Matt Mahan talks to LAist about why he should be California's next governor (Transcript)

Here's a transcript of the conversation that took place April 7 as part of an AirTalk series of candidates.

Austin Cross: San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan is running for California governor on what he's calling a back to basics platform. He's pitching himself as the pragmatic alternative in a very crowded Democratic field, and Silicon Valley's biggest names are betting on him. The June 2nd primary is just weeks away. Mayor Mahan is with me now. Thanks so much for coming on AirTalk.

Matt Mahan: Thanks, Austin. It's great to be on AirTalk with you.

Who he is

Austin Cross: Let's start at the beginning. You grew up in Watsonville. Your mom was a teacher. Your dad was a union letter carrier. But before politics, before tech, you were a teacher, an English and history teacher. How much of those experiences do you think show up in the way that you govern?

Matt Mahan: They are at the center of how I think about public policy. I became interested in government and politics because my parents were civically engaged. They deeply believed, and I believe that the public sphere is where we all come together and make collective decisions about our future. The investments we're going to make, the trade-offs we're willing to make, who we are going to prioritize supporting.

You mentioned getting back to basics. I really think things like the performance of our public schools, the accessibility and affordability of housing, safety in our neighborhoods, these are things that really can hold people back or create immense opportunity.

Austin Cross: So you went from teaching, you got into tech. A lot of Angelenos might not be very familiar with your record, but you served on city council and then you've become mayor, of course. It's a very crowded field for California governor right now. The head of the California Democratic Party has expressed concern that two Republicans could advance in the runoff.

There’s five other Democrats, why throw your hat in? Why not throw your support behind somebody else?

Matt Mahan: Austin, I followed the race really closely for the last year, and people reached out throughout the year encouraging me to jump in, and I kept saying no, I love my day job. My wife runs a high school serving first-gen low-income students in San Jose, and gets almost all of them to college, which is pretty incredible.

She loves her job. We've got two little kids. But I'm concerned that our state's at an inflection point. And on the one hand, we are an incredible place. Our diversity, our innovation, the immense opportunities that California has afforded people who've come here from truly all over the world, and invented the future in so many different ways, in Hollywood, tech, but also other industries, manufacturing, agriculture.

We're just an incredible state. At the same time, we see that the outcomes that really matter in people's lives, how affordable is housing, how expensive is the energy bill, how healthy are they, are their children being educated and prepared for the future? We've increased spending in California by 75% in just the last six years, and yet we're lagging behind many, if not most other states in the areas I just mentioned in terms of the real community outcomes that matter. So I jumped in because as mayor of the third-largest city in the state, I've taken a different approach,

And I've seen the progress we've made. We've made San Jose the safest big city in the country. We've led the state in reducing homelessness. We now have thousands of homes under construction. I want that kind of problem-solving, data-driven approach in Sacramento, and a little less of the politics, frankly, that often get in the way of the results that we need

On his platform

Austin Cross: I definitely wanna ask you more about your approach to housing and homelessness in just a minute, but I wanna focus in on a key part of how you've campaigned as a back to basics candidate.

Getting back to basics usually means maybe scaling some things back, maybe doing away with things. I’m wondering if there are specific policies, maybe even policies with strong Democratic support, that you think are not part of the basics.

Matt Mahan: The way I think about it is not what we're losing, but what we're gaining. I didn't approach it that way at all as mayor. I had the same theme when I ran for mayor of San Jose over four years ago. The way I think about it is, basics is in a way the wrong word.

It's really foundational.

So let me give you an example. Housing is the key example here. We have broken the housing market in California. It's too slow, it's too expensive, there's too much red tape, our fees are incredibly high, we have the largest regulatory burden. And so what's happened is that California under builds housing, and we have for years, decades now in many places, and that has created all of these problems.

And we can sit around and create new programs to treat each of the symptoms of this underlying or foundational basic problem, or we can cut to the heart of it and say, "Look, we've just made it too hard and too expensive to build. We need to say yes to housing so that we can create space for our kids and our grandkids.

We were spending a million dollars a door and taking over six years to build new supportive housing and leaving thousands of people out on our streets, many of whom were literally dying. And so I think we've got to be willing to think differently, challenge our assumptions. All of our policies are obviously well-intended or they made sense at one time, but if they aren't working in practice today, we should be willing to rethink them.

How he's governed in San Jose

Austin Cross: Talk to me about the permitting process in San Jose. There are state-mandated targets, of course, for cities. The target for San Jose is over sixty-two thousand homes by twenty thirty-one. There has been some criticism about just how many of those homes have been permitted. One number shows just nine percent of the state-mandated target. Any idea what could potentially be behind that?

