The Brief

Weldon Kennedy and his wife make it their business to keep up with California’s fast-changing clean energy landscape. So when the climate-conscious couple began planning to add a solar system to the roof of their Oakland home, they took their time to talk to installers and shop around for the best deal.

But then, last spring, he heard that a neighbor had decided to accelerate their solar project. Other homeowners in the area were rushing to get in line, too.

“I don’t think I fully understood the scope of it, but I had people telling me, ‘You better get going, get your solar now,’ ” Kennedy said. “It seemed like a bunch of tomfoolery was coming down.”

Kennedy’s neighbors and other consumers were reacting to a profound policy shift in California: The state Public Utilities Commission in late 2022 slashed by about 75% the rate that utilities pay homeowners with new solar panels when they sell surplus power to the grid. The rate structure went into effect for solar applicants beginning last April.

The state’s decision has caused consumer demand for residential solar to plummet since the new rate took effect. Solar companies say they’ve been shoved to the edge of a cliff, forcing them to lay off workers or even shut down.

Experts worry that the steep decline could stall the state’s battle against climate change. Solar power is critical to meeting California’s ambitious requirement to switch to 90% carbon-free electricity in 2035 and 100% in 2045. Large-scale and rooftop solar is projected to provide more than half of the grid’s power by 2045.

The imminent change in payments to customers drove a three-month surge in homeowners applying for solar connections leading up to the deadline. But then came a 90% decline last May compared to May of 2022, according to state data for areas served by Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

In all, about 82% fewer customers applied for solar connections from May through November of last year compared to a year earlier. Fewer than 4,000 customers applied in November, the last month with available data.

Now California’s utilities and solar companies have to wait to see if these declines are short-term or permanent.

Deepak Rajagopal, an energy economist at UCLA’s Institute of Environment and Sustainability, said it’s no surprise that consumers balked at going solar after the reimbursement rate changed from what he called the “generous” system. He said the higher payments were a burden on people who don’t have solar.

“It is a given, demand is going to slow down. The overall effect will be a slowdown in the rate that people will demand rooftop solar. Over time it may come back up, but it’s hard to tell,” he said.

Questions about the impacts remain: How will California meet its climate change goals without a healthy and growing residential solar market?

And can Gov. Gavin Newsom’s vision of making clean energy affordable to disadvantaged communities become a reality with fewer companies and lower reimbursements?

“The state is betting so strongly on power from rooftop solar. They will have to recalibrate,” Rajagopal said.

Rajagopal intended to install a solar system at his newly purchased house. But like many Californians, he missed the April deadline to get in on the higher payments.

“I just had very few months to decide, and now I’m cursing myself that I didn’t find the time to quickly sign up,” he said, adding that he will wait to see what happens before installing solar.

The new rule’s impact on the solar industry has been immediate. As many as 17,000 solar workers in California might have lost their jobs by the end of last year, according to industry estimates.

“The market is in the gutter,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, an industry group. “It should be no surprise to anybody. If you are a business and your market took a 80% nosedive, with great pain you have to lay off. Some companies shut their doors.

“We are talking about the largest solar market in the country,” she said. “This was the most impactful energy decision, easily, for this century so far.”

The utility commission rule was hotly debated and ultimately passed by unanimous vote. Part of the agency’s rationale was about equity: Because solar customers, largely middle class or wealthy, are being paid near-retail prices for their excess power, they are not paying their fair share of fixed costs to maintain the state’s grid, saddling other ratepayers with higher bills. That burden, regulators said, disproportionately falls on low-income households that can’t afford solar panels.

The utilities commission said the high rates paid to solar customers amounted to a subsidy, and that state incentive programs for installing battery storage systems alongside rooftop solar would provide better, longer-term value for ratepayers.

Solar panels on a home in Ladera Heights, a community southeast of Los Angeles.

(

Lauren Justice

/

CalMatters

)

The new rates only apply to new solar installations and only for the customers of PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

It’s not just homes: The utilities commission in November voted to expand the lower payment rates to commercial businesses and multi-family homes that install solar panels.

