Consider the debate swirling around Police Chief Jim McDonnell. Raman contends that McDonnell has lost the trust of Angelenos, pointing to what she describes as a widespread perception that the department is cooperating too closely with federal immigration agents. Yet she has offered little concrete evidence to back up either claim, and both assertions are shakier than her campaign rhetoric suggests.

Bass, for her part, bears direct responsibility for McDonnell’s tenure. She appointed him to a five-year term in 2024, backed by a City Council vote that included Raman’s support, and has since stood by his efforts to rebuild a department that had been losing officers to attrition.

Not long after that appointment, the Trump administration’s aggressive push to militarize immigration enforcement arrived in full force in Los Angeles, escalating tensions in a way that mirrored confrontations in other Democratic-led cities across the country. That put McDonnell and his department in a difficult spot. LAPD policy since 1979 has barred officers from making stops based solely on suspected immigration status, a rule designed to encourage victims and witnesses — regardless of their legal status — to cooperate with police without fear.

At the same time, the department has a long-standing duty to protect everyone within city limits, a mandate that has occasionally put LAPD officers in the position of shielding ICE agents from angry crowds. Raman and others have criticized this as creating troubling optics, suggesting it makes local police look like they’re siding with federal immigration authorities over immigrant communities.

That criticism misses the point. ICE’s tactics in Los Angeles have been widely seen as heavy-handed and counterproductive, and city leaders are right to push back against those operations at the policy level. But pushing back doesn’t mean standing by while federal agents are assaulted. The LAPD’s obligation to protect and serve extends even to ICE agents whose presence in the city stems from a political agenda out of Washington.

It’s also worth remembering that federal authorities retain the legal right to enforce immigration law, even if the LAPD isn’t obligated to assist them. A useful comparison is marijuana enforcement: city police can’t block DEA agents from doing their jobs, but that doesn’t mean LAPD officers are required to arrest every person smoking a joint on a street corner.

Whatever one thinks of McDonnell’s overall leadership, decisions about his future shouldn’t hinge on the flawed premise that the LAPD must withhold protection from ICE agents just to send a political message. ICE’s approach in Los Angeles deserves criticism — but leaving federal agents exposed to violence isn’t the answer.

If there’s a real case to be made about whether McDonnell should keep his job, it deserves more scrutiny than a campaign talking point can provide. The proper way to judge a police chief is by looking at crime trends, officer conduct and how seriously the department takes allegations of misconduct. Are officers respecting people’s constitutional rights? Is their work actually making Los Angeles safer?

By that measure, McDonnell has some strong results to point to. Los Angeles recorded 230 homicides in 2025 — a drop of 54 from the previous year and the lowest total since 1966. Violent crime and property crime both declined citywide, signaling real progress on public safety.

But there’s a more troubling trend as well: LAPD officers discharged their firearms more than 45 times last year, a 70% jump that resulted in 14 deaths. When Bass raised concerns about the rise in officer-involved shootings, McDonnell pledged that every incident would undergo rigorous review, both through internal investigations and independent oversight.

That commitment is a good sign, and city leaders should hold McDonnell and his command staff accountable for how officers use force — while recognizing that in police work, some use of force is unavoidable and, at times, justified.

Former LAPD Chief Bernard Parks once observed that the department tends to discipline officers frequently but fires too few of them. His broader point remains relevant: no chief can prevent every improper use of force, but a chief can and must set clear expectations and hold officers to them consistently.

Then there’s the question of money, which the mayoral race has muddled rather than clarified. Bass has called for increased funding for the LAPD, while Raman has pushed back — framing the mayor as the department’s defender and herself as its critic. But that framing oversimplifies a complicated issue.

Slashing the LAPD’s budget isn’t an effective response to legitimate criticism of the department, just as simply pouring more money into it won’t fix systemic problems on its own. Still, adequate staffing matters, and budget cuts can sometimes lead to more chaos and confrontation rather than less. Public safety funding should be driven by strategy — reducing crime while ensuring accountability — not used as a political cudgel to punish or reward the department.

