Comments
iAUDIT! - An old Hollywood cliché is that there are no more than a half dozen plots in the movies, and studios just recycle the stories with new details. It certainly seems that with many films, one gets a profound feeling of déjà vu after seeing the latest major movie. One could say the same thing about Los Angeles’ homelessness programs, and there would be no better example than the May 6 mayoral debate.
We heard the same claims about homelessness from both ends of the spectrum. Councilmember Raman insists homelessness can only be solved by the provision of massive numbers of housing projects. That is why she refuses to enforce encampment bans in her district, claiming they merely move the problem down the street. Spencer Pratt said homelessness is primarily a problem of untreated mental illness and substance abuse. Ever the prevaricator, Mayor Bass tried to avoid discussion about causes and instead relied on questionable and unverified claims of decreasing homelessness, as she has in the past. While the debate may have been entertaining, it contained little of substance for those seeking a solution to LA’s homelessness crisis.
Perhaps a better perspective on homelessness programs can be gained from a recent Calmatters article on the state’s Project Homekey program. Reporters Lauren Helper and Marisa Kendall filed 100 public records requests and looked at every California county’s performance in creating homeless housing and bringing it online. The results have been mixed. While some projects succeeded in meeting state deadlines and have successfully housed hundreds of people, others are still stalled in development. In the City of Los Angeles, eight projects remain incomplete after more than five years since Homekey began, and 15 were completed late. The article raised two key issues: 1) state funding isn’t always enough, and local governments were ill-equipped to provide additional funds to complete projects; and 2) the most successful projects provided residents with proper support services, something LA’s local agencies have consistently failed to do. The reporters also found, as did a 2024 state audit, that the state’s oversight of Homekey projects has been woefully lacking, consisting of little more than checklists for compliance, with no focus on outcomes. The emphasis on process is a story we have seen many times before.
Since 2026 is an election year, we’re also hearing the same core messages packaged in new rhetoric. As I wrote last week, Councilmember Raman has suddenly become one of LAHSA’s most vocal critics despite a history of defending its chronic mismanagement. Even though she has been using reform as a campaign platform, she is really pitching the same old plot; homelessness is a housing problem, and all we need to do is build more housing. She has stuck to this story despite the reality that many unhoused people either don’t want to be constrained by the rules of behavior in many housing facilities, and others cannot make decisions in their own best interests. She also mentioned the need for effective services for those who ae housed, but as chair of the Council’s Homelessness Committee, she has done little to hold providers accountable for the lack of those services. Mayor Bass’ signature program, Inside Safe, has a record of evicting 40 percent of its clients for misbehavior. Raman’s emphasis on housing relies on the provision of consistent support services, which we know LAHSA is structurally incapable of delivering, and for which the City refuses to hold the Authority accountable. What Councilmember Raman is proposing is merely more of the same, wrapped in new rhetoric.
As for Mayor Bass, she continues to rely on statistics that have been debunked or seriously questioned, and on programs that cost at least a quarter of a million dollars to move someone from the streets to housing, (not including the cost of the housing itself). Her policy platform seems to be based on “stay the course”, as if the billions spent for questionable results can be packaged as success.
Perhaps the best evidence of how the City recycles its homelessness plot and how that plot has not worked, is a recent agreement between it and the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights. The agreement shifts the City’s priorities from clearing encampments to sheltering people and appoints a monitor to ensure the statistics are accurate; no more double to triple counting the same people as they move in and out of the shelter system. The agreement came after the City spent $7.5 million on outside attorney fees, and was ordered to pay more than $2 million in opposing attorney fees. If City programs were working, leaders would not have fought disclosure so tenaciously. As I detailed in a March column, the City’s numbers on shelter and housing simply don’t add up. The agreement with the Alliance can be seen as a tacit admission the City cannot support its previous claims of success.
Pratt offers a different perspective by accepting the reality of the effect of drug addiction and untreated mental illness on homelessness. But his proposals to create sober living facilities would face fierce resistance from civil liberties advocates. A sober living shelter option in San Francisco has faced significant pushback, forcing the city’s Board of Supervisors to delay a vote on funding recovery-oriented shelters. In Los Angeles, Pratt would face similar headwinds, especially from the DSA-supported Councilmembers. He also had little to say about the substantial number of unhoused people who do not need recovery support.
I think homelessness should be an apolitical issue, so I will not make candidate recommendations. I also think my voice should carry no more weight than anyone else’s, and voting is an intensely personal decision. But as the June primary and the November general election get closer, we need to ask ourselves who will bring new ideas to LA’s homelessness plot. Are there candidates who can truly offer a new approach, or who merely follow the same story with a different script? To make informed decisions, voters need to look past the rhetoric and get into the details of candidates’ platforms. Then we may find true change.
(Tim Campbell is a longtime Westchester resident and veteran public servant who spent his career managing a municipal performance audit program. Drawing on decades of experience in government accountability, he brings a results-driven approach to civic oversight. In his iAUDIT! column for CityWatchLA, Campbell emphasizes outcomes over bureaucratic process, offering readers clear-eyed analyses of how local programs perform—and where they fall short. His work advocates for greater transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness in Los Angeles government.)