A spokesperson for the Public Utilities Commission did not answer CalMatters’ questions about the impact of the recent steep declines in solar projects or the job losses in the industry, and declined to make anyone available for an interview.

Instead, in a statement, the agency said residential solar installations have increased 16% a year over the last five years, and that 2022 saw an increase because solar customers and companies were rushing to beat the changes in rates.

More than 255,000 applications for new residential solar projects were reported in PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric areas last year.

“California leads the nation in supporting the solar industry, and has provided billions in rebates and incentives since 2006,” the commission said in its statement.

PG&E, the state’s largest utility, said in an email response to CalMatters’ questions that it received a record number of solar connection applications in 2023, a 20% increase from the previous year and “unprecedented volume” in the four months before the rate change. The company spokesperson did not answer questions about the downturn.

‘This is 100% a job killer'

’Solar industry executives say California’s rate changes are affecting low and middle income homeowners, where rooftop solar had begun to gain inroads. The Berkeley Lab reported that in 2022 about 45% of solar adopters nationwide were below a threshold used to define low and moderate income. In California, household incomes between $50,000 and 100,000 are the largest segment of solar customers, the report found.

As the solar market has matured, costs have come down, allowing homeowners of modest means to adopt solar systems and lower their utility bills.

“Rooftop solar is not just the wealthy homeowners anymore,” said State Sen. Josh Becker, a San Mateo Democrat. “Central Valley people are suffering from extreme heat. The industry has been making great strides in low-income communities. This (utilities commission decision) makes it harder.”

The utilities commission has $280 million in an “equity fund” to assist low-income consumers. None of the money has been spent yet; the agency said it would soon release a plan for operating the program.

Solar can still make financial sense for homeowners who can afford the upfront costs and wait out the return on their investment. Federal tax credits can cover 30% of the installation cost. And as their use of power from the grid declines and they get paid for excess power, customers generally expect to have their new solar system paid off in six to eight years, according to the utilities commission. It's faster for installations that include battery storage.

Some solar company owners said the new rules extend the payback period to 10 years or more. One installer said some of his customers would go from being paid 30 cents a watt for selling excess power to 4 or 5 cents a watt.

The job losses are being acutely felt in the small communities where careers in clean energy are a pathway into good-paying jobs for women and people of color. The average salary for a solar installer in California is $70,000, Del Chiaro said.

“These jobs have been a foot in the door for people who have been in the justice system, their lives have changed,” said Adewale OgunBadejo, vice president of workforce development for the Oakland-based non-profit Grid Alternatives, which focuses on underserved communities for clean energy projects.

“This is 100% a job killer.”

Solar energy gave Ken Wells a second chance. Wells was raised amid gangs and few options in South Los Angeles. When his friend was killed by a rival gang, the 15-year-old Wells got a gun, carjacked a vehicle and led authorities on a high-speed chase. He was tried as an adult, found guilty and served six years in prison.

Carrying the indelible tag of a felon, Wells worked his way through bootstrapping programs to gain training in something that might help disadvantaged communities: bringing clean energy and low utility bills to his neighbors.

By 2017, Wells started his own company, O&M Solar Services. He was making a great living and created jobs for 20 employees. They are now all laid off.

“We need to transform our communities not just with clean energy but with these jobs,” said Wells, 35. “When I hear the policies coming out of Sacramento, I am floored. Why? We are talking from both sides of our mouth?

“On the one hand we want to promote clean energy and on the other hand we are shutting it down. We cannot afford years of setting back the solar industry, just cutting it off at the knees with these policies. These policymakers got it wrong.”

Ken Wells of O&M Solar Services in Los Angeles walks outside a home with solar panels in Ladera Heights.

(

Lauren Justice

/

CalMatters

)

Other factors also are at work to stall an industry that had just recovered from COVID-19 shutdowns. Interest rates have made it difficult for small companies to grow and for homeowners to borrow money to pay for systems that can start at $30,000. The extension through 2030 of a federal tax credit, which had been scheduled to be phased out this year, may have removed the urgency for some consumers.