The real question voters deserve to hear addressed isn’t whether Jim McDonnell should be fired or whether he has lost the city’s confidence in some abstract sense. It’s whether Bass and Raman can articulate a clear vision for what they want the LAPD to prioritize and how they intend to hold the department accountable to that vision.

From there, civilian leadership — the mayor and City Council — needs to translate that vision into concrete direction for the department. Only then can the LAPD and its chief fairly be judged on whether they’re carrying out that mission effectively and within the bounds of the law.

A police chief who reduces crime, holds officers accountable and genuinely serves the community deserves to keep the job. One who fails on those counts should be replaced. That’s the standard voters should be asking Bass and Raman to meet — not campaign soundbites about confidence and optics.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Mayoral Candidates Spar Over Policing and Police Chief, but Sidestep Other Pressing Issues appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The survey, published by an outfit calling itself Median Strategies, claimed Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass held a commanding double-digit lead over City Councilmember Nithya Raman in the race for mayor. The numbers seemed to defy political gravity given Bass’s sagging approval ratings and recent criticism over her administration’s handling of homelessness. The poll also asserted that Bass had scooped up support from most voters who had backed Republican upstart Spencer Pratt during the primary.

There was just one problem: none of it was real.

By Monday, Median Strategies had pulled its post and replaced its website with a notice admitting the numbers were invented as part of what it called a “short-term social experiment.” The disclaimer warned that the figures “should not be cited or treated as genuine polling data.” The same site had also published fabricated polling on governor’s races in Wisconsin and Nevada.

According to a report published Thursday by The Guardian, the site was the work of a 21-year-old recent college graduate who said the idea was sparked by a widely discussed polling miss in Michigan’s Senate race. The person told the outlet the goal was to test how easily fake numbers could infiltrate political reporting and public discourse.

Before the ruse was exposed, the bogus figures were picked up by the Los Angeles Times, which first reported on the deception, along with the California Post, several local television and radio outlets — and Bass’s own campaign, which cited the poll in a social media post that has since been deleted.

The episode has intensified concerns about the reliability of political polling at a moment when the public is already wrestling with misinformation and AI-generated content flooding online spaces.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research, a leading industry group, condemned the stunt as “a serious breach of ethics” that damages the credibility of legitimate survey research.

Bass campaign spokesperson Alex Stack said staff reviewed the polling memo before sharing it and concluded it appeared credible, in part because multiple news organizations had already reported on it. “Any bad faith attempts to influence elections should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Stack said in a statement.

Questions remain about motive

It’s still unclear who exactly is behind Median Strategies or what their ultimate goal was — including whether the fabrication would have ever come to light without journalists digging into it. The group did not respond to questions submitted by CalMatters.

“This definitely isn’t a research experiment, right? It sounds like an excuse for very bad behavior,” said Mindy Romero, who directs the nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy. “If we take them at their word, that this is some sort of social experiment, that’s not what reputable researchers engage in. We always have to think about the harm that we’re doing.”

Some observers suspect a financial motive may have been at play, particularly involving political betting platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The theory mirrors classic stock market fraud schemes, in which bad actors artificially inflate the price of an asset before cashing out.

Data reviewed by the Associated Press showed a burst of trading activity on Polymarket in the minutes after Bass’s campaign shared the fake poll online, with thousands of trades logged from roughly 20 accounts within six minutes. On Kalshi, the odds of a Bass victory ticked up about two percentage points in the 15 minutes following the post.

Writing for The American Prospect, journalist David Dayen argued the incident proved a troubling point: that pump-and-dump tactics long used in financial markets can be just as easily applied to political prediction markets.

A warning for future campaigns

Jonathan Underland, a political strategist working on Democrat Xavier Becerra’s gubernatorial campaign, said the incident is a reminder that campaigns need to slow down and confirm a poll’s legitimacy before promoting it.

“I get the excitement of a poll that shows you in the lead,” Underland said. “Everything is an opportunity for your opponent to hit you. The last thing I want to do is promote a poll that’s not real.”

