ELECTION 2026 - The candidates have given voters accusations, arguments, and plenty of reasons to blame the other side. What Los Angeles still deserves is a serious blueprint for governing and accountability from the people demanding it of others.
Election Day is approaching, and Los Angeles voters will soon choose a mayor to lead this city for the next four years. After reviewing the recent Sherman Oaks mayoral debate, however, we were left with one overriding question: Where is the plan?
At times, the debate looked less like a serious discussion about governing one of America's largest cities and more like the 2026 version of Crossfire. There was plenty of finger-pointing, plenty of accusations and plenty of blame.
Then came an exchange that looks considerably different today.
Mayor Karen Bass repeatedly challenged Councilmember Nithya Raman over her City Council attendance. When Raman explained that some of her absences resulted from representing Los Angeles on outside governmental boards, Bass pushed back and asked whether Raman was “getting ready to resign” from those responsibilities.
It was one of Bass' sharpest attacks of the debate.
Then came an uncomfortable question for the mayor herself.
LAist reviewed three years of meeting records and found that Bass has missed more than half of the meetings of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Commission since appointing herself to the body in late 2023.
According to LAist's review, Bass missed 13 of 21 LAHSA Commission meetings between mid-August 2025 and August 2026. Since joining the commission in late 2023, she has been absent from 25 of 47 meetings.
The Mayor's Office responded that Bass has remained informed and kept up to date on LAHSA's work despite those absences.
But being briefed about a meeting is not the same thing as attending it.
And if attendance is a legitimate measure of whether Raman is fulfilling her responsibilities, then surely it is a legitimate measure by which Bass can be questioned as well.
Bass asked Raman whether she was “getting ready to resign” from outside boards that contributed to her City Council absences. In light of Bass' own LAHSA attendance record, the obvious question now turns back on the mayor: If missing meetings is grounds for questioning whether an elected official should continue serving on an outside board, should Bass apply that same standard to herself?
That is not a call for resignation. It is a call for consistency.
Accountability cannot be a weapon you use against your opponent and a standard you relax for yourself.
That matters even more because we are not talking about an obscure advisory committee. We are talking about LAHSA, an organization at the center of this region's homelessness response and one that has faced serious questions about effectiveness, transparency, and accountability.
So perhaps the most important question is not which candidate missed more meetings. It is this: Who is actually prepared to take responsibility for fixing Los Angeles?
Because Los Angeles does not suffer from a shortage of promises. It suffers from a shortage of execution and increasingly, a shortage of fiscal discipline.
SHOW US THE PLAN
Residents, homeowners, renters, workers, businesses, and taxpayers already know what the problems are. They live with them every day. What they deserve now is a plan.
A plan to move people from sidewalks, encampments, and temporary placements into stable housing. A plan to protect neighborhoods with properly staffed police and fire departments. A plan to repair deteriorating streets and sidewalks, trim neglected trees and restore broken streetlights. A plan to address aging water pipes and other critical infrastructure before deterioration becomes crisis.
A plan for city employees that provides fair compensation and stability while recognizing that every labor agreement ultimately has to fit within a sustainable city budget. A plan that puts core services first and holds department heads accountable for measurable results.
And above all: A credible plan to balance the budget while confronting more than $15 billion in infrastructure needs.
That may be the most important financial question in this election.
Los Angeles cannot claim fiscal responsibility by balancing a budget through optimistic revenue assumptions, temporary fixes, deferred obligations, or accounting maneuvers that simply push today's bills into tomorrow's budget.
The city needs a structurally balanced budget in which ongoing expenditures are supported by sustainable revenues. Every major new commitment should come with an explanation of what it costs, where the money will come from and whether Los Angeles can continue paying for it after the press conference is over.
Because Los Angeles cannot promise its way around arithmetic.
It is easy to promise more police officers, more firefighters, more housing, better streets, improved parks, and expanded services. It is considerably harder to pay for them.
At some point, revenues and expenditures have to meet. The next mayor must be willing to establish priorities, make difficult choices, and tell voters something politicians rarely want to say: We cannot afford everything.
That is not pessimism. That is governing.
THE $15 BILLION QUESTION
Los Angeles is staring at more than $15 billion in infrastructure needs.
That number cannot remain buried in budget documents and deferred to another mayor, another City Council, and another generation of taxpayers.