For small companies like Wells’, even small blows land hard. So far his customers are waiting to see if things change.

“I don't know what the future holds,” he said. “Here in South Central, it’s a solar desert. You are not getting the community excited, looking to transition to clean energy. It’s going to get worse.”

Carlos Beccar, marketing manager for Energy Concepts in Fresno, said the company, which has been in business for 30 years, has recently laid off half of its workforce. Beccar said 60% of the firm’s installations in the last five years have been in ZIP codes where the median household income is lower than the market average.

His service area covers neighborhoods that experience extreme heat, where it’s common to see utility bills averaging $800 in the summer months, he said. “This policy was a bat to the knee, not a soft punch to the gut,” he said.

Susan Stephenson, executive director of California Interfaith Power & Light, an Oakland-based organization that advocates for clean-energy adoption in houses of worship, said the new policy “made it difficult (for some churches) to pencil out,” she said.

“Solar can be a solution that eventually pays for itself. Now with this change, they have to look harder and longer.”

Not all congregations can afford the upfront costs or wait years to recoup their investments, Stephenson said. Until recently, tax-exempt religious organizations couldn’t take advantage of federal solar tax credits, making the state’s reduced payments a real blow, she said. That policy has changed, but many nonprofit organizations have yet to navigate the new rules and even the 30% direct payment may not make up for the reduced reimbursements.

“Ironically, it's going to make solar less equitable and less accessible,” Stephenson said. “There are good people who work at the PUC who want to do the right thing. It's unfortunate they made this decision based on information from utilities that perhaps did not give the full picture. We could see the very equity goals they were trying to achieve being harmed. I hope they will reconsider.”

Becker, the state senator, said “where’s the just transition for the laid off solar workers?” noting efforts to create a fund to assist workers in the state’s oil industry who lose their jobs.

Ross Williams has owned HES Solar in San Diego since 2013. After the pricing decision, sales “fell off a cliff,” he said. “We sold 600 deals in the first quarter of the year and in the month of May we made one deal. That’s how dramatic it was, the disruption was so insane.”

LIke many other solar installers, his company now does roofing jobs and is considering expanding into Nevada and Arizona in search of customers.

“We are a small company and we don't have massive cash reserves we can stand on for years,” said Williams, 41. “I used to think we could weather this, that demand will come back. So far nothing I thought was going to happen has happened. My crystal ball is way off.”

Asked what his message is for policymakers, Williams said, “Was that your intent for me, to be a roofer and move to Arizona? Thanks, California.”

Incumbent L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and challenger City Councilmember Nithya Raman went head-to-head in a tense, live televised debate Tuesday night.

With Election Day only three weeks away, the candidates are racing to make their case to voters on major mayoral priorities like homelessness, public safety and the 2028 Olympics.

Here are three takeaways from the hour-long NBC4 and Telemundo 52 debate in Universal City. Each candidate was given about a minute to answer a question, with another 30 seconds each for rebuttals and follow-ups.

What did the candidates say about homelessness?

Bass has repeatedly pointed to a drop in homelessness under her tenure — a trend that faltered this past year, according to the results of the annual homeless count. After two years of declines, homelessness jumped 3.4% in the city of Los Angeles.

During the debate, she acknowledged the recent increase, but pointed to several council districts where homelessness dropped, including Raman’s.

“ The main reason homelessness went down is because our efforts with Inside Safe,” Bass said, crediting the program for removing three large encampments from Raman’s district. Raman represents Council District 4, which stretches from parts of Silver Lake to the Hollywood Hills and Reseda.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass took shots at her challenger, at one point describing City Councilmember Nithya Raman as " contemptuous of her constituents."

(

Courtesy NBC4 and Telemundo 52

)

Inside Safe is Bass’ signature homelessness program that moves people from encampments into motels and interim housing. Raman has criticized the program, arguing it has wasted money and its approach had not changed since it launched nearly four years ago.