Baldassare, who has spent decades studying public opinion, said he’s long been uneasy about how much weight polling carries in shaping financial and political decisions — from prediction markets to which candidates attract major donor support. He worries this episode could inspire copycats eager to inject more noise and confusion into future elections.

Still, he pointed to one silver lining: the fake poll surfaced in August, months before most voters start paying close attention to a race, rather than in October when ballots are already in hand.

Baldassare said he hopes the incident pushes journalists and campaign staff to slow down and verify their sources before spreading poll results.

When in doubt, he said, “Call the pollster. Make sure I’m legitimate. You know — a real person.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Fake Poll Duped LA Mayoral Campaign, Signaling Warning for Other Candidates appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The city’s latest homeless count, released last week, found 45,194 people living unsheltered within Los Angeles city limits, up from 43,695 a year earlier. While that figure remains below the total recorded during Bass’s first year in office, it breaks a two-year streak of declining numbers — undercutting the narrative that the city was finally turning a corner.

For a city that has poured hundreds of millions of dollars and years of political capital into the crisis, the reversal lands hard. And it’s given Bass’s mayoral challenger, City Councilmember Nithya Raman, fresh ammunition.

“This is a moral outrage,” Raman said of the new numbers. “And it is a failure.”

On Monday, Raman took her campaign to a carpenters’ training facility in Sylmar, where she picked up the endorsement of the Western State Carpenters union — a labor group that backed Bass four years ago in her lopsided win over businessman Rick Caruso. Moving fluidly between English and Spanish, Raman told a crowd of apprentices and tradespeople that she’d push to accelerate housing construction across the city.

“You are the people who build Los Angeles,” she said. “And together, we are going to build its future.”

There’s an odd role reversal playing out in this race. Raman, a self-described democratic socialist, spent much of her Sylmar remarks talking about cutting red tape and clearing the way for private developers to build homes, schools and infrastructure faster. “Mayors don’t build housing,” she conceded — but she’s betting that streamlining the permitting and approval process will help.

Bass, meanwhile, has staked out ground as the law-and-order candidate in this race, leaning into police enforcement of public safety rules and the clearing of homeless encampments as central planks of her homelessness strategy — a notably tougher posture than the one many expected from a longtime progressive stalwart.

It all scrambles the conventional wisdom about how Los Angeles elections are supposed to work — that winning requires courting the political center, that homeowners anchor the electorate, that labor sticks with incumbents, and that older, more established voters outweigh younger and newer ones at the ballot box. Those assumptions may no longer hold in a city where renters make up the bulk of the electorate and where Raman’s mix of progressive politics and pragmatic messaging might resonate more broadly than Bass’s brand of establishment liberalism.

The politics get even more complicated when you look at where the homeless count actually rose — and where it didn’t. Raman’s own council district, which stretches from Silver Lake and Los Feliz on the east side, over the Hollywood Hills to Sherman Oaks and Encino, saw street homelessness drop by nearly half. That’s a striking contrast to the citywide increase, especially given that Raman also chairs the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee — a post that gives her a hand in citywide policy even as she represents one relatively affluent district.

Bass’s team has pointed to that discrepancy, arguing that her signature Inside Safe program deserves credit for the improvement in Raman’s district — meaning Raman may be benefiting from the very initiative she’s campaigning against.

That overlap makes it difficult to cleanly separate the two candidates’ records heading into the fall.

Raman has pledged that, if elected, she would cut street homelessness in half citywide before the 2028 Olympics arrive in Los Angeles — an ambitious goal given that Bass has struggled to hit far more modest targets. Asked why current efforts have fallen short, Raman didn’t hold back.

“Mayor Bass’ Inside Safe program is an emergency response that is only the first step of systemic changes that need to happen to get people indoors and off the streets,” she said Monday, raising her voice over the din of saws and hammers at the training site.

Raman argues her approach would go further, connecting people not just with shelter but with mental health treatment, family reunification, supportive housing and job placement — the kind of wraparound services she says the city currently isn’t providing.