Matt Mahan: Yeah. San Jose historically has been just about the best housing provider in the state of California. We are disproportionately zoned for residential. We are the housing provider for Silicon Valley. In terms of the percentage, we're actually at the beginning of a seven-year cycle, and while the state sets targets, they don't provide a whole lot of funding to hit them.

But what we've tried to do, again, is focus on the foundational issues. No policymaker can go to the market and say, "You have to build 60,000 units." That's not how it works. But what we can do is ensure that we create all the conditions for that to happen. So we've increased our height limits everywhere we can.

We've expanded zoning for housing. One of the biggest changes we made over the last two years is in areas that are designated for denser growth, such as our downtown and along all of our transit corridors, we have moved away from a political process for approving permits. We have moved to what's called a ministerial process, which is where we allow the planning director to review an application and just say yes.

And so we've cut permitting timelines by more than 50% for large multifamily developments in our growth areas. We also had to think differently about our fees. In many cities, one-time fees, again, well-intended, they look good on paper, they sound good, they're there to mitigate traffic and environmental impacts and all the, park fees and affordable housing fees.

They all sound great. The problem is more and more cities are finding that because fees can add 10 to 20% to the cost of building a new home, we're just getting less housing. Fewer and fewer projects can get financing, can get a loan from the bank in order to build. So what we did was analyze the data and decide, we can do without some of these one-time fees because it's more important to get the housing built.

And when we reduced those fees a little over a year ago, we saw thousands of new units actually break ground. So they aren't just entitled, which is the number a lot of cities point to, they're actually under construction. We're actually building housing today, and I think the state can take a lesson from that.

Faster permitting, lower fees, simpler process, less red tape, and let's build housing for middle class and working people again.

How he'd approach housing

Austin Cross: You did mention funding. You said your city's not getting a lot of funding from the state to make those targets really as feasible.

I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but I know that you've historically opposed raising taxes as a governor. What is your plan to get that money? As a governor, do you see it as your responsibility to help the cities fund the housing that's mandated in these targets?

Matt Mahan: I do, and I think that the single best lever for that is to use tax credits and tax increment financing in order to unblock these projects. My critique of the very large bond measures is that we have seen massive inflation in housing, up to a million dollars a door.

Here's the really unfortunate thing, when we're publicly subsidizing housing through these bond measures, we're finding that government is building a unit at 30% more than it takes the private marketplace to build the exact same unit. So it's not a very efficient. You could say it's an almost irresponsible or wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.

So I think we have to get more creative. We have to use tax policy, and when we pass bonds, we should be maximizing the unit count and not allow our strings that we attach and bureaucratic processes to make it more expensive than market rate housing. It defies logic that we've been so inefficient with those dollars

Austin Cross: Wondering if you could tell us just about your approach to the unhoused community. I know that you've done a lot of work in San Jose when it comes to getting people off the streets, not necessarily into permanent housing. There have been some but there's also the overall homelessness count in San Jose, people living outside, people in temporary shelter.

That actually went up slightly between 2023 and 2025 to about 6,500 people. And a lot of your approach to housing people has come from something called Measure E, just to read people in. That's a tax on big property sales that San Jose voters approved back in 2020, and they set it so that 75% of that would go to permanent affordable housing.

But you've shifted a lot of that money toward temporary housing. Wondering about your approach there and statewide, whether the priority is permanent housing or temporary

Matt Mahan: Yeah, all great questions, and I would argue San Jose has created a really important model and led the way in reducing unsheltered homelessness, and I'll say a word on why that's so important. Just for the record, it is important, I worked on the Measure E campaign, as did our former mayor and we both are have been very clear publicly, that was a general tax that was focused on ending homelessness.

So the council did have a spending plan at the time that, as you note, has evolved quite a bit to meet the urgency of the crisis. So while the number of people living outside, as you point out, has been flat to slightly up, I think it was about a 4% increase, so within the margin of error on our annual count.

What's noteworthy is that the percentage of people in San Jose who are experiencing homelessness but are living indoors in private accommodations with their own room, in most cases their own bathroom, case management, on-site security, three meals a day, has gone from just 15% of our homeless population to over 40%.

And in fact, this year we believe we will be at over 50%. Why does that matter? Because we have thousands of people living outside suffering in great misery. Their conditions don't improve. In fact, they worsen. We see with chronic homelessness that behavioral health challenges, mental illness, addiction and so forth worsen, impacts on the community worsen, and it becomes harder and more expensive to turn things around in the long run.