“ Under this mayor's leadership, we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an incredibly expensive program, Inside Safe, which has been unaccountable to the public, for which she has refused audits," she said. " And it looks exactly the same as it did on day one.”

Both candidates seemed to agree that there needs to be more transparency in the city’s homelessness system.

Bass said the city needs to be in complete control: “ No more joint working with the county.”

Raman said every homelessness dollar needs to be monitored and every service performance tracked to actually respond to Angelenos’ needs.

What did the candidates say about policing?

Raman confirmed during the debate that she wants to replace Jim McDonnell as chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, saying he had lost the trust of Angelenos, especially in response to federal immigration raids.

Asked whether she would replace McDonnell before the 2028 Olympics, Raman didn’t give a timeline. She said it would depend on other factors and decision makers, such as the Police Commission and L.A. City Council.

“ I promise you, Angelenos, I promise you, there is no decision that I will take as your mayor that will put you in danger,” Raman said. “Everything will be done with care, and with the advice of all of the people that are involved in making sure that you are safe as these Olympics approach.”

L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman criticized L.A. Mayor Karen Bass' signature homelessness program, Inside Safe, and her administration's response to major fires.

(

Courtesy NBC4 and Telemundo 52

)

Bass pressed Raman on the issue, saying the council member doesn’t have “any idea” what it takes to pick a police chief.

“ We are 640 days away from the largest sporting event to ever take place — a major national security event — and if you think that you're gonna find a police chief, you would send the department in disarray by doing that,” Bass said.

Both candidates weighed in on the LAPD’s use of Automated License Plate Readers, otherwise known as ALPRs.

Raman said she’s been “very skeptical” of these kinds of mass surveillance technologies and would want to see hard proof that the data would not be shared with ICE.

Bass said she thinks ALPR’s have a place in crime prevention, but she does not support a renewed contract with Flock, describing the company as “completely uncooperative.”

What did the candidates say about emergency response?

Bass has been heavily criticized for her administration’s response to last year’s Palisades Fire, and she apologized during the debate for not being in L.A. “when my city needed me.” Bass was in Ghana when the fires ignited as part of a Biden administration delegation for the inauguration of the country’s new president.

Bass said the city would be ready to respond to the next catastrophic wildfire, in part under new leadership from Fire Chief Jaime Moore.

“ As a matter of fact, we're preparing for what is a potential Red Flag day this Thursday,” Bass said. “He has already reached out to the state for additional resources. He is planning to pre-deploy in the Palisades and other high-risk fire areas.”

Raman honed in the Palisades Fire, as well as this summer’s Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights, describing both as a “failure” of leadership from the mayor. Raman said she would have handled the Lineage fire differently.

“ I will make sure that our community is met with resources, evacuation support and the information they need in the languages that they need, which this community did not get during these fires,” she said.

Go deeper

LAist Voter Game Plan guide - Los Angeles mayor

A Los Angeles homelessness planning body voted Tuesday to have L.A. County officials take over the region’s yearly homeless count and handle applying for federal homelessness funds on behalf of the region — two jobs currently held by the embattled L.A. Homeless Services Authority.

The decision by the L.A. Continuum of Care — in a 310-9 vote — comes after the Trump administration sidelined the agency, known as LAHSA, from the federal-facing roles it’s held for decades. It signals a loss of power for LAHSA and a major shift in homelessness oversight for the L.A. area, passing significant control of the region’s homelessness response to L.A. County officials.

The details

If Tuesday’s selections are approved by a federal judge, L.A. County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing will soon be in charge of conducting the region’s annual point-in-time homelessness tally, instead of LAHSA.

The county would also take over the responsibility for submitting annual homelessness funding applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, on behalf of the whole region.

Volunteers at the 2023 L.A. homeless count review the map of Westwood prior to heading out.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

The timeline for these responsibilities being fully transferred away from LAHSA is expected to be determined by a federal judge in the coming weeks.