“All of that is possible,” she said. “None of that is being done at the city right now.”

When asked why the city — which she helps oversee as a council member and committee chair — hasn’t already implemented those steps, Raman deflected.

“That is not a question for me to answer,” she said. “That is a question for this mayor to answer.”

None of this lends itself to easy answers. Homelessness in Los Angeles reflects decades of policy failures layered on top of enduring social problems — poverty, addiction, a housing shortage that predates any single mayor’s tenure. There’s no quick fix, and any real progress likely requires a combination of strategies, a willingness to abandon what doesn’t work, and a level of public patience that’s increasingly hard to come by.

In the meantime, Bass and Raman will keep trading blows — raising campaign money (Bass currently holds an advantage there), staging events, and sparring over policy details as the race barrels toward its Election Day finish.

At Monday’s event, Raman toured the training site with visible enthusiasm, peppering her guide with questions as she walked through a mock construction area. At one point she stepped on a stray nail. Without missing a beat, she slipped off her shoe, pulled the nail free, and kept walking.

It was, in miniature, a fitting image for the race itself.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Homelessness Increase Gives Raman an Opening to Criticize Bass — But Accountability Isn’t That Simple appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For decades, Los Angeles has been a national example of coalition politics, where candidates build governing majorities by stitching together groups with different interests and histories. The model has shifted repeatedly as the city has changed.

Former Mayor Tom Bradley, Los Angeles’ first Black mayor and its longest-serving chief executive, built one of the city’s most durable coalitions. Elected in 1973, Bradley joined Black voters with liberal voters then concentrated on the Westside, a base strong enough to carry him through four additional mayoral victories.

Richard Riordan, a moderate Republican and Catholic who succeeded Bradley, reworked the city’s political map in 1993 by winning support from the San Fernando Valley, moderate voters in central Los Angeles and Latino voters. That coalition helped him win reelection easily, but it has proved impossible for later Republicans to duplicate as GOP registration in the city has fallen to less than 15% of voters.

Other mayors have risen or fallen depending on how well they held together key voting groups. James Hahn won with backing from the Valley and Black voters, but lost support after opposing San Fernando Valley secession and declining to reappoint Police Chief Bernard C. Parks. He was defeated when he sought a second term. Antonio Villaraigosa later drew strong support from Latinos and liberals and served two terms. Eric Garcetti carried that coalition through the COVID-19 era.

Bass’ 2022 victory reflected, in part, a return to the Bradley-style formula. She began with strong backing from Black voters and expanded her support among progressives with help from organized labor. That coalition was enough to defeat Rick Caruso, a former Republican running as a Democrat who spent more than $100 million of his own money on the campaign.

This year, however, Bass faces a different kind of challenge. Raman is also a woman of color, but she is younger and positioned further to the left politically. That creates an unusual test for Bass: a coalition built to defeat a well-funded, more conservative opponent now must be reoriented against a progressive challenger.

Early results from the election earlier this month showed Bass performing well in central Los Angeles, where many Black and Latino voters live. Raman led in younger, more progressive neighborhoods such as Silver Lake, Echo Park and parts of the southeast San Fernando Valley.

The returns also revealed possible openings and limitations for both candidates. Spencer Pratt, despite running without traditional qualifications or a detailed policy platform, won precincts on the Westside and in the western San Fernando Valley. Even so, Bass often finished second in those areas, a notable result given that Pratt’s campaign capitalized on frustration with City Hall and with Bass in particular.

If Bass becomes the more moderate or conservative option in a runoff, that could make it harder for Raman to pick up votes in those precincts. Raman, who received 28.5% of the vote, would need to expand well beyond her existing base to cross the 50% threshold.

One group that may matter more than in past Los Angeles elections is newer residents. At a recent event hosted by UCLA’s Blueprint magazine and co-sponsored by CalMatters, City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said people who have arrived in Los Angeles more recently often bring different political priorities than longtime residents.