So while we're building affordable housing, which San Jose's been a leader in, we've been building 500 to 1,000 units of affordable housing every single year, and we have the disproportionate share of affordable housing in our region. We've also gotta get to a place where there's a safe, dignified alternative to the streets for everyone, and no one is forced to live outside in a tent encampment for years on end.

The other thing I'll just say is one of the shifts we've made is that we've really doubled down on our prevention system, which is a nationally recognized model that the city of San Jose and the county of Santa Clara have collaborated on with a local nonprofit called Destination Home. And the data's very compelling.

Just to put it in relative terms, and then I'll pause for any follow-up questions, Austin. For about $10,000 or so, we can provide short-term, one-time rental subsidy and stabilize someone in their apartment, and then pair them with a case manager and help them to get through that crisis and get to the other side and into a more stable place without becoming homeless.

For about $25,000 to $30,000 a year, if someone has become homeless out on the streets, we can rapidly rehouse them into interim housing and have them connected again to a case manager, private room, three meals a day, and supportive services. And when we allow someone to live outside in a tent encampment, the cost to public services is over $60,000, so double interim housing.

$60,000 per person per year just to manage the impacts in terms of 911 calls, emergency room visits, trash pickup, all the rest. Not even to mention the impact on small business and public spaces and the general quality of life for the community.

Austin Cross: So I hear a desire on your part to get people off the streets. Just to reiterate Measure E, which was something approved by San Jose voters. Initially, the plan was 75% of the funding for that would go to permanent affordable housing.

So in 2024, you shifted 65% of it to temporary. In March 2025, you proposed shifting that to 90% of that funding going toward temporary. As a governor of the state of California is it at all a priority to shelter the unhoused in permanent housing? Or would you say that overall the goal is just to get them off of the streets, maybe into something that's a little bit more temporary?

Is housing for all of those people a goal?

Matt Mahan: Oh, yeah both. But building enough housing, particularly at very or an extremely low income levels, is a multi-decade project. It's just the math is clear. It's billions of dollars and decades to build. But also, Austin, what you're missing in your numbers is you're only looking at one revenue stream.

We've continued to fund affordable housing at roughly the same level through our other funds. Our housing department is a $300 million a year enterprise. And so while Measure E is largely our primary funding source for addressing our immediate crisis of homelessness, and our city council as a whole has agreed, we have consensus that ending unsheltered homelessness is our first and most urgent priority, we are continuing.

We have revolving funds, and we have state funding streams, and what we're really seeing is the state tax credit system is what's enabling the largest volume of affordable housing to get built. But we're continuing to fund and see hundreds of units of affordable housing get built every year.

On healthcare and AI

Austin Cross: It's AirTalk on LAist 89.3. I'm Austin Cross in today for Larry Mantle, talking right now with California gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan, who's also the mayor of San Jose. I wanna change pace now, talk a little bit about healthcare. You've said in the past that 25 to 30% of healthcare spending in the state goes to not delivering care but rather to managing the system.

Medical records are personal. You've suggested using AI but I think a lot of people might have some worry about that. If the AI system makes a bad call on the care, who would be responsible? The hospital, the software company, the state? How do you assure people with an approach where AI gets woven into their healthcare that they're not going to maybe lose something?

Matt Mahan: Yeah, it's a great question. Let's disentangle a few things here. There, there is already AI baked into how we provide healthcare, but my point was more that there's a lot of efficiency we can get with new software. The cost of software is dropping, and so the amount of administrative overhead around things like billing, negotiating with insurance companies, all of the paperwork, digital medical records being one example is just higher than it needs to be. So there's definitely efficiency we can get.

 
When it comes to providing medical care, which I think was your question, I firmly believe that a human a healthcare professional needs to be in the loop because really we get the best of both worlds when we have the analytical capacity of new tools.

And so I see it more as a tool, a supplement. You wanna still have the radiologist, but the AI tool may help the radiologist catch something that the human eye just may not be as attuned to because the AI tool's been trained on analyzing millions of X-rays, and no human brain will ever have that opportunity.

So I see it as a, I think the term is a co-pilot or an extra tool. But it's very important that we keep a human in the loop. I think that's true beyond healthcare, just for the record. I think it's whether it's hiring and firing decisions and work performance or criminal justice decisions.

Can software and data and new tools, including tools powered by AI, give us new ways of understanding a problem or an opportunity or analyzing the data? Sure. But does that mean that those systems should autonomously be able to execute the decision on life and death matters? No, I don't think so. And so it's really about getting the benefit of the tool while regulating it enough to keep people safe and making sure that we're striking a balance

On the current state of the race

Austin Cross: With just a few minutes left in this conversation, I want to ask you about your campaign.