It represents streets, sidewalks, streetlights, aging water systems, public facilities, and other essential infrastructure Angelenos depend upon every day.
So here is the question both candidates should have to answer before Election Day: How are you going to pay for it?
Not with another slogan. Not with another commission. Not with another study. And not by pretending deferred maintenance makes the obligation disappear.
Show us the money.
Tell taxpayers what gets fixed first. Tell us what it costs. Tell us where the funding comes from. Tell us how long it will take. If new revenue is required, say so. If spending elsewhere must be reduced, identify it. If projects must be postponed, tell voters which ones and why. If borrowing is part of the solution, tell taxpayers how much will be borrowed and how the debt will be repaid.
And do all of it while balancing the budget.
Because a budget that appears balanced only because essential infrastructure investment has been postponed is not truly balanced. It is simply transferring today's bills to tomorrow's taxpayers.
Deferred maintenance is not savings. It is an unpaid bill and eventually taxpayers get the invoice.
Every year City Hall postpones necessary maintenance; it risks turning a manageable repair into a much larger expense. A street that could have been maintained eventually requires reconstruction. An aging water pipe eventually fails. A damaged sidewalk becomes a safety and liability problem. A broken streetlight becomes a public-safety concern.
The next mayor should not inherit that bill, hide it and hand it to the next administration. The next mayor should have a plan to pay it.
And that same demand for measurable results should apply throughout City Hall.
On homelessness, don't simply tell us how much money will be spent. Tell us how many people will leave the streets, how many will reach permanent housing, how long it will take and what it will cost.
On public safety, tell us how many police officers, firefighters and paramedics Los Angeles actually needs, how quickly vacancies can be filled and what the staffing plan will cost.
Residents calling 911 are not interested in political talking points. They want someone to answer and someone to show up.
On basic services, tell us when streets will be repaired, sidewalks fixed, streetlights restored and trees trimmed. Then publish the results.
Performance should matter. Attendance should matter. Accountability should matter. Results should matter.
Spending money is not an accomplishment. Delivering results is.
THIS IS THE JOB INTERVIEW
Ultimately, this election should be treated for what it really is: A job interview.
And both candidates should be held to the same standard.
If you criticize your opponent for failing to show up, explain your own attendance record. If you criticize your opponent's management, show us your management results. If you promise fiscal responsibility, show us the numbers. If you promise better infrastructure, show us how you will pay for it.
If you want to run Los Angeles, show us the blueprint.
Put it on paper. Put numbers next to it. Put deadlines behind it.
Show us how you will balance the budget. Show us how you will confront more than $15 billion in infrastructure needs.
Tell us what you will accomplish in the first 100 days, the first year and by the end of four years. Tell us which departments are responsible. Tell us what each major initiative costs. Tell us where the money comes from. Tell us how taxpayers will measure success.
And answer the question that separates campaigning from governing: What will you cut, postpone, or change when the numbers do not add up?
That is where leadership begins.
Los Angeles faces enormous challenges: homelessness, public safety, housing, deteriorating infrastructure, aging water systems, city finances, employee contracts, and basic neighborhood services.
We cannot attack our way out of them. We cannot slogan our way out of them. We cannot borrow indefinitely against the future. We cannot call a budget balanced while pushing billions of dollars in obligations down the road. And we cannot demand accountability from others while avoiding it ourselves.
There is still time before Election Day for both candidates to demonstrate that they are prepared not simply to campaign, but to govern.
Give us a balanced-budget plan. Give us an infrastructure plan. Give us the costs. Give us the funding sources. Give us the deadlines. Give us measurable goals. Give us accountability.
And above all, hold yourselves to the same standards you demand of each other.
The candidate who can do that deserves serious consideration from voters.
All others need not apply.
Los Angeles has heard enough about who deserves the blame.
Now show us who has a plan and who is prepared to be accountable for delivering it.
(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.)
(Jay Handal is a veteran community advocate and longtime CityWatch contributor who plays a central role in holding Los Angeles City Hall accountable. He serves as treasurer of the West LA–Sawtelle Neighborhood Council. With decades of grassroots organizing and civic leadership, Jay is a relentless voice for transparency, fiscal reform, and empowering neighborhoods to challenge waste, mismanagement, and backroom decision-making at City Hall.)
