Comments
NICK’S VIEW - Good intentions do not make a person an agent of change. Nor being a rebel or a disruptor qualifies a person to label themselves a visionary who can make change happen.
Noise and radicalism are not enough, nor is passion on its own. A true agent of change understands the system well enough to identify its weak points, holds enough legitimacy to be accepted, stands up to special interests and rallies people and resources toward a new equilibrium.
Nithya Raman, candidate for LA mayor, is a self-described agent of change who decided to jump into the race because she did not see anyone else willing to challenge the status quo, and "she could not afford to wait another four years for change to come" she said in a recent wide-ranging interview on KTLA.
An agent of change is not an opportunist but a person who creates opportunities to improve the system. And her City Council tenure has done little to shift the system. Although active and at times substantive, her work has not revamped how the city operates.
In my view, a change-maker must walk the talk; otherwise, they are only walking in place. In her interview, Raman cited “soaring living costs, homelessness and deteriorating city services” and said Karen Bass had “led us into a fiscal hole,” but she offered no clear plan to fix City Hall’s dysfunction or repair LA’s finances. She spoke at length about change, five times during the interview, including her decision to enter the race after “talking about my children,” apparently a Eureka moment, but provided no concrete examples of the changes she would make.
From a change-maker we expect to hear sharp and focused responses to numerous troubling issues, such as: What actions should be taken to reduce the cost of housing and how affordable housing can reduce homelessness more effectively, other than speed the permit process? What corrective actions will be taken to control the “Homeless-Industrial Complex” where vested interests have gradually and methodically influenced public policy while defrauding the city and the state? How to restructure the city departments so that we are not dealing with crumbling infrastructure?
Many of LA’s recurring problems have worsened because of governance gaps, delayed action, influence of special interests and fragmented Council oversight. The Council has failed to modernize infrastructure funding or address chronic understaffing and outdated systems, leaving streets, sidewalks, lighting, and basic services in decline.
The Bureau of Street Lighting has struggled to maintain lights or keep up with copper wire theft, leaving neighborhoods dark and unsafe. Basic services such as street repair, bulky‑item pickup, and illegal dumping enforcement remain inadequate. Meanwhile, traffic violence has risen, and LA still lacks a comprehensive street safety strategy.
I have written that to achieve better streetlighting objectives a structural revision, such as the merger of Bureau of Street Lighting with LADWP, should be undertaken. Los Angeles does not need two utilities to do streetlight work.
The city also faces fiscal instability and a structural budget imbalance because the Council has failed to enact long-term fiscal reforms, consolidate duplicative programs, or rein in rising personnel and liability costs. As a result, internal systems are breaking down, and permitting, enforcement, and administrative services are collapsing.
The existing duplication of work, lack of communication and coordination between departments, and the detachment of responsibilities, all have resulted in project delays and increased costs throughout city governance. I pointed to the Department of Public Works and called it a wasteful anachronism outmoded by time. Despite the obvious failings, no agent of change, like Raman describes herself, has taken up this prominent issue.
The question, then, is simple: if Raman is a change-maker, why do these problems still define the city? Since her election in 2020, a leader committed to systemic change should have advanced and delivered meaningful reforms. Motions and priorities may signal intent, but they do not alter the machinery of city government. That is the difference between a policy reformer and a systems reformer.
Los Angeles could lose more than $100 million in state Active Transportation Program funding after the California Transportation Commission declined to consider the city’s six-year extension request. The money would have supported sidewalk repairs, bike lanes, and traffic-calming projects in Boyle Heights, Skid Row, and Wilmington.
In April, the city requested for a time extension to complete pre‑construction work, including environmental review and design on three mobility projects in these underinvested communities, which were delayed because of funding constraints in the public works and transportation departments. But the state ATP funds expire at the end of June, so LA will lose the money unless CTC reverses its decision, which appears unlikely. Raman has been absent in the debate about staffing resources across the bureaus of Street Services, Streetlighting, Engineering, and Transportation to deliver infrastructure projects
I have written in this space of the need, and the reasons Public Works, Street Services and Department of Transportation should be restructured, but Raman has failed so far to stand up to and fight the special interests.
For me, it is also significant that Raman has failed to mention the Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement between LA28 and the city which has not been signed, as it should have been nine months ago, and which must be structured to avoid bankrupting the city.
If LA’s governance structure remains unchanged—and if Raman has not altered how the system operates—then calling herself an agent of change is more a branding choice than a factual description. Unless, of course, “agent of change” simply means a shift leftward. But even Zohran Mamdani in New York has not changed governance itself; he has moved policy in a more left-leaning direction. Those are policy shifts, not governance reforms.
Unless the city’s basic machinery changes, the system itself remains intact. Ideology may influence governance, but it cannot replace it. In the months ahead, Raman’s political philosophy should be tested against the issues she has emphasized: renter protections, homelessness policy, mobility planning, affordability, financial stability and infrastructure.
Is Nithya Raman a legitimate agent of change?
I am reminded about an old saying from Greece that spread throughout the Mediterranean and becomes very applicable: “The rooster crows at dawn but doesn’t bring the sun.”
(Nick Patsaouras is an electrical engineer, civic leader, and a longtime public advocate. He ran for Mayor in 1993 with a focus on rebuilding L.A. through transportation after the 1992 civil unrest. He has served on major public boards, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Metro, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, helping guide infrastructure and planning policy in Los Angeles. He is the author of the book "The Making of Modern Los Angeles.")