Housing is one major example. Many newer Angelenos strongly support building more housing density, arguing that it could help address high rents and homelessness. But Harris-Dawson noted that for many longtime residents, particularly Black families who migrated from the South, Los Angeles represented something different: a place where they could buy a home, have a yard and enjoy space that had been denied to them elsewhere.

For those residents, single-family neighborhoods are not simply inefficient land use. They are tied to opportunity, stability and freedom.

Public safety may also be viewed differently depending on a voter’s history with the city. Some of Pratt’s supporters, including people commenting on social media who have not lived or worked in Los Angeles, portrayed the city as being in severe decline. Newer residents or those from more insulated neighborhoods may share that view, especially in a city that still struggles with serious violence. Last year, Los Angeles recorded 230 homicides.

But longtime Angelenos may see the same number through a different lens. The city once recorded more than 1,000 killings in a year. Many residents also remember the 1992 unrest following the acquittal of Los Angeles police officers in the beating of a Black motorist, part of a broader history of police abuse and racial tension.

In that context, current crime levels can be seen as both deeply troubling and significantly improved from earlier decades. Whether voters focus on the danger that remains or the progress made may shape how they respond to candidates’ messages.

New residents can bring urgency, energy and expectations for change. They may be less attached to older political habits and less willing to accept longstanding conditions. At the same time, longtime residents can view some of those criticisms as lacking historical understanding.

That divide could become one of the defining features of the mayoral race. Bass is expected to draw her strongest support from voters with deeper roots in the city, while Raman appears positioned to appeal to newer arrivals and younger progressive voters.

Los Angeles politics has long been shaped by coalitions of race, class, ideology and neighborhood. This election may add another major bloc to the calculation: voters divided by their relationship to the city’s past.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Nithya Raman Could Further Reshape L.A.’s Shifting Political Alliances appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Associated Press called the race Monday, confirming that Raman, 44, a progressive council member, had secured the No. 2 spot behind Bass. Pratt, a Republican supported by President Donald Trump, had initially appeared to be in stronger position, but his standing slipped as more ballots were tallied.

The shift angered some Pratt supporters, with some making unsupported claims about the counting process. But California’s election rules often produce extended vote counts because ballots postmarked by Election Day are valid even if they arrive afterward. In this race, later-arriving ballots appeared to favor younger and more liberal voters, benefiting Raman more than Pratt.

Los Angeles remains difficult terrain for a Republican candidate. The city’s electorate is roughly 15% Republican, and Pratt’s support closely tracked Trump’s 2024 performance in a city where the president remains deeply unpopular. Pratt campaigned as an anti-City Hall candidate, seeking to unite voters frustrated with local government, but he finished with about a quarter of the vote.

The result sets up the contest Bass had hoped to avoid: a challenge from her left by a sitting council member with an established progressive base. Raman’s strongest showing came in neighborhoods such as Silver Lake, Hollywood, Echo Park and Glassell Park, areas with large numbers of renters, younger residents and left-leaning voters.

Bass, meanwhile, showed strength across broad portions of South and Central Los Angeles, where Black and Latino voters helped power her first mayoral victory. Those neighborhoods have long been central to Bass’ coalition and remain proud of her role as the first Black woman elected mayor of Los Angeles. They also include communities that have seen significant improvements in safety over recent decades, even as concerns about homelessness, affordability and public services persist.

Still, the runoff presents a serious test for Bass. Nearly two-thirds of voters in the first round cast ballots for someone other than the incumbent, signaling frustration with the direction of City Hall. Raman is expected to press Bass on housing costs, homelessness policy, public safety spending and whether Los Angeles has moved quickly enough to address daily struggles faced by renters and working families.

Raman’s campaign is likely to focus heavily on the city’s affordability crisis, including the high cost of housing and the pace of development. She also has positioned herself as a candidate seeking new approaches to policing and public safety, an issue that could draw sharp contrasts with Bass.

Those questions now move to the center of the mayoral race: whether Los Angeles spends too much of its budget on the Police Department, whether the city’s neighborhood protections slow housing construction, and how officials should handle homeless encampments when shelter and housing options remain limited.

