THE BOTTOM LINE - Los Angeles has laws. It has prosecutors. It has billions of dollars flowing through City Hall. What it does not have, John McKinney argues, is enough accountability for what happens when laws are ignored, taxpayer money is wasted and government fails to deliver.
In an interview on The Bottom Line on CityWatchLA, the candidate for Los Angeles City Attorney laid out a blunt case for why he believes the office needs a change in direction. His message can be reduced to three demands: enforce the law, follow the money, and remember who the City Attorney works for.
“Enforce the law,” McKinney said when asked what the City Attorney could do differently to make Los Angeles neighborhoods safer. “Stop playing games with the law.”
That may sound obvious. In Los Angeles, it is anything but.
McKinney says the clearest difference between himself, and opponent Marisa Roy is experience. He said he has practiced law for nearly 30 years, tried more than 100 jury cases, and currently oversees the work of more than 300 attorneys and staff. He also claimed a 97 percent success rate in jury trials.
His argument is that Los Angeles is not simply electing another politician. It is choosing the person who will lead one of the nation’s largest municipal law offices an institution responsible for misdemeanor prosecutions, civil litigation, legal advice, contracts, and defending taxpayers against potentially enormous liabilities.
But prosecutorial experience alone does not settle the question. Running the City Attorney’s Office requires far more than trying cases. McKinney would have to demonstrate that his courtroom background can translate into managing a sprawling municipal legal operation dealing with everything from public safety and labor disputes to contracts, constitutional questions, and major civil litigation.
That is the test behind his résumé.
Public Safety and the Limits of Compassion
McKinney does not hide what comes first: public safety is his number one priority.
Los Angeles residents experience disorder not only through major crimes but through the daily deterioration of neighborhoods vandalism, theft, illegal dumping, public drug use, and public spaces residents no longer feel comfortable using. McKinney argues that misdemeanor and quality-of-life crimes matter precisely because residents encounter them in everyday life.
His position is not that everyone accused of an offense belongs behind bars. He supports diversion, probation, and community labor where appropriate, while reserving incarceration for dangerous offenders.
But he insists there must be consequences.
A justice system can exercise discretion without abandoning enforcement. Compassion and accountability do not have to be enemies.
McKinney also says he would enforce Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 41.18 restrictions concerning encampments in designated public areas. That raises one of the hardest questions confronting his campaign: Where does enforcement end and criminalizing homelessness begin?
McKinney’s answer is unequivocal: “The law is the law.”
He argues that homelessness itself should never be prosecuted. But vandalism, illegal dumping, drug-related offenses, and other unlawful conduct should not become permissible simply because the person committing the offense is homeless.
That is where McKinney introduces what he calls “Compassionate Accountability.”
The compassion comes first: offer shelter, treatment, and rehabilitation. Give people a genuine path away from the street and toward stability.
Then comes the controversial part.
McKinney argues that when appropriate shelter and meaningful treatment are genuinely available, repeatedly refusing assistance while continuing to occupy sidewalks, parks and other shared public spaces should not simply return everyone to square one. When laws are subsequently violated, he believes courts can be used, where legally permitted, to steer people toward treatment through diversion and other interventions.
It is a philosophy that will attract supporters and serious criticism. Civil-liberties advocates will question how far government can go in compelling treatment and what constitutes a genuinely available and appropriate alternative to living on the street.
Those questions deserve answers.
But so does another:
How many years should Los Angeles accept a homelessness system in which enormous amounts of money are spent while people continue living in tents, doorways, and encampments?
McKinney’s answer is that compassion without measurable results is not enough.
Follow the Money
This may be where McKinney makes his strongest case.
Los Angeles has committed enormous public resources to homelessness, yet taxpayers routinely struggle to determine what they received for that investment. McKinney pointed to badly structured contracts, inadequate oversight, and weak accountability.
His prescription is not ideological. It is basic contract management.
City contracts, he argues, should clearly define what providers are required to deliver. They should require regular financial and performance audits rather than waiting until a contract ends to determine whether it worked. And they should contain claw back provisions allowing Los Angeles to recover taxpayer money when contractors fail to perform.
That should not be controversial.
If a private company pays a contractor to deliver a service and the contractor fails, management demands answers. Los Angeles taxpayers deserve at least the same protection.
The City Attorney cannot solve homelessness alone, and McKinney readily acknowledges that. But the office can help ensure that when City Hall signs contracts worth millions of dollars, those agreements contain enforceable standards protecting the public.
That is accountability with teeth.
The same philosophy extends inside the City Attorney’s Office. McKinney praised its attorneys and staff but said they need stronger leadership, modernized technology, and greater freedom to do their jobs without unnecessary micromanagement.
He wants an office where matters that can be completed in days do not sit on desks for weeks and where public service carries an expectation of urgency.
Who Does the City Attorney Work For?
Perhaps the most important moment of the interview came when McKinney was asked what happens when the law points in one direction and the political interests of the mayor, City Council or other powerful officials point in another.
His response came immediately:
“The city gets John McKinney 100% of the time.”
That answer should matter to voters regardless of whom they support.
The City Attorney must advise the mayor, council members, commissioners, and City departments. But the office cannot become the personal legal department of City Hall’s political establishment.
McKinney said he understands the distinction.
“At the end of the day,” he said, “I’m elected by the people to represent the city, not the mayor and not the other politicians.”
Los Angeles needs a City Attorney willing to deliver legal advice politicians may not want to hear. The real test, of course, comes after the election when saying no to powerful people carries consequences.
Campaign rhetoric about independence is easy. Demonstrating independence when political pressure arrives is considerably harder.
That is another promise voters should remember.
The Scorecard
Campaign promises are easy. Results are harder.
Asked how voters should determine four years from now whether he succeeded or failed, McKinney offered three measurements.
Public safety: Do residents feel safer? Are public spaces cleaner and more usable? Do neighborhoods feel more orderly?
Fiscal responsibility: Is Los Angeles facing fewer lawsuits? Is the City spending less on judgments, settlements, and expensive outside attorneys?
Homelessness: Are fewer people living on the streets, and are more people moving into shelter, treatment, and appropriate services?
Those are not abstract campaign slogans. They are measurable promises.
McKinney is asking Los Angeles voters to choose experience over experimentation and enforcement over what he views as years of institutional hesitation. But winning that argument is different from delivering the results.
A City Attorney cannot single-handedly eliminate homelessness, prevent every lawsuit, or solve Los Angeles’ public-safety problems. The office operates within constitutional restrictions, court decisions, City Council policies and the practical limitations of municipal government.
That is precisely why McKinney’s promises deserve scrutiny.
Can he turn prosecutorial experience into effective municipal leadership? Can “Compassionate Accountability” survive legal and practical challenges? Can stronger contracts protect taxpayers when providers fail? And will he really stand up to City Hall when the politically convenient answer conflicts with the legally correct one?
Those are the questions voters should continue asking.
McKinney has nevertheless done something important: he has given Los Angeles a scoreboard.
Safer neighborhoods. Fewer people living on the streets. Less taxpayer money lost to lawsuits and failed contracts. A faster, more professional City Attorney’s Office. And an elected City Attorney willing to tell powerful politicians no.
If John McKinney wins, those promises should not disappear with the campaign signs.
They should become the standard by which Los Angeles holds him accountable.
(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.)
