THE BOTTOM LINE -
Raman wants Los Angeles voters to promote her to mayor. Before handing her the keys to City Hall, voters should examine what happened when she was given responsibility for one of the city's biggest crises.
Nithya Raman wants to run Los Angeles. Before voters give her the keys to City Hall, they should ask a simpler question: What happened when she was handed the homelessness gavel?
Raman has chaired the Los Angeles City Council's Housing and Homelessness Committee, placing her at the center of one of the city's most politically explosive crises. Now Los Angeles is splitting housing and homelessness into separate committees, and Raman is losing the homelessness chairmanship as she campaigns to replace Mayor Karen Bass.
Behind the promises are numbers demanding answers: $62.6 million. Three households. More than 130 matters piling up. And 316 days before a major homelessness reform proposal received committee consideration. These are not campaign slogans. They are questions about performance.
$62.6 Million - Three Households
A $62.6 million homelessness initiative championed by Raman was designed around the goal of moving roughly 2,000 people toward permanent housing. According to city records reviewed in published reporting, only three households had been permanently housed by June 25.
Three.
There are distinctions between money allocated, contracted, and spent. Timelines matter. But none of that eliminates the central question: How does a $62.6 million initiative aimed at roughly 2,000 people reach a point where only three households have been permanently housed?
If Raman deserves credit for championing ambitious programs, she must also accept scrutiny when those programs fail to deliver promised results on schedule. Politicians cannot own the press conference and disown the outcome.
An Emergency - And a Committee That Didn't Meet
During a roughly five-week stretch in April and May, every scheduled meeting of Raman's Housing and Homelessness Committee was reportedly canceled while the unfinished workload grew to more than 130 matters.
Consider the contradiction. Los Angeles politicians describe homelessness as an emergency, yet the responsible committee went week after week without meeting. The timing matters because Raman was simultaneously campaigning for mayor.
Voters therefore have every right to ask: If homelessness was important enough to anchor a campaign for mayor, why wasn't it important enough to keep the homelessness committee moving? That is not a personal attack. It is a question of executive readiness.
316 Days Is Not Urgency
A March 2024 proposal exploring greater City control over homelessness programs reportedly waited 316 days before Raman's committee considered it - nearly a year.
During that time, Los Angeles continued pouring enormous resources into a system facing persistent questions about accountability, contracting, and results. City Hall declares an emergency, holds press conferences and approves extraordinary sums, yet potentially consequential reforms can disappear into the machinery of government for months.
You cannot call homelessness an emergency in front of the cameras and govern it like paperwork when the cameras disappear.
The LAHSA Accountability Problem
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority has faced scrutiny over financial management, contracting, and oversight. Raman has argued for stronger City oversight and for Los Angeles to develop its own performance-management capacity. On that principle, she has a point.
But her argument raises another question: If the system required fundamental reform, why did City Hall take so long to build an alternative?
Los Angeles has created layers of homelessness bureaucracy so complicated that accountability can become difficult to locate. The City points toward LAHSA. LAHSA points toward service providers. Officials blame bureaucracy. Departments blame contracting. Politicians request another report. And taxpayers receive another bill.
That isn't accountability. It's an accountability escape hatch.
Raman Has a Counterargument
Fairness requires acknowledging Raman's strongest argument. While unsheltered homelessness increased citywide in the latest count, street homelessness reportedly fell by roughly 49% in Council District 4, which she represents.
That is significant, and Raman deserves to argue that policies in her district contributed to the improvement. But she was not merely responsible for one district. She chaired the committee overseeing housing and homelessness policy for the entire City of Los Angeles. Now she wants voters to evaluate her as the city's prospective chief executive.
The standard must therefore be citywide.
The Gavel Before the Keys
Raman's mayoral campaign presents her as an alternative to existing City Hall leadership. Fine. Then the election should become a referendum on records rather than rhetoric.
Why did more than 130 matters accumulate? Why did a major reform proposal take 316 days to reach committee consideration? What happened with the $62.6 million initiative? Why had only three households reached permanent housing by the reported June benchmark? What does that record tell voters about how Raman would manage an entire city government?
Running for mayor is not merely about identifying what the incumbent did wrong. It is about proving you did better when you had the opportunity to lead.
The larger problem goes beyond Raman. Los Angeles too often confuses money spent with progress made, programs announced with problems solved, and good intentions with competent government. Raman did not create the homelessness catastrophe, nor is she personally responsible for every failed contract or person living on the street. But she sought leadership on homelessness. She received it. Now she is asking voters for considerably more.
Campaigns are advertisements. Records are evidence.
Before voters decide whether Nithya Raman deserves the keys to City Hall, she should have to answer for what happened when City Hall handed her the homelessness gavel.
Los Angeles has heard enough promises, funded enough programs, and waited long enough. This time, voters should demand receipts.
(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.)
