heather Cooley, director of research at the Pacific Institute, who noted that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s own water supply strategy called for a minimum of 500,000 acre-feet of savings by 2030. “The effect of this is it really dramatically reduces water savings and we’ll get there less quickly.
If approved by the Water Board later this year, the proposed regulations would require about 400 urban water suppliers to shrink their water use budgets and tailor conservation goals to local needs — but not as drastically as expected.
An initial proposal that called for dramatic water savings between 2025 and 2035 ran into strong opposition last year from water agencies themselves.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office also published a scathing review of the proposed rules, warning the proposal would be expensive and overly complicated to implement.
In response, Water Board staff reworked its regulatory blueprint and is now proposing less stringent water-saving standards and extending the timeline an additional five years to 2040.
“We believe that the Water Board has really taken to heart some of our recommendations and our concerns,” said Jim Peifer, executive director of the Sacramento Regional Water Authority. “We have to do our homework but these regulations are looking better.”
Peifer warned that the board’s initial rules required such drastic cuts that customers would water their lawns far less and ultimately threaten Sacramento’s prized trees. He argued the city’s lush canopy would see more damage from underwatering than trees in less arid coastal communities.
“The water agencies aren’t in complete control of customer behavior, yet they would responsible for implementing conservation regulations,” Peifer said. “It would really be hard for the customers in total to be able to maintain their landscapes in such a way that they’re still maintaining their trees.”
After a record wet year last year, rain and snow totals in California are running about average, with reservoirs mostly full and few summer water restrictions anticipated. But the state was in severe drought for nearly a decade, and state officials warn that climate change will lead to less surface water supplies on average.
The Water Board’s landmark urban water conservation rules have been in process for years. Following a severe drought, former Gov. Jerry Brown signed two laws requiring 400 California cities to produce a yearly water-use budget and eventually face fines for failing to set and meet appropriate conservation targets.
Those savings targets are based on formulas meant to shrink the amount Californians use for indoor water use such as bathing and dish washing, and outdoor water use for landscaping depending on regional climate, over time.
Under the previous rules, 168 agencies that serve 42% of California’s population would have had to cut water use 20% or more by 2035. Under the new rules, just 46 agencies, representing 10% of the population, will have to cut water use that much.
Chelsea Haines, regulatory relations manager for the Association of California Water Agencies, said the draft rules provide “appropriate flexibility” for urban water suppliers to build on their existing efforts to make water use more efficient.
“ACWA and its members recognize water use efficiency as an important tool to help address the impacts of climate change and look forward to continued collaboration with the state and other partners to build our resilient water future,” she said in a statement.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article286641230.html#storylink=cpy
California Must Triple Emissions Reduction to Meet Climate Change Targets
CalMatters
California will fail to meet its ambitious mandates for combating climate change unless the state almost triples its rate of reducing greenhouse gases through 2030, according to a new analysis released today.
After dropping during the pandemic, California’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other climate-warming gases increased 3.4% in 2021, when the economy rebounded.
The increase puts California further away from reaching a target mandated under state law: emitting 40% less in 2030 than in 1990 — a feat that will become more expensive and more difficult as time passes, the report’s authors told CalMatters.
“The fact that they need to increase the speed of reduction at about three times faster than they’re actually doing — that does not bode well,” said Stafford Nichols, a researcher at Beacon Economics, a Los Angeles-based economics research firm, and a co-author of the annual California Green Innovation Index released today.
“As we get closer to that 2030 goal, the fact that we’re further off just means that we have to decrease faster each year.”
The state is even further away from meeting a more aggressive goal set by the Air Resources Board in the state’s new climate blueprint. Under that plan, greenhouse gases must be cut 48% below 1990 levels by 2030. Gov. Gavin Newsom had urged the board to adopt the more difficult goal, calling the new scoping plan the “most ambitious set of climate goals of any jurisdiction in the world.”
David Clegern, an air board spokesman, said in an emailed statement to CalMatters that state officials are confident that California will hit its targets, including its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
Clegern said the state is in the midst of updating its climate programs and strengthening regulations, which, he said, “takes time” because they have to “translate into projects and action in the real world.”
