Freshman Assemblymember Nick Schultz Brings Experience & Fresh Eyes to the State Legislature
Representing California's 44th District, in this timely interview, Assemblymember Nick Schultz reflects on his transition from local office to state government and the challenges amid fiscal constraints and climate urgency. Schultz emphasizes the importance of proactive constituent engagement, independent legislative thinking, and ensuring that local governments are equipped with both the mandates and resources needed to deliver results.
He highlights legislation he's championing on public safety, housing, energy affordability, and transportation—underscoring a commitment to practical, equity-driven policymaking. From voicing concerns on the diminishing public trust of elected officials to advocating for honoring commitments made to solar customers, Schultz stresses that his legislative approach is rooted in integrity and accountability. Looking ahead, he advises his freshman class to pair their energy and vision with coalition-building and mentorship from experienced lawmakers to achieve meaningful, lasting impact.
”We’ve passed SB 35 and several other state-level laws aimed at streamlining, ministerial review, and expediting production. What we’re seeing—if we’re seeing housing built at all…is mostly luxury, market-rate development.”
—Assemblymember Nick Schultz
Nick, you’re six months into your first term in the California Assembly. Could you reflect on the transition from Mayor and Councilmember in the City of Burbank to serving in the State’s Legislature representing the 44th District?
Absolutely, and I appreciate the question, David. It’s been a learning curve. As you know, the 44th Assembly District—which I represent—stretches from North Glendale to Sunland-Tujunga, includes all of Burbank, and extends as far west as Sherman Oaks. That’s about half a million people, which is far more than the 100,000 or so in Burbank alone. In terms of constituent services alone, it’s been an adjustment, but I’m supported by a small, yet mighty and incredibly capable team.
These first six months have been intense, with wildland fires in Los Angeles back in January as something no one could’ve foreseen, which caused significant chaos and destruction in Altadena and the Palisades. While our district didn’t suffer direct damage, we saw an inflow of displaced residents needing services. That forced my team and me to pivot quickly and proactively connect people to the state resources they needed. On top of that, we’re dealing with a budget crisis. The state entered this year with a major deficit. And when you couple that with federal actions, like clawbacks on funding, it makes an already difficult process even more complex.
All that to say, yes, it’s been challenging, but it’s the best job I’ve ever had. It’s an honor to serve the people of this district, especially in a time when we’re seeing a leadership vacuum at the federal level. California really is the last line of defense, whether it’s reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding access to housing, or ensuring people have clean water and food. It’s incredible to be a part of that work.
-
Over the last few years, polls suggest that many citizens and civic leaders don’t know who represents them—whether it’s in the Assembly, Senate, Board of Supervisors, or even their own City Council…the media have pulled back from the Capitol, so it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that fewer than 1% of the 500,000 eligible voters in your district know who you are. How do you engage your constituents in their government?
That’s a great point, David. I mean, if you ask people what an Assemblymember does, most might respond with, “What factory do you work in?” or “What are you building?” We approach this disconnection in three ways: First, through strong, proactive communication. That includes email blasts, a solid online presence, and consistent updates. For those who follow our work digitally, that connection matters—even if it's a smaller segment of the population.
Second, there’s no substitute for physically being in the community. While I spend Monday through Thursday in Sacramento, I’m in the district every weekend. We’re at ribbon-cuttings in Glendale, visiting community gardens in Sunland-Tujunga, and meeting with small businesses in the Valley. You can’t just wait for people to come to your office. You have to meet them where they are.
Third, and this is especially relevant for us in the Democratic Caucus, I don’t think we’ve done a great job leveraging media. People know Sacramento is working on big challenges, but it’s on us to bring that information back home. Historically, we’ve relied on updates at city council meetings. That’s no longer enough. We need to be using podcasts, interviews, writing op-eds—any tool we can to reach more people and show them we’re working on affordability, job creation, and real outcomes that matter.
-
Many polls also suggest that even voters who are civically involved—or want to be—in the political life of California believe that the Capitol is dominated by special interests. As citizens, many feel they have little real input into law-making. How do you overcome that voter disconnect and distrust?
It’s both a real and a perceived problem. Starting with the perception side: you're right. There’s a noticeable absence of consistent media coverage of the Capitol, and what is reported back to the districts is limited. The burden falls on each legislative office, including mine, to proactively bring information back to our communities. That’s why I appreciate opportunities like this interview. This is part of the solution.