How we got here

LAHSA is the city and county’s joint-powers homelessness authority. In June, HUD suspended the agency from performing its federal-facing responsibilities, citing financial mismanagement. LAHSA sued. In August, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter paused LAHSA’s suspension. He also ordered the L.A. Continuum of Care to run an evaluation process to replace LAHSA in federal roles within 60 days.

The L.A. Continuum of Care is a HUD-recognized group representing homeless services providers, government agencies and community advocates across L.A. County. It’s responsible for choosing the entity that fills these federal roles. The Trump administration’s suspension of LAHSA forced the group to consider alternatives.

L.A. County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing was the only agency or organization that applied to manage both the homeless count and the region’s yearly application for federal homelessness dollars.

What’s next?

While a report is due to Carter on Tuesday, Oct. 13, the full selection process he ordered is not yet complete. The L.A. Continuum of Care still needs to vote on its final designations for who should succeed LAHSA in two other federal roles: managing a database that tracks unhoused Angelenos and running the system used to match people with shelter and housing. The city of Los Angeles and L.A. County are competing for those roles.

A vote scheduled Oct. 9 was delayed when over 1,000 people overwhelmed the Zoom capacity. It will be rescheduled — no date has been set yet.

The court’s preliminary injunction pausing LAHSA’s suspension is set to expire on Oct. 27.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Hollywood Park, the home of SoFi Stadium, is throwing its financial weight into a campaign to block Inglewood Mayor James Butts’ bid for reelection on Nov. 3, according to campaign finance records.

The Take Back Inglewood campaign is the latest signal that Butts’ ties to SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke are unraveling as the city battles its stadiums over billboard deals and $400 million in infrastructure payments.

Inglewood’s stadium interests have supported Butts politically and financially in past elections, according to reporting from the LA Times, but a spokesperson for the Hollywood Park-funded campaign said stadium officials lost confidence in Butts. 

“The relationship changed because, in their experience, they could no longer trust him to deal with them honestly and fairly,” Shallman said. “Political support isn’t a lifetime contract.” 

Butts fired back in an interview with The LA Local that the campaign is about trying to protect Hollywood Park’s business interests. 

“They believe because they have millions to spend on advertising, they can manipulate the electorate into voting against someone that has changed the entire trajectory and value of our city” the four-term mayor said, adding in a later written statement that his record speaks for itself. 

Since last summer, Inglewood officials and the stadiums have been duking it out in court over the terms of their relationship and the city’s financial deals with billboard operator WOW Media. Judges have ruled in favor of the WOW arrangement, but last month voided the city’s contract with Hollywood Park.

Now, both sides are pouring millions into Inglewood’s election, looking to sway voters. 

A new batch of election finance filings released Monday in response to a public records request from The LA Local show Take Back Inglewood is entirely funded by $750,000 from Hollywood Park. Butts’ own campaign, by comparison, has spent $264,085 this year out of just over $610,000 in total funds.

Elsewhere, the stadium-backed Neighbors for Beautiful Inglewood has spent $3.1 million campaigning for the anti-billboard Measure BB. Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability, funded by WOW, has put $2.5 million of its own into trying to block BB and pushing for the ticket tax increase Measure AT.

Fernando Guerra, a Loyola Marymount University political scientist, said the campaign dollars are unsurprising. Inglewood’s place as an international sports and entertainment hub has turned it into a prime place for a contentious, expensive election, Guerra said.

“It’s par for the course when you combine contracts and politics and cities needing to raise revenue,” Guerra said. “The higher the stakes, the more the money that’s going to be spent.”

Butts told The LA Local he sees the stadium campaigns as paternalistic, and that they treat voters as pawns in Hollywood Park’s economic interests.

Shallman countered that the campaign is not tied to the stadium development’s disputes with the city and said Butts has in the past defended the support he received from Inglewood venues. The stadium development, he said, has a natural stake in the race through its employees.