Greenhouse gases are spewed by an array of sources, mostly from vehicles, industries and power plants that burn fossil fuels, but also from livestock, landfills and other sources.
The report, compiled by Beacon Economics and environmental nonprofit Next 10, analyzed state data and concluded that through 2030, California would have to cut all greenhouse gases by 4.4% every year, beginning back in 2022. (Only preliminary data is available for 2022.)
To put that challenge in perspective, the state has only achieved annual cuts of more than 4% twice over the last two decades, both during major recessions, in 2009 and 2020, according to Stephanie Leonard, director of research for Next 10. And from 2016 through 2021, the annual average reduction has been just 1.6%, according to the report.
Massive amounts of emissions — more than 100 million metric tons a year — will have to be eliminated for California to meet the mandate. The state couldn’t spew more than about 258 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in 2030, compared to 2021’s 381 million, according to the report.
Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, told the state Legislature’s joint committee on climate change policies on Monday that there is little room for error in the years ahead.
“The challenge is that we need all of our programs to be effective and reduce emissions as laid out in the scoping plan,” Randolph said. “We need each program to perform as well as or better than identified in the scoping plan in order to achieve our goals.”
Power plants and cement are major emitters
California already has made substantial progress cleaning up cars and trucks. It has the world’s strictest emissions controls on vehicles, including a regulation that phases out new sales of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Last year, electric vehicle sales were up 29%, though they slowed at year’s end.
But electricity generation was responsible for some of the biggest increases in emissions between 2020 and 2021, a 6.7% increase for imported electric power and 3.9% for in-state power, the report found.
That’s because California’s drought resulted in less hydroelectric power and more reliance on natural gas to avoid power shortages, according to Leonard. In 2020, the state faced its first non-wildfire rolling blackouts in nearly two decades after record-breaking heat. Last year, the state extended operations at three natural gas plants along the Southern California coast to shore up California’s straining power grid.
Natural gas plants are the largest source of greenhouse gases among California’s in-state producers of electricity. California has a law mandating zero-carbon, all-renewable electricity by 2045 but it has a long way to go: About 42% of power generated in the state came from natural gas in 2022.
MORE:
Can California Legislate its Way to Happiness…?
CalMatters
Former Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is committed to trying, though he puts his own happiness at only two out of 10 (ask him again after November, when his term ends, he told CalMatters).
After being forced to hand over his leadership post last summer, the Lakewood Democrat became the chairperson of the newly formed Select Committee on Happiness and Public Policy Outcomes, telling Politico last October that lawmakers “don’t take happiness seriously.”
At the committee’s first meeting today, Rendon said he was inspired to take on the topic after watching the 2011 documentary “Happy” 14 times in a two-day period. This committee is at least 11 years in the making, he said.
Roko Belic, the filmmaker and first witness in the three-hour hearing, said from his visits to 14 countries, the keys to happiness are nurturing strong interpersonal and communal relationships; leading a life that includes meaning, play or novelty; and a sense of gratitude. Other experts also mentioned economic stability (but not necessarily economic wealth); a connection to the environment; and resilience.
How happy are Californians?
Mark Baldassare, the Public Policy Institute of California’s survey director, cited the organization’s September 2023 survey, which found 58% of California adults said they were “pretty happy,” 16% “very happy” and 26% “not too happy.” But with the number of “not too happy” Californians growing, Baldassare suggested that legislators should “pay attention” to younger adults and lower-income residents who were less happy than others.
California comes in seventh for the happiest U.S. state according to WalletHub, and three of its cities appear in the top five happiest, with Fremont topping the list overall. Fremont Mayor Lily Mei was invited to the hearing and touted the city’s “vibrant” cultural community, economic opportunities and inclusivity.
So how to get to a happier place?
In addition to abstract theories that were tossed around — including nods to Buddhism, Aristotle and Maslow — panelists floated some potential policy solutions. These ranged from the very ambitious (universal healthcare) to the more minor (increasing urban green spaces).
And while Rendon told CalMatters that not all ways to boost happiness would be a “government directive,” a country that ranks high in happiness with a strong social safety net “pretty much jives with my political ideology.”
The hearing was, for the most part, optimistic. Panelists espoused how increasing happiness benefited the greater good: Happy people live longer, are healthier, more successful at work and are more likely to volunteer.