Bass will run on a record that includes declines in crime and street homelessness, though many Angelenos remain impatient with the pace of change. Raman, for her part, will have to convince voters that she can offer a fresh direction while also accounting for her own record on the City Council, where she has served since 2020.

The runoff also leaves a major political question: what happens to the roughly 25% of voters who supported Pratt?

Many of those voters were motivated by opposition to Bass and anger at City Hall. They now face a choice between the incumbent mayor, whom some blame for city failures including the response to the Palisades fire, and Raman, a democratic socialist whom Pratt repeatedly criticized during the campaign. Some may sit out the runoff altogether. Others may find Bass closer to their views, particularly on policing and encampments.

Bass’ first response after Raman advanced suggested how she intends to frame the race. She described Raman as a council member who “allows encampments near schools and cuts the police force,” signaling that the mayor will try to position herself as the more moderate or conservative option in the runoff.

With Pratt out, the race is expected to become a more direct debate over Los Angeles’ future: whether voters want Bass to continue her approach to homelessness, policing and city services, or whether Raman can turn frustration over affordability and slow-moving change into a winning campaign.

Original source: CalMatters

The post With Pratt Out and Raman In, Los Angeles Mayoral Race Takes New Shape appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

As of Wednesday afternoon, with about 62% of ballots counted, reality television personality Spencer Pratt was ahead of Councilmember Nithya Raman by roughly 7 percentage points for the second runoff spot, according to election results reported by The Associated Press. Pratt had about 30% of the vote, while Raman stood at about 23%.

For Bass, that matchup would be politically advantageous. Raman, a progressive councilmember, could have forced a deeper debate over housing, homelessness, public safety and the mayor’s record after four years in office. Pratt, by contrast, has drawn attention through celebrity and social media, but has not demonstrated the same command of city policy or the same ability to expand his coalition beyond voters already frustrated with City Hall.

The returns nonetheless carry a warning for Los Angeles leaders. Pratt, who lost his Pacific Palisades home in last year’s fires, appears to have attracted a sizable bloc of voters unhappy with the direction of the city. Their concerns vary — homelessness, affordability, public safety, rebuilding after the fires and dissatisfaction with Bass’ leadership — but the scale of his support suggests many residents are willing to cast a protest vote even for an unconventional candidate with little government experience.

That discontent should not be dismissed simply because Pratt is unlikely to pose a serious threat to Bass in November.

Raman’s voters, by contrast, are generally on Bass’ political left. Many may believe the mayor has not moved aggressively enough on housing affordability or homelessness, or may disagree with her support for increased police spending. But they are unlikely to migrate in large numbers to Pratt, whose views on homelessness and public safety are far more conservative than Raman’s. Polling circulated by the Bass campaign indicated that more than 90% of Raman supporters viewed Bass as their second choice.

That dynamic gives Bass a clearer path than she had four years ago, when she defeated businessman Rick Caruso after a hard-fought contest. Pratt may have a committed base, but his room to grow appears limited. Some backers of other candidates may consider supporting him, especially those aligned with former President Donald Trump, who has endorsed Pratt. But many Los Angeles voters are likely to be wary of a candidate whose public résumé centers on reality television, social media and business ventures such as crystal sales rather than experience managing a large public agency.

Election night underscored the contrast between the two campaigns.

Pratt’s campaign event drew media attention, but reporters were kept outside until he briefly appeared with his wife, Heidi Montag, at Don Antonio’s Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles. In remarks to reporters, Pratt suggested his candidacy was part of “God’s plan,” while continuing the social media-driven style that helped fuel his campaign.

Bass, meanwhile, surrounded herself with labor and business leaders and emphasized the breadth of her institutional support. She highlighted her opposition to Trump, whose backing of Pratt may be more liability than asset in heavily Democratic Los Angeles.

“We are a union town,” Bass told supporters, drawing loud applause.