Some of the most powerful names in tech have poured nearly $12 million into it, including Sergey Brin, Steve Huffman, Patrick Collison. I'll also point out you've said that you oppose the billionaires tax. You've supported loosening energy regulations for data centers. Those are positions that benefit the people who have supported your campaign.

What can you say to voters to assure them that your policy positions come before those donor relationships?

Matt Mahan: Yeah, it's a great question. First of all, I'm the only candidate who has regulated tech, and if you actually look at The New York Times from a week ago, you'll find Sergey Brin is not such a fan of mine and we had quite a disagreement. So he's not contributed to the campaign directly just for the record.

But I've got a mixed view of tech. I built civic tech tools to help grassroots groups organize and build political power at the grassroots level to hold their elected officials accountable, and I'm proud of that work -

Austin Cross: I just want to circle back about Google co-founder Sergey Brin just to point out the Guardian has reported that he's handed about a million dollar donation to a committee to elect you called Deliver for California.

He's also maxed out his individual campaign donations at seventy-eight thousand four hundred dollars. Now, this is in The Guardian. So you say that he has not supported your campaign. Is that it?

Matt Mahan: I don't know if he's given it. You may be right. I'll trust you on that. I'm not allowed to talk to outside groups, as you mentioned. That campaign, there's a strict firewall between candidates and external groups, whether they're labor groups, business groups, or whatever they are.

What I do know is The New York Times recently reported that Sergey and his girlfriend really think that I'm too progressive, and they are not huge fans. I think they've given to a number of candidates. I don't know why , but I just wanted to be clear that it's not that I get along with all of the leaders in tech.

I have my spirited debates with them, and some I think are more, thoughtful about some of these issues than others. But I just I wanna be clear that the picture is not as simple as you made it sound in your intro.

Austin Cross: The latest poll from the California Democratic Party right now has you at 7%, Steve Hilton and Xavier Becerra tied at 18%.

Of course, a lot of people know party's chairs warned that a Republican could make the general election or maybe even two could split the vote. What's your argument for staying in the race at this point when there's seemingly a lot at stake for the Democratic Party?

Matt Mahan: Yeah, that's a good question. I guess I'd just offer a couple of things. One I don't think anyone else in the race is offering the track record, the governance approach, the level of accountability and pragmatic policy positions that I am, so I think I'm in a very unique lane. Number two, a poll came out yesterday putting us ahead of Katie Porter and in double digits at 10%, so I think we're seeing growth.

Our campaign polls are showing growth at a very clear path. I think this race is still wide open. We see that support for different candidates is actually very soft on the Democratic side. There's still a lot of voters saying they're not sure or they're not fully committed to a candidate. And the greatest risk is that we don't elect a strong problem-solving Democratic leader because in the long run, as, as much as we have to fight Trump through the courts and through our policies and our budget decisions, the best resistance to Donald Trump is delivering results and showing that California's values work in practice and are a strong counterpoint, that our inclusivity is a strength, that our diversity is a strength.

And as the mayor of the third-largest city, one of the most diverse cities in the world I think I have a unique perspective and track record to offer that. Just on the point about the two Republicans, while the party chair has his, maybe has his reasons for saying that, with Donald Trump endorsing Steve Hilton unfortunately I think it's very likely you're gonna see Republicans coalesce around him, which means he's likely to get through.

It also means the other Republican almost certainly will not, and the real question then for the rest of us is which Democrat we think gives us the best chance at solving our problems, offering that counterpoint to Trump's agenda, and ushering in a new era of opportunity for people. More affordable housing more effective healthcare, better public schools, safer neighborhoods, the kinds of things I've spent my career delivering on.

And to me there's a very strong rationale for continuing to make that case and offering that that, that vision for the future of the Democratic Party in our great state of California.

Austin Cross: You're a big data guy. Let me just ask you, in the days leading up to June 2nd, if the numbers aren't there for you, if it doesn't look like you have a strong shot at this, are you willing to step aside and throw your support behind another Democrat in an effort just to prevent, say, two Republicans from making it through?

Matt Mahan: I've always said if we didn't have any chance, we weren't moving in the polls at all, that I'd certainly be open to that, but that's not what we're seeing. Our latest poll has us at 10%, moving up pretty quickly, and think we have a I think the debates have gone really well.

We've had a huge influx of small dollar donors and support after each debate. So we've got four weeks to go, and I'm planning to go all the way.

Austin Cross: Matt Mahan is running for California governor. Right now, he's San Jose mayor. The primary is June 2nd.

Mayor Mahan, thanks so much for coming on AirTalk.

Matt Mahan: Thanks, Austin, it was a pleasure. Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it.

This transcript has been edited for grammar and clarity.