But at times, the grave consequences of an unhappy public came to the forefront — particularly when legislators spoke about the “ripple effects” on mental health, depression and crime.
Said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Valley Democrat and committee member: “You don’t have kids walking into schools with guns to shoot people if they’re happy, you know?”
Willie Brown, “Speaker for Life,” Turns 90
CalMatters commentary from Jim Richardson (Brown’s biographer)
Willie Brown Jr., one of the most flamboyant and powerful politicians California has ever known, was delivered into this world by a midwife in his grandmother’s drafty, white clapboard house in segregated Mineola, Texas.
Next week, he will turn 90 years old.
Brown still dominates every room he enters with his smarts and swagger. His advice – and connections – are still sought by friends and even former adversaries.
Brown became the most powerful Black politician in the country in the 1980s and ’90s as California Assembly speaker, serving a record 14 years. After he termed out, he was then elected mayor of San Francisco for eight years.
“I’d still be a speaker without term limits,” Brown proclaimed to laughs at his recent induction to the California Hall of Fame.
When I was a reporter for The Sacramento Bee, I wrote a 500-page independent biography of Brown, but we hadn’t talked much since he left office as mayor 20 years ago. Recently, we sat down at a corner table for lunch at Sam’s Grill in San Francisco. Brown took his usual seat facing the door where he could see who was coming and going.
We talked for two hours as a steady stream of friends and well-wishers stopped by his table. One of his lawyer friends sat down with us. Three former San Francisco firefighters also stopped to talk and gave him a thumbs up on their way out the door.
Brown’s eyesight continues to deteriorate from retinitis pigmentosa, diagnosed decades ago. He said he doesn’t watch much television because it’s hard for him to see the screen. He prefers listening to audiobooks.
Brown looks a little grayer and paunchier, but his mind – and tongue – is sharp as ever. As we talked, Brown spun off political opinions and observations. He predicted that President Joe Biden, “the best candidate Democrats have,” would win re-election.
Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco and the first Black person to serve as speaker of the California State Assembly, in a conference room at his law office in downtown San Francisco on Feb. 7, 2024. Photo by Laure Andrillon for CalMatters
Brown had recently finished listening to the book “The Accidental President” by A.J. Baime, chronicling how Harry Truman upset the pundits and prognosticators by beating frontrunner Republican Thomas Dewey in 1948.
“Biden has the same kind of crazy Congress,” Brown said. “His opponent is crazier than Dewey.”
And Brown knows Donald Trump.
As reported by journalist Dan Morain in his book “Kamala’s Way,” Brown and his friends, including his then-girlfriend Kamala Harris, were visiting Boston in 1994 when Trump sent his private jet to fetch them to New York to discuss a hotel project in Los Angeles (the deal never materialized).
Vice President Harris got her start in politics when Speaker Brown appointed her to a state board reviewing appeals for those denied jobless benefits.
On the night he was elected San Francisco mayor, Harris was by his side and gave him a black baseball cap emblazoned with “DA MAYOR” in gold letters. Their romantic relationship ended soon after, but Brown continued giving her political advice, particularly when she ran for U.S. Senate.
Years later, their relationship fueled a news cycle during Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. I asked if he still talks with Harris.
“Not anymore,” he replied. “She doesn’t talk to me. I’d love to talk to her. She was a good friend.”
Brown migrated from Texas to California in 1952, virtually penniless. He made his way through San Francisco State working in his uncle’s underground casino. He went to Hastings law school and became a protege of U.S. Rep. Phil Burton, the older brother of John Burton.
Elected to the Assembly in 1964, Brown entered office when Pat Brown was governor. His political career spanned seven governors, in fact. He was actively involved in the presidential campaigns of Robert Kennedy and George McGovern. The tragic assassination of his close friend, San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, occurred minutes after Willie Brown had left his office.
Elected Assembly speaker in 1980, Brown relished controversy. He tangled with governors, including in an epic 64-day state budget stalemate with Gov. Pete Wilson over education funding. The state notoriously issued IOU’s during their standoff.
It was widely felt that Wilson caved to Brown, who once called himself the “King Kong of California politics.”