The line reflected one of Bass’ central advantages: a long-standing understanding of Los Angeles political coalitions. She has represented the region in Sacramento, in Congress and now at City Hall, and her campaign event was designed to show that organized labor, civic leaders and key business voices remain largely behind her.

Still, Bass faces a complicated reelection message. She has often been most effective politically when presenting herself as an agent of change. Now, as the incumbent, she must argue for continued change after already having had four years to deliver on some of the city’s most urgent problems.

Those problems remain substantial. Los Angeles is still grappling with severe homelessness, a shortage of affordable housing, rising living costs and sharp disagreement over the future of public safety. Housing policy continues to divide residents who want to protect existing neighborhoods from those who argue the city must build more quickly and at greater density. On policing, Bass has pursued a more traditional approach that includes increased LAPD funding, while progressives such as Raman have argued for shifting more money toward mental health response and alternatives to incarceration.

A Bass-Raman runoff likely would have put those differences at the center of the campaign. A Bass-Pratt runoff may not.

Pratt’s positions are generally to the right of the city’s electorate, while many voters who are skeptical of Bass are more progressive than she is. That leaves Bass with less incentive to engage in a detailed policy debate. If Pratt remains a weak opponent, the mayor may be able to run a cautious campaign focused on competence, stability and opposition to Trump rather than a full defense of her record.

That would benefit Bass politically, but it could leave voters without the kind of serious discussion the city needs.

Critics of the mayor argue that housing production remains too slow, homelessness is not improving quickly enough and City Hall lacks urgency in managing basic services and major departments. Some say Bass is more comfortable as a legislative negotiator than as an executive driving a large city bureaucracy.

A stronger challenger could force Bass to answer those criticisms directly and explain what she would do differently in a second term. Pratt’s candidacy, despite its visibility, may not force that reckoning.

For now, the mayor has reason to be pleased with the shape of the race. But the vote also makes clear that a significant share of Los Angeles residents remain frustrated, angry or unconvinced that city government is meeting the moment. Whether that frustration leads to a serious civic debate before November is far less certain.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Mayoral Clash May Boost Karen Bass, but Leaves Los Angeles Voters Shortchanged appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The fifth tranche of the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program will distribute $827 million statewide and come with more stringent accountability and transparency measures than in the past, Newsom said.

The city of Los Angeles will receive $160 million and the county $94 million. The remainder will go to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and the separate homeless services agencies of Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena.

Newsom said a key element of the new accountability is a requirement for cities and counties to present their plans as a region under a contract establishing “an expectation of roles and responsibility” among all the agencies.

He was joined by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, county supervisors Hilda Solis and Kathryn Barger, and Va Lecia Adams Kellum, chief executive of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

Bass said she, the supervisors and the homelessness authority have moved beyond the bickering and finger pointing that hampered regional efforts in the past to work on a unified front.

“This is an example of work that we have been doing for the last couple of years which is bringing every level of government together,” she said.

Newsom said the grant program, which committed $2.4 billion in its first four rounds, was formed in the last year of former Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, when about $500 million was spent with “no accountability, no expectations.”

“Since then we have significantly increased the investments but we have also increased the accountability, transparency and the expectations,” Newsom said.

Though he did not go into detail, Newsom said additional accountability would be through “a framework of expectation and reporting that would no longer be at a quarterly or biannual basis but a monthly basis.”

The announcement drew muted criticism from Republican State Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks). He commended Los Angeles officials for making progress on getting people off the street and Newsom for promising accountability.

But, in light of a recent report by the State Auditor’s Office concluding that the state has failed to adequately monitor the outcomes of its vast spending on homelessness programs, Niello remained skeptical.

“He used the word accountable and accountability so many times that if I had a nickel for every time he used it, I would have enough to pay for the lunch I’m going to,” Niello said. “If past is prologue, those are just words.”

Homelessness spending should ultimately be directed at getting people to self-sufficiency, Niello said.

“Tell us how much you are spending and tell us what the actual results are with respect to self-sufficiency.”

The post Gov. Newsom joins local officials in unveiling a new round of homeless funding appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.