This article is part of Folsom Times’ 2026 Coffee with Candidates series, featuring one-on-one conversations with candidates in key local races. Through video interviews and accompanying digital coverage, candidates respond to a series of questions developed with input from the community, giving voters an opportunity to hear directly from those seeking office on issues important to the region.
In this segment, we sit down with Josh Hoover, candidate in the local California Assembly race. Hoover, R-Folsom, is seeking re-election to represent California’s 7th Assembly District. Hoover was first elected to the State Assembly in 2022 after previously serving on the Folsom Cordova Unified School District Board of Education. He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and public policy from UCLA and a master’s degree in public administration from USC.
Q: Our first question has to do with affordability and the cost of living. The cost of housing, groceries, gasoline, utilities, insurance, and other necessities continue to put pressure on California households. What do you believe state government is doing to contribute to the high cost of living, and what specific actions would you support in the legislature to make it more affordable to live and raise a family in the district?
Hoover: I think one of the thing that things that frustrates me the most about the cost of living argument and, and our affordability crisis in California is that it is pretty much fully government created. It is policy choices that the state of California has made that have really increased the cost of everything that we buy. For example, when you talk about gas prices, we currently pay the highest gas taxes in the entire nation and the– also the highest gas prices in the entire nation, and at the end of the day, we drive on the forty-sixth ranked roads.
So we’re actually paying the most, we’re getting some of the least in return, and yet Californians are still having to shoulder the burden of paying for these high gas prices. You know, we actually were fighting back this year against legislation that would continue to drive these prices even higher. This is one thing I think that anyone that represents this seat in the assembly has to do, is continue to fight to make sure that these prices don’t go higher. There were multiple bills that we killed at the end of legislative session this year that would have forced more regulations onto refineries, pushed more refineries out of California. These are the things that are actually increasing prices for Californians. We’ve also worked on legislation to temporarily suspend the gas tax to give drivers a re-relief at the pump so that they can actually use that money elsewhere in their budget.
I think these are the solutions that we’re bringing to the table and the things that people need to be doing in Sacramento, ’cause if you remember, when price of gas is high, the cost of your food is high, the cost of everything else that you buy is high. We also have an incredibly serious housing affordability crisis California.
One of the things that I think about regularly as a parent is, I want California to be a place where my kids can one day buy a house, can actually raise their families here someday. And unfortunately, that is becoming less and less attainable as the years go on because housing is so incredibly expensive in California. And so, you know, I’ve sponsored a number of different pieces of legislation to help bring down those housing costs, to help bring down the regulations that are making housing and building housing so expensive in California, and, and those are some things that I really look forward to continue doing if I win reelection.
Q: Alright, that brings us to question number two. California has increasingly used state laws and housing mandates to influence how cities plan for housing, density, and development, sometimes over the objections of local governments and residents. Where should the line be drawn between the state’s need for more housing and the ability of communities, such as Folsom Ranch Cordova, to make their own land use decisions? Are there state housing mandates you would support changing or repealing?
Hoover: Well, thanks for this question. I think it’s a really important one because, as, as with a lot of different policy discussions, this all comes down to striking the right balance. I’m a big believer in local control. I believe that our city council needs to have the authority to make decisions that affect our local community here in Pulsom. And I also think that the state needs more housing. There are a lot of communities across California, Folsom not being one of them, by the way, that are simply refusing to build the necessary housing supply that our next generation needs to actually bring down costs. And so, you know, I do understand why the state sometimes gets frustrated with, with some of those local governments, again, Folsom not being one of them.
If you look at what Folsom has done over the past twenty to thirty years, they are actually one of the communities. It continues to build housing to support their future. However, you know, there are some changes I do think that need to be made. I authored legislation this year specifically to protect historic districts like the historic Balsam District from these housing mandates that have been passed at the state level. So, for example, you know, there was some legislation passed in recent years that really encourages housing development near transit stops.
I think a concept that a lot of communities do understand. However, we also need to make sure that we’re protecting the character of our historic communities like historic Folsom. And so we actually got a, a lot of bipartisan support for legislation that would actually protect the historic district of Folsom from these housing mandates. It’s all about striking the right balance, and I will continue to try to find that balance as the Assemblyman. Perfect.
Q: All right, question number three has to do with taxes, spending in California’s budget. California has one of the largest state budgets in the nation, yet residents and local governments continue to cite unmet needs involving roads, schools, homelessness, public safety, and other services. Do you believe California has primarily a revenue problem, a spending priority problem, or both? What would you change about the state budget, and are there taxes or fees you would support increasing, reducing, or eliminating?
