Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE - Los Angeles has spent billions of dollars fighting homelessness. Yet tents still line sidewalks, encampments remain visible across the city, and more than 1,100 taxpayer-funded housing units reportedly sit vacant despite years of promises and nearly $1 billion in public investment.
If that is success, taxpayers deserve a new definition of failure.
That is the uncomfortable reality confronting Los Angeles voters as Councilmember Nithya Raman campaigns to become the city's next mayor.
No issue has defined modern Los Angeles more than homelessness. It has dominated City Hall agendas, consumed enormous public resources, and generated countless press conferences, task forces, committees, and strategic plans. Yet despite the rhetoric, residents continue to ask a simple question: Where are the results?
Those questions have only intensified in recent weeks.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development suspended the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority's participation in federal programs pending an investigation into allegations involving financial management, oversight failures, and accountability concerns. Federal officials raised serious questions about how taxpayer dollars have been managed and whether existing systems are producing meaningful outcomes.
For a city already struggling to maintain public confidence in its homelessness response, the suspension was another alarming warning sign.
The criticism is not coming solely from outside City Hall.
During a recent City Council debate, Councilmember Monica Rodriguez delivered one of the sharpest critiques yet of the city's homelessness leadership. Referring to long-standing concerns surrounding LAHSA and efforts to reform the system, Rodriguez noted that meaningful action had stalled for years despite mounting evidence that change was needed.
Her comments appeared directed toward those charged with overseeing homelessness policy, including Raman, who chairs the Housing and Homelessness Committee.
Rodriguez's central argument was difficult to dismiss: City leaders should not wait for political advancement before addressing problems that demand immediate action.
That criticism resonates because voters are witnessing the consequences of delay in real time.
A recent Project Homekey status report revealed that approximately 1,104 homeless housing units remain vacant despite roughly $911 million spent acquiring properties intended to house vulnerable residents. The program was originally promoted as a faster and more efficient alternative to traditional affordable housing development. Instead, many projects have faced delays, escalating costs, financing obstacles, rehabilitation challenges, and lengthy construction timelines.
Meanwhile, thousands of Angelenos continue sleeping on sidewalks, under freeway overpasses, in parks, and in vehicles.
The numbers are staggering.
According to city reports, hundreds of Homekey units from multiple funding rounds remain unoccupied years after acquisition. Properties purchased with taxpayer funds continue moving through conversion, rehabilitation, financing, and construction phases long after the public was told urgent action was underway.
The former Ramada Inn in Venice has become a symbol of the broader problem. Acquired years ago with the promise of creating permanent supportive housing, the project remains unfinished while costs have reportedly climbed dramatically. Similar stories can be found throughout the city.
This is not merely a bureaucratic failure. It is a failure of accountability.
Every vacant unit represents a missed opportunity to help someone living on the streets. Every delayed project represents another broken promise to taxpayers who were told their money would produce urgent results. Every year of inaction deepens public frustration and further erodes trust in government.
As Raman seeks the mayor's office, voters deserve clear and direct answers.
Why are so many units still vacant?
Why have projects taken years longer than promised?
Why have costs continued to escalate?
What specific reforms should residents expect if the same leadership is elevated to the city's highest office?
These are not partisan questions. They are accountability questions.
Los Angeles taxpayers were promised urgency. They were promised accountability. They were promised that billions of dollars would move people off the streets and into housing. Instead, they have watched costs rise, projects stall, agencies come under federal scrutiny, and hundreds of publicly funded units remain empty while homelessness continues to impact neighborhoods across the city.
At some point, good intentions are no longer enough.
Leadership must ultimately be judged by results.
And when the results fall short, voters have every right to demand answers.
The next mayor will inherit enormous challenges, including budget deficits, public safety concerns, economic uncertainty, and an ongoing homelessness crisis. Los Angeles cannot afford more excuses, more delays, or more promises that fail to materialize.
This election should not be a referendum on slogans, social media popularity, or political branding. It should be a referendum on performance.
Before voters’ hand anyone a promotion, they should first examine the results already on the scoreboard.
The homelessness crisis has consumed billions of taxpayer dollars, shaped public policy for years, and become one of the defining challenges of Los Angeles. Yet thousands remain on the streets, public confidence continues to erode, and critical questions remain unanswered.
This election is not about intentions. It is about outcomes.
It is not about promises. It is about performance.
And it is not about who wants to be mayor. It is about who has demonstrated the ability to solve the problems Los Angeles faces today.
The city does not need another campaign.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