Now, in terms of the real issue, there are very powerful special interests in Sacramento. We both know many legislators build their entire policy platforms around proposals brought to them by lobbyists or industry groups, and I’m proud that several bills we’re running were authored and inspired directly by my office. One example is AB 1050, a housing bill addressing restrictive covenants that limit land use on underutilized commercial parcels.
That idea came from my time on the Burbank City Council, from vacant sites like the old IKEA or Kmart locations ripe for redevelopment…but legally tied up. AB 1050 would help lift those covenants to unlock land for much-needed housing. That’s how we push back. By coming in with a clear vision and independently developing solutions, and not just waiting for others to tell us what to do.
-
Pivoting to your legislative priorities, you chair the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee and also serve on the Budget, Energy & Utilities, and Natural Resources Committees. Elaborate on your priorities on those committees, and what personal experience you draw from when legislating?
I’d say my top three priorities this year are: dealing with the affordability crisis that is very present in California; enhancing public safety, which clearly Californians…and more specifically Angelenos—have expressed their frustration over; and creating and retaining more jobs here in California. Across all of these committees, I feel like I’m having a chance to do important work in each of those areas…I’ll be brief.
On affordability, it’s twofold. Housing costs across California are unacceptable, and we have to do a better job of constructing more housing to meet the significant demand. But it’s not just housing. We’re also seeing utility costs rising across the district. That’s why we’re running AB 1177, which would implement dynamic pricing for all of our investor-owned utilities by 2030 for residential customers and by 2028 for commercial. It’s about giving customers more access to information so they can decide when and how to use the energy they need in their homes. Just that access to information lets them control costs better.
In terms of public safety, with so much I could say here…But as Chair of Public Safety, there were nearly 160 legislative proposals just on the Assembly side that came through our committee. Any proposed change to criminal law, criminal procedure, sentencing, rehabilitation, corrections—all of that comes through Public Safety. We’ve done a lot of great work this year to both take tougher stances on crime—bolstering our investigative efforts, putting in place new penalties—but also to invest in people exiting our prison system. I’ll give you one concrete example:
AB 1229 is a bill that we’re running and are very excited about. It addresses this problem: only 27.1% of people leaving the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are given sufficient housing. What happens to the vast majority of those people? They fall into homelessness. There’s a seven-times higher risk of falling into homelessness after release, and then they reoffend in our communities. Just by ensuring that these individuals have an appropriate handoff as they leave the prison system—it’s not just a humane thing to do, it’s sensible public safety policy to make sure they’re not reoffending.
Lastly, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention job creation. Especially here in the 44th District, the entertainment industry is the backbone of our local economy. In addition to supporting the Governor’s proposal to double the state’s financial commitment to the Film and Television Tax Credit Program, now $750 million annually. I was also a principal co-author of AB 1138, which expands the eligibility criteria to animation and 30-minute segment productions. That has a real, tangible effect of keeping production jobs here in the district, and that pays dividends. It ensures that all small businesses that support the industry can keep their doors open.
-
Regarding affordable housing policy: You served in local government before being elected to the Assembly. Many recent housing bills passed by the Legislature—authored by Senator Scott Wiener and others—are based on what several economists have called a “myth”: that housing affordability is primarily constrained by supply restrictions.
However, a broad body of housing research suggests that in high-demand metropolitan areas, the rising cost and unavailability of affordable housing are more closely tied to skyrocketing land values than to local planning regulations. Given this, why does the Legislature continue to frame its housing solutions around weakening local control over planning and development—when it’s rising land values, not necessarily zoning, that better explain the affordability crisis?
That’s a fair criticism. I don’t know that it’s a myth so much as it’s a half-answer. Supply and demand tell us that we don’t have nearly enough housing units in California to meet current needs. But you’re right, we’ve passed SB 35 and several other state-level laws aimed at streamlining, ministerial review, and expediting production. What we’re seeing—if we’re seeing housing built at all…is mostly luxury, market-rate development. We’re not seeing the truly affordable units we need, so in that sense, you’re right.
It’s land values, labor costs, supply chain disruptions, and a whole host of structural cost drivers that are holding us back from delivering affordable housing.