Hoover: So I want to start off first by saying, absolutely, California doesn’t have a revenue problem. If you look at our state budget since Governor Newsom was elected eight years ago, it has actually gone up over seventy percent in California. And I would follow that up by saying I absolutely don’t support tax increases given that fact. In fact, this year in the state budget, I opposed multiple tax increases. One was on health care plans that is gonna increase the cost of health insurance rates.
Another is on software as services that is gonna increase tax for small businesses across our state. Every single July, we continue to have a reoccurring increase in our gas tax in California, which is already the highest in the nation. I hundred percent oppose all of those tax increases because, at the end of the day, we have the revenue to make our state run, we have the revenue to help the people that need help. At the end of the day, a budget is all about your priorities, and unfortunately, California’s priorities when it comes to state budgeting are just completely off.
I think that what we need in California is a readjustment of those priorities to focus on the things that communities actually care about, educating our students and giving them a world class opportunities in their schools, making sure that families can afford food and gas and housing, you know, running legislation and, and this is something that, that we’ve been working on for a long time, that’s actually reducing regulations and, and actually helping Californians afford things. We, we, we absolutely need to change our priorities in California, but unfortunately, you know, those priorities continue to be out of whack.
Q: All right, that brings us to question number four, which has to do with education and California’s public schools. California spends sub-substantial public resources on education, yet schools continue to face challenges involving student achievement, attendance, staffing, special education, and preparing students for college or careers. What do you believe California is getting right and wrong in public education, and what specific changes would you pursue in the legislature? And how should taxpayers measure whether increased education spending is actually improving student outcomes?
Hoover: I’ve had the opportunity over the last four years to serve as the vice chair of the Assembly Education Committee. It is something that is really close to my heart, not just as a parent of three kids in our community that are in public schools, but also as a former school board member who served in Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. We are failing when it comes to education in California. And it, it, it’s actually very sad because California has so many opportunities that, and so many resources that make this the place where our kids should be getting world-class education. Unfortunately, the reality is very different. We are currently 50th out of 50 in literacy rates in California. We currently have some of the worst math and English scores across the country in California. Our achievement gaps are some of the most stark in the entire nation. We are currently getting lapped by states like Mississippi, who have seen their education scores go from middling to top ten in the last few years because of very fundamental reforms that they’ve made to their education system. These are the same reforms that California needs to embrace, and I’m very glad to say that we have started moving things in the right direction.
One of the things we did recently, actually about- about a year ago, is we passed bipartisan legislation to reclaim and re essentially reaffirm how we teach literacy in California by restoring phonics to the classroom. In the mid-nineties, California went away from phonics as a way to teach kids how to, how to read, and it has been a, a complete and utter disaster for our students. We passed a bill just over a year ago that is going to help restore that in California, going to help train teachers on the use of phonics.
We passed legislation this year that is going to screen more kids for dyslexia, that is going to screen kids who are struggling in math at an earlier age. These are the types of things that are going to help. Not only support those pieces of legislation, but actually co-author them. I also was proud to author the Phone Free Schools Act, which is helping to get screens out of our classrooms, classrooms to make sure that our kids are focused on their academic achievements and their academic outcomes as opposed to getting distracted by things like social media while they’re at school. These are all things that are going to add up over time to help improve education outcomes in California. But at the end of the day, we need to continue passing more laws like this to make sure that we are making California a better place for education and a place where kids can actually get ahead.
Q: All right, the question number five has to do with crime, public safety, and accountability. Public safety remains a concern throughout the region, including retail theft, property crime, fentanyl and other drugs, juvenile crime, and repeat offenders. Do you not remember repeat offenders? What changes, if any, do you believe California still needs to make to its criminal justice laws, and how will the state balance rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration and accountability for repeat and serious offenders?
Hoover: Well, voters have made themselves very clear in the last couple of years by passing Proposition 36 in California, which was really a repudiation of Prop 47, which passed in 2014, that essentially decriminalized a number of drug crimes, changed a number of felonies to misdemeanors, led to, I would say, a tremendous increase in retail theft across our state. Voters were fed up with that, voters were tired of it, they stepped up, they put an initiative on the ballot, an initiative that undid a lot of the harm that Prop 47 caused, and that proposition actually passed with over fifty percent support in every single county in California. Whether you were a blue county or a red county, it didn’t matter. The voters made it clear: we care about safe communities, we want our neighborhoods to be protected, we want our law enforcement to be funded, and we want criminals to be held accountable. Accountable. I think that is a message that I have stood by ever since being elected to office by fighting for things like Proposition 36, also fighting to keep sex offenders locked up. In, in this community alone, over the past year, we have had multiple sex offenders come up to the parole board for release.