As San Francisco mayor, Brown presided over the sprucing up of the Embarcadero, opening day care centers and building a new ballpark for the Giants. In an interview as he left office, Brown told me it was “the most enjoyable eight years of my political existence.”
But his critics accused him of being too cozy with developers and favoring allies for city contracts. For five years, the FBI investigated City Hall to root out corruption – which began in part because of his own request for the bureau to intervene. Few prosecutions resulted, and Brown was never indicted, claiming the probes were politically motivated.
He also embraced a high-rise building boom in San Francisco that priced-out working- and middle-class residents. Brown now lives in one of those high-rises, the 58-story Millennium Tower.
“Those are the fun days,” he said. “As I reflected on it, the world of politics in those days was enjoyable.”
Despite all of the current rancor, he remains hopeful about the state of politics.
“I’ve got optimism,” Brown said. “I do think, frankly, that there are newcomers who really are about trying to achieve. And they are not buying-in exclusively to the process of parties. Whether Democrats or Republicans or progressives, they really do have a desire to achieve.
“That gives me hope for the whole system.”
Brown stays in touch with old colleagues, including current and former governors. “I’ll get a call from Pete Wilson because they’ve asked him about something in government,” Brown said, “and he calls me.”
Willie Brown doesn’t talk much with Jerry Brown. I asked him what he thought of Jerry Brown’s second act as governor. He replied that the era of term limits created an inexperienced Legislature, shifting expertise and power to governors and their staffs.
“Nobody would challenge Jerry Brown on anything, so Jerry Brown enjoyed a dictatorship, literally, as governor.”
As Brown reaches his 90th birthday, the accolades and honors that eluded him when he held elective office have been rolling in. In February, he was inducted by Gov. Gavin Newsom into the California Hall of Fame.
“It meant a lot to him,” said longtime political consultant Gayle Kaufman, who talks with Brown frequently. “There is a new generation not as familiar with his history and importance to California politics.”
As the ceremony began, Newsom upstaged the official host – his wife, Jennifer – to pour praise on Brown.
“I’m standing here because of Willie Brown,” Newsom said, recalling his start in politics with an appointment from Brown to a San Francisco traffic commission. “And that was a simple appointment that changed the trajectory of my life.”
Many politicians still seek Brown’s advice.
“I am awed every time I have an opportunity to be in his presence and to speak with him,” said Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, a former Assemblymember and Senate President Pro Tem. “Age does not seem to have diminished anything about him. His intellect, his wit, his knowledge, his keeping up with politics and current events.”
Republicans who vociferously opposed him now express admiration.
Bill Baker, a Republican who once represented Contra Costa County in the Assembly, was the point person for the GOP caucus on the state budget at the time, and their disagreements were sharp. “He was a great speaker,” Baker recently told me. “He made the Assembly run about as well as any one person can, and all you have to do now is look at how this has become so (partisan).”
In retirement, Brown maintains what he calls his “circuit”: a regular schedule for eating at a different San Francisco eatery each day of the week to support restaurants after the pandemic lockdown lifted. If it’s Friday, he’s at Le Central.
He also has lunch once a month with Nancy Pelosi and her husband Paul when they are in town.
“I don’t think he’s slowed down on any level,” said Kaufman.
Brown has outlived most of his peers and contemporaries. He recently attended a gathering to remember Phillip Isenberg, five years his junior, who got his start in politics working in Brown’s law office. Isenberg was later elected mayor of Sacramento and then served in the Assembly for 14 years.
Looking dapper, Brown sat in the front row at Isenberg’s remembrance. Although Brown didn’t speak, several who did began by paying tribute to Brown. Former California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, for example, lauded Brown and Isenberg together as “altruistic co-conspirators.”
The death that has hit Brown the hardest, he told me, was Eleanor Johns, his chief of staff and personal assistant for 40 years.
“She was so much a part of me that when she died last April,” he said wistfully, “a few days later, I had to pay some bills. I signed a check and the bank wouldn’t take it because I had not signed a check in 30 or more years.”
His friends will stage a series of birthday celebrations for Brown this month, and they promise to be over-the-top.
As my lunch with Brown came to a close, I asked him what he wanted to do next.
“Try to make it to 91,” he replied.