Yet, to follow up, the Legislature’s response to what some have termed a myth has been to strip land-use control from local governments and undercut environmental planning (i.e, CEQA).
I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions either. For example, this year, with the state budget, we had the primary budget bill—AB 130—and a series of trailer bills. I voted for AB 130, but I did not vote for AB 131, and here’s why: AB 130 puts a six-year moratorium on changes to residential building codes. I think that’s a good move—it helps stabilize construction costs in the short term.
AB 131, on the other hand, included provisions I disagreed with, and I’ll add another wrinkle here, David, it wasn’t just the Legislature shaping this. We saw unprecedented action from Governor Newsom. In addition to the budget and trailer bills, he added AB 102, a sort of poison-pill clause that essentially said if you don’t pass every one of these trailer bills, the entire budget collapses.
You’ve been at this longer than I have, but I’m not aware of a Governor taking that aggressive a stance in recent memory. At the press conference following passage, he emphasized the urgency of housing…but again, I agree with your critique: if all we do is more of the same, we won’t get the kind of housing we need, at the scale or affordability we need. That’s why I’m also co-authoring the Affordable Housing Bond as the missing piece. If we want to build more housing, we need to fund the kind of housing people can actually afford.
The last thing I’ll say is that my experience in local government gives me a different perspective than some of my colleagues, particularly those from Northern California. I believe in cutting red tape and incentivizing housing, but we can’t treat San Francisco and Los Angeles as the same. Even within my district, what works in Valley Village or Studio City, which are denser, is different than what’s appropriate in Shadow Hills, a high fire hazard severity zone. We need more nuance in our state housing legislation.
-
When you were the sitting mayor or a councilmember in Burbank, what were your complaints about state government?
I think there were many complaints. They generally fell into two categories, and you kind of touched on both of them today. The first complaint was that the state is out of touch with the concerns and constraints of local jurisdictions, and the second complaint was about the unfunded mandate. A lot of changes in policy and direction pushed local governments to do more, but without any allocation of accompanying resources.
Not to belabor the point, but that’s why when you look at our legislative package in totality, yes, we have some policy changes, and look, there are enough burdens on local government, no doubt about it. But we are also trying to bring resources back to local jurisdictions, like AB 939, that $20 billion transportation bond, because we understand local transit agencies want to do more for their communities, but they need more access to resources. We felt that this was one tool we could bring back. Not just a directive to do more, but something to empower them to do more for their communities.
-
Pivoting to transportation, you presently serve on the Assembly’s Budget Committee, and transportation funding consumes much of the State’s budget. Given the state’s deficit, how is transportation funding faring?
I would say, all things considered, not as bad as they could be. The Governor’s May Revise had some pretty significant cuts across the board in almost every category, but pushing back against the Governor, I think we were able to land at a good spot. I’ll highlight just two or three things…After the May Revise, we were able to secure $1.1 billion in restoration of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds committed to transit, ensuring continuity of funding for transit agencies across California. There’s also $750 million in loans to local transit agencies, providing a bridge funding solution to delay service cuts and maintain operations. I would also point out that there was a $17.6 million one-time contribution from the State Highway Account to support preparations for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
With all that said, however, you know as well as I do, we are facing a very dire forecast in Sacramento, where we do not expect H.R.1, passed by Congress and signed by the President, to be the end of that conversation about cutting back funding from California. I think that we have staved off some of the deep cuts that the Governor originally proposed, at least for now. What happens at the federal level will continue to force us to revisit this conversation, and I expect a special session in the fall dealing with the budget.
Could you unpack for our readers the “Safe, Sustainable, Traffic-Producing Transportation Bond Act of 2026”?
Sure. So, AB 939 is currently parked in the Assembly Transportation Committee. We look forward to presenting it in January. It’s relatively simple. In this era of budget cuts and limited funding across the board, we’re proposing to place a bond measure on the 2026 ballot that, if approved by voters, would allocate up to $20 billion in bond funding for transportation projects across the state of California.
It comes from the fact that there just isn’t that much funding available for transit projects. And as we build all this housing, as we’ve talked about, people still need to get from point A to point B. We need to move people across vast distances. AB 939 would include funding for intercity rail, commuter rail, light rail, subways, bus systems, ferries, and bridge replacement—all capital improvement projects in transit that, quite frankly, just don’t have enough funding in the current budget.
