Comments
LA DEPT OF BS - How the City's Most Powerful Regulatory Agency Escaped Meaningful Accountability
For decades, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) has exercised extraordinary authority over real estate development, inspections, and code enforcement. Yet despite repeated corruption scandals, growing public concern, and calls for reform, no independent office has clear authority to investigate systemic misconduct within the department. This is the story of Los Angeles' accountability gap—and why it matters more than ever.
Los Angeles has an Accountability Problem
Los Angeles has spent decades establishing ethics laws, prosecuting corruption, and debating government accountability. Yet one of the City's most powerful departments continues to operate with remarkably little independent oversight.
Hollywood may be Los Angeles' most famous industry, but land use may be its most powerful. Development, zoning, permitting, inspections, and code enforcement influence billions of dollars in economic activity every year. The City department with the greatest direct authority over that system is the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS).
While the Los Angeles Department of City Planning establishes many of the City's zoning and development standards, LADBS is responsible for enforcing them. It determines whether projects comply with approved plans, whether violations are corrected, whether permits remain valid, and whether certificates of occupancy should be issued.
That authority is enormous.
Yet no independent oversight office exists to monitor how LADBS exercises these powers. The City Charter appears to assume that mayoral oversight is sufficient. My experience—and the experiences of many others—suggest that assumption has failed
Charter Reform Missed the Biggest Problem
Over many months, I attended most meetings of the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission, both in person and on Zoom. I repeatedly raised concerns regarding LADBS, including allegations of selective enforcement, retaliation, manipulation of public records, delays in responding to California Public Records Act requests, and the absence of meaningful accountability. Many other residents expressed similar concerns.
During the Public Democracy LA and Rewrite LA Mini-Assembly process, I helped draft, edit, and present a proposed Preamble and Bill of Rights. One of our recommendations was the creation of an independent Ombudsman to provide oversight of City departments such as LADBS.
Despite significant public support, the Commission declined to seriously consider the proposal. I was told directly by the Commission Chair that there was "no appetite" for creating an Ombudsman or Public Advocate.
Ironically, the Commission ultimately acknowledged that Los Angeles suffers from a significant accountability gap.
Instead of recommending an Ombudsman, it proposed creating an independent Inspector General within the Ethics Commission and increasing the Ethics Commission's budget from approximately $7 million to $10 million to support this expanded oversight function.
The proposed Inspector General would have possessed authority to audit and investigate City departments and elected officials, both at the direction of the Ethics Commission and independently when appropriate. In effect, the Commission recognized that Los Angeles lacks a single independent office capable of investigating systemic misconduct that crosses departmental boundaries.
However, the Office of the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) recommended that the proposal simply be "noted and filed," effectively ending further consideration.
The CLA argued that another Inspector General would duplicate existing oversight because some departments already have inspectors general or other oversight mechanisms.
That rationale overlooks a critical reality.
Many City departments—including LADBS—do not have independent inspectors general. Moreover, the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction is largely limited to campaign finance, lobbying, governmental ethics, and conflict-of-interest laws. It was never designed to investigate broader allegations involving operational misconduct, abuse of discretion, selective enforcement, retaliation, manipulation of public records, failures of enforcement, or systemic management failures.
This leaves an obvious accountability gap.
If misconduct spans multiple City departments—or originates within a department that lacks independent oversight—who has both the authority and independence to investigate it?
The Charter Reform Commission attempted to answer that question by proposing a citywide Inspector General.
The CLA instead recommended relying on the City's existing fragmented oversight structure despite the absence of any single independent office capable of investigating systemic misconduct wherever it occurs.
In my view, the Charter Reform process ultimately failed to address one of Los Angeles' most significant structural weaknesses: the lack of independent oversight over departments that possess extraordinary regulatory and enforcement powers.
The Accountability Gap
There is a widespread perception that LADBS is a department many people—including individuals in influential positions—are reluctant to challenge because they fear retaliation related to potential future interactions with the department.
Mayor Karen Bass has been informed of serious allegations concerning LADBS, yet no meaningful corrective action has occurred. Her deputy who oversees LADBS, Rachel Freeman, has repeatedly received evidence from multiple sources but has not responded. Councilwoman Nythia Raman promised her constituents that would hold LADBS accountable, but never took action. The result is a growing perception that LADBS remains insulated from accountability.
This frustration is not limited to residents.
Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Tim McOsker have publicly questioned LADBS General Manager Osama Younan during budget hearings, citing concerns raised in the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate 2026 white paper. Mike Callahan , who is a retired engineer and a community activist, has likewise written publicly about his frustrations with the department.
These concerns are not limited to a few instances. Across Los Angeles many community members have experienced LADBS’ abuse of discretion resulting in significant property damage and related financial loss.
Whether one agrees with every allegation is not the central issue.
The larger question is whether any independent institution possesses the authority to impartially investigate allegations of systemic misconduct within LADBS.
Today, no such office exists.
Why This Matters Now
These issues take on even greater significance as Los Angeles faces unprecedented development pressure, wildfire rebuilding, state housing mandates, ministerial "by-right" approvals, and streamlined processing.
LADBS exercises extraordinary authority over permits, inspections, grading, code enforcement, certificates of occupancy, and land-use compliance.
The public has little visibility into what inspectors observe in the field.
If inspections are not subject to meaningful independent oversight, significant violations can go undetected and uncorrected. When projects are approved by right or move through expedited review, the integrity of the inspection process becomes even more important because inspectors are often the final line of defense between compliance and abuse.
When Oversight Fails
The corruption cases involving former Councilmember José Huizar and former deputy mayor LADBS Superintendent Raymond Chan demonstrated how vulnerable Los Angeles' land-use system can become when oversight fails.
Those scandals revealed that corruption can include and extend beyond elected officials and into the departments responsible for development approvals and enforcement.
Individuals were prosecuted.
But the structural weaknesses that allowed those abuses to occur remain largely unchanged.
Meanwhile, the City Attorney's Office is routinely placed in the position of defending City departments, including LADBS, against allegations of misconduct and liability. That is its legal responsibility.
Defending the City, however, is not the same as independently investigating whether systemic failures exist.
Independent oversight and legal defense serve fundamentally different purposes.
The Question Los Angeles Still Cannot Answer
The fundamental question facing Los Angeles is no longer whether additional oversight is needed.
The Charter Reform Commission itself acknowledged that an accountability gap exists by proposing a citywide Inspector General.
The real question is why City leaders continue to reject independent oversight despite recognizing that gap.
If no independent office has the authority to investigate systemic misconduct across City departments, who oversees LADBS when LADBS itself becomes the problem?
Until Los Angeles answers that question, LADBS will remain the City's black box—exercising extraordinary authority with too little independent accountability.
Transparency without accountability is not reform. If Los Angeles is serious about restoring public trust, the next Charter reform effort should begin where the last one ended: creating a truly independent oversight office with the authority to investigate systemic misconduct across every City department, including LADBS.
(Sheida Ashley is the President and Land Use Chair of the Century Glen Neighborhood Association, the Charter Reform representative for the Westside Neighborhood Council, and a Region 11 Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate.)
