Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE - At a moment when Los Angeles is staring down structural budget deficits, looming service cuts, and a deepening crisis of public trust, the Los Angeles City Council has made a decision that defies logic, accountability, and basic fiscal responsibility. At a time when residents are being asked to accept less from public safety to basic city services City Hall has once again demonstrated that its priorities are profoundly misaligned with the needs of the people it serves.
On January 28, 2026, the Los Angeles City Council voted to allocate an additional $1.8 million to a private law firm to continue defending the indefensible: the City’s prolonged legal war with the Alliance for Human Rights over homelessness policy. That single vote brought the City’s total legal spending in this case to more than $7.8 million and the meter is still running.
Let that number sink in.
Nearly eight million taxpayer dollars are not being spent to house people, expand mental health treatment, prevent homelessness, or improve outcomes on the street. Instead, they are being poured into lawyers whose primary role is to delay, obstruct, and litigate against court oversight while homelessness worsens, encampments grow, and public confidence erodes.
This is not governance. It is financial malpractice.
Los Angeles residents are constantly told there is “no money” for essential services. We are warned about fewer 911 operators, delayed street and sidewalk repairs, understaffed sanitation routes, reduced park services, shuttered libraries, and the threat of furloughs for city workers. Yet when it comes to defending failed homelessness strategies and resisting transparency, the City somehow finds millions without hesitation.
Every councilmember who voted in favor of this latest allocation should be viewed differently from this point forward. This vote was not procedural. It was not unavoidable. It was a deliberate choice one that prioritized protecting City Hall, its programs, and its contractors over protecting taxpayers and the unhoused individuals those programs claim to serve.
At the heart of this controversy is a simple question City leaders continue to dodge: What exactly are we paying for and why is City Hall so afraid of an independent audit?
Programs such as Inside Safe have consumed staggering sums of public money with little independent verification of outcomes, costs, or long-term effectiveness. Despite repeated calls from residents, neighborhood councils, and civic advocates, the City has resisted a comprehensive outside audit that would allow taxpayers to see where the money is going, who is benefiting, and whether these programs are producing durable results.
Instead of welcoming scrutiny, the City has chosen litigation.
Instead of transparency, obstruction.
Instead of accountability, billable hours.
The situation becomes even more troubling when examining the City’s legal strategy itself. Why are so many attorneys deployed to court to object to nearly every motion? Why are extraordinary hourly rates being charged to contest oversight rather than comply with it? Every objection filed, every delay requested, and every motion challenged drives the bill higher paid for entirely by the public.
This approach is unsustainable. Los Angeles cannot afford it financially, and it cannot afford it politically.
The homelessness crisis has quietly evolved into an industry one the City itself helped create. Vast sums now flow through nonprofit contractors, consultants, legal firms, and administrative layers while tents remain, sidewalks deteriorate, and neighborhoods lose faith. The incentives are upside down. Spending is rewarded. Accountability is resisted. Results are optional.
That is precisely why the courts have sought to appoint an independent monitor an outside watchdog empowered to evaluate compliance, spending, and outcomes. And that is precisely why the City has fought so aggressively to block that appointment.
Ask yourself a basic question: If everything is working, why fear oversight?
If programs are effective, audits should be welcomed. If funds are being managed responsibly, transparency should be automatic. The City’s resistance sends a troubling message to residents: there is something they do not want the public to see.
Meanwhile, Angelenos are told to accept less and less safety, less cleanliness, less responsiveness while being asked to pay more. More taxes. More fees. More patience. All while millions are spent to avoid scrutiny instead of solving the problem.
This is no longer just about homelessness. It is about trust. It is about competence. And it is about who City Hall actually serves.
Los Angeles does not need more legal defenses or carefully worded press statements. It needs leadership willing to open the books, accept oversight, confront failure honestly, and change course when programs are not working.
Until that happens, every additional dollar spent fighting transparency is a dollar stolen from real solutions—and from the people who were promised better.
Enough is enough.
(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.)
