Dan Brotman says Glendale needs housing, revenue and safer streets without cutting core services
In an Inclusive Voices Media interview, Brotman said Glendale should build more housing in the right places, protect police and fire funding and invest in street safety
Dan Brotman says Glendale needs more housing.
Not because Sacramento says so.
Because people who work in Glendale should have a chance to live in Glendale. Because young people who grow up in the city should have a way to stay near their families. Because a city cannot call itself strong if the next generation has no path in.
“The important thing is to recognize that we need more housing,” Brotman said in an interview conducted by Inclusive Voices Media’s Silva Harapetian. “It’s not just the state pressuring us.”
Brotman is a Glendale City Council member and former mayor. His public biography describes him as a former economics professor, father of two and longtime public servant. He has a background in economics and finance, and his campaign identifies him as a council member focused on housing, climate, public safety, mobility and maintaining Glendale as a high-quality city.
In the interview, Brotman said he shares frustration with state housing rules that limit local control. But he said Glendale should work with lawmakers rather than spend city money on lawsuits he believes the city would likely lose.
“What the state has been doing is forcing us to do it in a one size fits all way,” Brotman said. “That’s what’s frustrating, taking away our local control.”
Brotman said some candidates want Glendale to sue the state over housing mandates. He rejected that approach.
“It’s a fool’s errand,” Brotman said. “Because we’ll just lose lots of money, we’ll lose those relationships.”
He said the better strategy is to keep lobbying Sacramento, especially as California prepares for a new governor and new state leaders. He said Glendale has already built housing and should make the case that it has acted responsibly.
“We’ve been good citizens,” Brotman said.
For Brotman, the question is not whether Glendale should grow. It is where and how.
He said denser housing makes sense downtown. He also said Glendale should encourage more mid-scale housing, including townhomes and courtyard apartments, along commercial corridors. In single-family neighborhoods, he said accessory dwelling units can add housing while fitting into the existing character of those areas.
“We want the right housing in the right place,” Brotman said.
He said Glendale also needs more ownership housing. Brotman said the average cost of a house in Glendale is about $1.4 million, making it difficult for young people to buy a home and build equity.
“How do young people get into home ownership and start to build equity?” Brotman said. “Those are things that are really important.”
Brotman tied housing growth to the city’s aging infrastructure. He said Glendale needs to invest in streets, sewers, water and energy systems. He also said climate change will make infrastructure planning more urgent as the city faces water supply challenges, extreme heat and aging roads.
“We have a lot of infrastructure investment that we have to do,” Brotman said.
On the budget, Brotman said he does not support hiring freezes, staff cuts or reductions to core services. He said Glendale has made major investments in police and fire, and he wants to protect those investments.
“I don’t believe in hiring freezes,” Brotman said. “I don’t believe in cuts to staff. I don’t want to see core services cut.”
Brotman said much of the city’s recent budget growth reflects public safety spending. He said Glendale filled fire department vacancies, filled police vacancies and added 20 new police officers to increase traffic enforcement and respond to crime.
“We’ve actually made big investments in public safety and police and fire,” Brotman said.
He said he would not reverse those investments.
“I’m not going to pull back on these investments,” Brotman said.
Brotman also said he opposes deferring maintenance and capital projects. He said delaying road repairs or infrastructure work may look like savings in the short term, but costs more later.
“That’s just a fake savings,” Brotman said. “I don’t want a city that’s deteriorating.”
He said Glendale should use technology to save money where it can. He pointed to the police department’s decision not to invest in a new helicopter because drone technology can provide some air support at a lower cost.
“There are things like that where we could save money without impacting quality of life,” Brotman said.
Still, Brotman said cost savings alone will not close Glendale’s budget gap. He said the city needs new revenue.
“We need new sources of revenue,” Brotman said.
He said the city is looking at freeway billboards, fees for delivery robots, digital kiosks, curbside electric vehicle charging and ways to generate revenue from underused parking lots. He said a new tax should remain a last resort, but the city cannot rule it out if the numbers do not work.
“That’s the last thing we want to do,” Brotman said. “But we can’t close that off, because we have to make the numbers work.”
Brotman said he does not want to balance the budget by lowering expectations for what Glendale should be.
“I don’t want to make the numbers work by downgrading the city,” he said.
On mobility, Brotman said Glendale has a serious pedestrian safety problem. He said the city ranks near the bottom among similarly sized California cities for pedestrian injuries and deaths, especially among older adults.
“We are one of the worst cities when it comes to pedestrian injuries and deaths,” Brotman said.
He said the city must slow down drivers and reduce reckless driving through both enforcement and street design.
“That is critically important,” Brotman said.
Brotman said Glendale also needs to give residents safe and convenient ways to get around without a car. He said younger people often want more options than previous generations did.
“They want to walk, they want to bike, they want to take transit,” Brotman said.
He acknowledged that safer street designs may require drivers to accept small delays. But he said that trade-off is worth it if the city truly cares about saving lives and reducing injuries.
“If we really care about safety, we’re going to have to do these things,” Brotman said. “It may take a minute longer to get where you’re going. I think that’s a worthwhile trade off.”
Brotman closed the interview by directing voters to his campaign website, DanForGlendale.com. He also gave out his personal cell phone number and said residents can text him first if they want to talk.
“I love talking to people one on one,” Brotman said.
Candidate profile
Dan Brotman
Race: Glendale City Council.
Current role: Glendale City Council member and former mayor.
Background: Brotman’s public biography describes him as a former economics professor, father of two and elected Glendale City Council member. He has a background in economics and finance.
Key campaign themes: More housing in appropriate locations, local control, public safety, infrastructure investment, safer streets, climate resilience, new revenue and protecting core city services.
Campaign website: DanForGlendale.com.
Interviewed by: Silva Harapetian, Inclusive Voices Media.
Inclusive Voices Media candidate interview protocol
Inclusive Voices Media has interviewed all but one of the Glendale City Council candidates.
In the interest of fairness and equal treatment, Inclusive Voices Media followed the same protocol for every interview.
All candidates were invited and given the opportunity to select a time slot on the same interview day.
Each interview was limited to 10 minutes.
All interviews were conducted live-to-tape. That means they were recorded continuously without stopping, editing, retakes or do-overs.
Each candidate was asked the same questions. No candidate received the questions in advance.
The interviews air in alphabetical order.
Inclusive Voices Media says its goal is to provide voters with a fair, transparent and consistent platform so they can hear directly from the candidates and make an informed decision at the ballot box.
All candidates were reached and given the same opportunity. All but one candidate participated.