-
Switching to another of your policy responsibilities, as Chair of Public Safety, what are the Committee's and your priorities?
Simple. I think that the goal of the Public Safety Committee is to advance policies and legislation that make California safer—number one, that is the absolute number one goal: building safer communities. Number two, create a criminal justice system that is fairer and equitable across the board. If you’d like, I can give you two quick examples of what I’m talking about there.
In terms of legislation to make Californians safer, I believe right now, as we speak, Governor Newsom is reviewing AB 379, which I’m the lead author on, which is the most comprehensive reform to human trafficking enforcement in California in recent history. It would include enhanced felony punishments for those who are soliciting minors for sex, but it would also ensure that the Department of Justice is responsible for actually enforcing the human trafficking notice requirement that has been in state law for any number of years but has had no enforcement mechanism. If we’re going to crack down on human trafficking, we have to make sure that bus stations and hotels are putting up the human trafficking notice, doing the training, and doing their part to combat this heinous crime. But in addition, we also need a fairer and just criminal justice system.
Another bill that we are running this year is AB 630. This looks at the fact that public defense services across California are failing most standards across the country. Of the 10 counties in California with the highest conviction rates, eight of those counties contract out public defense services and use flat fees. AB 630 does away with the flat fee and sets statewide standards so that any county that contracts out for a public defender is at least meeting basic criteria across the state for transparency and accountability, ensuring that people have a fair shake if they enter our justice system, and fair and full criminal defense representation.
Does your office receive any constituent mail and complaints about this issue?
I do. On AB 630, you’d be surprised, but there are a lot of folks in Los Angeles County who have navigated the justice system without being able to get access to a public defender. Instead, they’ve been referred out to a consortium attorney. The biggest complaint I hear, and I even heard it when I was a prosecutor in the courtroom, is: “Hey, I met with my lawyer one time. He’s getting paid this flat fee. I haven’t talked to him since.”
I can tell you, from several white collar cases I prosecuted, I immediately knew which attorneys had not even cracked open the discovery material we had provided to them. When you have a massive 20-count mortgage fraud case with hundreds of thousands of pages of discovery, and you’re paid a flat fee, there is a counter-incentive to do the meaningful work. I’m not in the business of letting people out of jail, but I do think that anybody navigating the justice system is entitled to a robust and fair defense.
I would certainly want that if I, or anyone I knew, was going through the justice system. That is not the level of representation we’re seeing across California, and especially in our rural counties.
-
Turning to your committee work on energy and utilities: With California refineries slated for closure and growing federal pushback against climate and clean energy investments, what strategies are you championing to ensure both energy affordability and supply stability for your constituents?
Before I talk about what I'm specifically doing, I want to highlight that the Governor, in consultation with legislative leadership, will be rolling out many proposals in the coming weeks and months. I think what you’re going to see is a preservation of our commitment to ending offshore oil drilling in California, but also a revisiting of oil production and extraction in the Central Valley, especially in places like Kern County. I’m still waiting for more details from the Governor’s office, but what I’m hearing is that there’s a true commitment from the executive branch to deal with both the oil production issue and the energy affordability crisis. That’s just something I’m flagging for you, so stay tuned. I’m curious to see what the Governor has in mind.
Now, in terms of energy affordability, we’re running two bills this year. First, there’s AB 1137, which I’ll just briefly touch on. It’s about dynamic pricing, and the concept is simple. If you’re a customer of Southern California Edison (for example) we believe you should have access to the following basic information: If you’re home at 6 p.m. and want to turn on your AC or your TV, what is that energy going to cost you? Compare that to 8 p.m. later in the evening, so that you, as a consumer, can choose whether to use that energy now or later.
We know the hard, fixed costs of procuring and delivering energy to your home are what they are, and we’re not trying to limit the ability of IOUs or POUs to do what they need to do to keep the power flowing. But to me, the bare minimum we can do to address affordability is to give you access to real-time information, so you can make an informed decision about whether you want to run that load of dishes now or later in the evening when demand is lower and the energy is cheaper to produce, and that’s number one.
We also have AB 44, which deals with resource adequacy requirements, which I can dive right into if you’d like.
Before that, could you explain why the Governor and the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) seem to have kneecapped home solar by removing long-standing incentives that the petroleum industry champions? Are you pleased with what the PUC has done, and might home solar incentives be restored?