We have held press conferences, we have introduced laws to stop the release of these predators back into our communities. These are the things that I truly believe our community needs and are– those are the things that I will continue fighting for. We have a lot of ground to make up in California. When it comes to fixing public safety, for many, many years we decriminalized crime.
That needs to end, and I’m very grateful to see there’s actually a shift taking place where the defund the police movement, you know, laws that, that, you know, really promote early release and try to extend pandemic level policies beyond the pandemic, laws that are making it easier for criminals to stay out of jail, those things are starting to become less and less popular, even in a place like Sacramento, where those policies have been embraced for so many years. We need to continue that momentum. I am definitely committed to continuing to fight for that and, and really proud of the work that we’ve already done. In the next few years, my number one priority is to make sure that we fully fund Proposition Thirty Six in the state budget so that our law enforcement and our DAs have the tools that they need to actually hold criminals accountable, and I really look forward to getting that done.
Q: Question number six has to do with homelessness and mental health. California has spent billions of dollars addressing homelessness while communities continue to struggle with encampments, behavioral health issues, and people living on streets and public property. What should the state do differently? Should California place greater emphasis on housing, treatment and mental health services, enforcement and accountability, or some combination of those approaches? And how should the state measure whether its spending is actually working?
Hoover: The first thing that California needs to do when it comes to solving its homelessness crisis is admit and acknowledge that the current approach to homelessness in California has failed. If you look at the recent reports from the nonpartisan legislative analyst office, we have spent thirty-seven billion dollars in California in the past eight years or so to solve our homelessness crisis. During that same period of time, we’ve seen homeless, homelessness numbers go up by over thirty thousand individuals statewide.
What we are currently- doing isn’t working, and it’s largely not working because we are treating it as a one hundred percent housing problem as opposed to many of the other factors that are also, are also involved in solving our homelessness crisis. Not a single dime. We have, we have programs in our community, such as Powerhouse, such as St. John’s, such as Jake’s Journey Home, that are doing incredible work in our communities, getting people out of the cycle of homelessness. In many cases, they don’t qualify for a dime of that thirty-seven billion dollars from the state. Why? Because they require things like sobriety as a prerequisite for participation in some of their housing programs. This is something that needs to change.
We need to move away from a purely housing first model on homelessness and actually talk about focusing on recovery, focusing on getting people drug treatment, foc-focusing on getting their mental health right before we attempt to take them off the street and get, get them housing. These are the types of policies that actually work. We’ve seen these policies work in other parts of the country. We’ve seen them work to drive people to your website, email address, phone number, wherever they can contact you. Sounds good?
Q: Well, first and foremost, I just want to say thank you to the folks at Folsom Times for the opportunity to have this conversation. Always grateful to share some of my viewpoints with voters, with listeners, with readers. You can learn more about my candidacy at www.hooverforassembly.com, and you can also contact us through that website. You can also contact my district office at any time.
One of the most important roles that we play in the Assembly is not just policy in Sacramento, which tends to get a lot of the focus, but it’s actually helping our constituents on a daily basis. Interact and engage with state agencies, whether you’re having problems with the DMV, problems with the EDD, problems with the Franchise Tax Board. We have a whole team of people on the ground here in Folsom in our district office that can help you navigate those on your behalf. So please don’t hesitate to reach out to our Folsom District office if you ever need help with any of those state agencies.
Finally, the last thing I would say as we close here is just that I think we need, we do- we don’t need more of the same in the state capital. We actually need to continue to challenge the status quo, and that is really what I have tried to do over the past four years in office. We don’t have a lack of Democrats or Republicans in the state legislature, we have a lack of common sense in the state legislature. I have worked very hard as a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is the only bipartisan policy caucus in Sacramento. It’s made up of twelve Democrats, twelve Republicans working hard to find bipartisan solutions to some of our state’s biggest challenges.
That is the type of leadership that we need in the state of California. We don’t need more partisan bickering, we don’t need more political fighting. What we need is people that are willing to come to the table and actually negotiate and compromise and get the job done. That is my commitment to the voters of the seventh assembly district as we move closer to this election. Would greatly appreciate each and every one of your vote and support so that we can keep fighting the good fight at the state capital. Thank you. Josh Hoover’s campaign website is www.hooverforassembly.com.
Copyright © 2026, Folsom Times, a digital product of All Town Media LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