I think the PUC, in an era where confidence in government is eroding almost daily, I think there's not a lot of confidence in the PUC to regulate the industry, and I don’t think that that’s an unfounded criticism. I think what you're referring to is, for example, AB 942, which was championed by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), which would have essentially ended, at least as we know it, solar incentives. I did not vote for that in the State Assembly because I'm representing my district, and we have a lot of solar customers here. They want to ensure that the promise that was made to them when they invested is fulfilled, and I think that’s the right thing to do.
To your question, in terms of where it goes from here, that bill made it far. It was more or less chopped up and watered down in the Senate. The version that’s going to pass now, I think, will at least save the day for now, but the conversation will continue in the Capitol about who should bear the cost of this green energy future. It’s not that I’m unsympathetic to the concern that there are still hard costs that the grid bears, and what’s the right amount to charge to solar customers, even though they’re getting a lot of that energy captured from their rooftop solar.
At the same time…maybe just my legal background talking—I’m a big believer in sticking to the benefit of the bargain. When these people made an investment in their home with certain guarantees and assurances, we have to stick to our word. If we fail to do that, that’s only going to further erode people’s confidence in government to do what it says it’s going to do. Your word is everything in this.
-
To follow up, the Hollywood Burbank Airport, while a local asset, also has regional importance as rail lines plan to use it as a major transportation hub. How have the Assembly, Senate, and local governments collaborated to take advantage of that asset?
We need to seize it as the opportunity that it is. You’re right, it’s not just a major facelift for the region with the new terminal. We’re also trying to complement that with another bill we’re running: AB 1150, which would expand the airport’s operations and its ability to upgrade its rental car infrastructure, which is another key driver of people coming to Los Angeles for tourism. That’s one thing the state can—and hopefully will—do this year. That bill is in the Senate, heading to Appropriations, and by the way, it was requested and sponsored by our local airport.
That’s exactly where I say yes, you need to have your author-driven content, but you also have to listen to your community and the major stakeholders in your district. That was a bill we’re proud to carry for our airport, for the 44th District.
I’ll tell you what I’m most concerned about…years away, of course—but when I look at that airport and its vision for seamless integration with California High-Speed Rail, I get concerned. There’s a lot of public pressure in Sacramento right now to revisit that project, to claw back funding. But I’m still a believer in high-speed rail.
I believe in what that project can do. Not just in terms of job creation, but moving people over vast distances at a more affordable rate. I think we need to see that project through, and I hope the political will in the Capitol, and locally, remains strong enough to see it to completion.
-
In closing, some old-timers complain—and we’re an old-time publication, 38 years old—that the current elected body of legislators, while possessing great energy, imagination, and intelligence, are too inexperienced to get “good stuff” done collectively. Is that a fair criticism?
Yes, I think that is a fair criticism. We have another really large freshman class, as you know, following up a large freshman class that just came in. I think that our strengths, and those are the things that you talked about: energy, vision, and a willingness to challenge the status quo…are also accompanied by real challenges. If you look at the freshman class across the board, not nearly enough have local government experience, and many are first-time elected officials.
Going back to your original question, I do think my service on the Central Area Planning Commission for the City of Los Angeles, my service on the Burbank City Council, and as Mayor, that doesn't just inform my policymaking in terms of striking that right balance between state mandates and accompanying resources. It also teaches you how to think critically, how to challenge. Just because someone brings you a bill idea doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It teaches you how to build a coalition. From the 17 bills we had that went into Assembly Appropriations, we got 15 of them out in total. That’s because when we take legislation, we don’t try to do everything, but we try to do what we do very well. We care about public safety, we care about housing, transportation, and job creation. The things we want to do, we want to do them extraordinarily well.
I’ll just close with this, David…I think the challenge for me, and all of my freshman class, is to use the experience that we do have to make the biggest difference we can, but also to look at people who’ve held these roles before. I’m very close with now-Congressmember Laura Friedman and former Speaker and State Senator Bob Hertzberg. These are people I like to touch base with…and not because we’ll always agree on policy, but because they’ve waged enormous battles for California.
I wouldn’t be doing my job if I weren’t in regular contact with these leaders, asking them about their experiences on how they built coalitions and tackled enormous problems. That’s what I think we need more of from the freshman class: a willingness to view prior leadership—prior generations—as a resource at our disposal.