“These aren’t outsiders who parachuted into Inglewood. The venues have invested billions of dollars in the city, created thousands of jobs,” he said. Shallman added that locals have aired their own criticisms of Butts’ leadership.

Butts isn’t without his own allies. Billboard interests have put $80,000 into the mayor’s reelection campaign since January alone, with more coming from real estate firms. Butts said campaign donations don’t influence his decisions as mayor. 

“My decisions are driven by the needs of our community,” Butts said.

Take Back Inglewood isn’t backing any of the five candidates running against Butts, Shallman said, at least for now. 

“They reserve the right to weigh in if they feel the need,” Shallman said. “The key at this stage is to make sure voters are aware of his record.”

Los Angeles resident Noemi Tagorda’s mother and grandmother used to go to Langer’s Delicatessen, buy chicken and enjoy their meal with a relaxing picnic in MacArthur Park. Tagorda shared her story during her address to Mayor Karen Bass regarding public safety at a candidate forum on Sunday in a Westlake church.

“That’s virtually impossible for anyone to experience now,” Tagorda said. “Now when you say MacArthur Park, you think of a place that is destitute, [where] there’s just a lot of human suffering, and it’s not a place where you think you can go and relax.”

Hundreds of people from different faith backgrounds attended the public accountability assembly at Precious Blood Church hosted by One LA-IAF, a network of diverse religious and non-profit institutions across Los Angeles County.

Mayor Karen Bass says farewell during a public accountability assembly hosted by One LA-IAF at Precious Blood Church in Westlake in Los Angeles, Calif. on Oct. 11, 2026.

(

Isaac Ceja

/

The LA Local

)

The forum included Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, along with candidates for L.A. County sheriff. 

Parishioners like Tagorda walked up to the stage to share their stories and faith leaders then asked each candidate if they were willing to work with One LA-IAF to address the issues while giving each candidate a minute to respond. 

The key issues discussed during the event included: immigration, public safety, sidewalk repair and sex trafficking. 

Manuel Olvera, a member of St. Anthony Catholic Church in San Gabriel, shared the story of a friend and immigrant churchgoer who asked Olvera to share his story on his behalf due to fear.

In the story, Olvera shared that the man and his son had recently lost their jobs due to the current situation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and have been living off of their savings for months.

“It’s not just difficult trying to survive financially,” said Olvera in Spanish on the immigrant’s behalf. “It’s also having your home be a prison.”

Nithya Raman stands at the podium during a public accountability assembly hosted by One LA-IAF at Precious Blood Church in Westlake in Los Angeles, Calif. on Oct. 11, 2026.

(

Isaac Ceja

/

The LA Local

)

On immigration 

Councilmember Raman committed to hosting an immigration retreat and meeting with One LA-IAF. She shared that she is also an immigrant from India, who arrived in the US when she was 6. 

She added that Bass proposed to cut legal defense funds in the last budget. The city council eventually approved $1.5 million in funds for the immigrant legal defense program in the final budget earlier this year.

“If I am elected mayor, I will make it higher and ensure that immigrants who are facing deportation have the resources they need to be able to respond.”

Mayor Bass made the same commitment as Raman with One LA-IAF but when it came to the topic of immigration, she chose to focus on her past work of being part of a congressional hearing alongside Congressman Robert Garcia. 

“It was several months ago, but you came to me and you proposed the idea of doing a city hearing on immigration, we established a great partnership then,” said Bass to One LA-IAF. “And what we did was we actually turned it into an official congressional hearing and what I am hopeful is that in the next 25 days or so, I try not to count, we will have a change in the House of Representatives.”

Manuel Olvera shared the story of a fellow parishioner who was afraid to speak due to his immigration status during a public accountability assembly hosted by One LA-IAF at Precious Blood Church in Westlake in Los Angeles, Calif. on Oct. 11, 2026.

(

(Isaac Ceja

/

The LA Local

)

On public safety 

Bass wants to focus on differentiating between drug dealers and drug users and fighting for residential drug treatment if elected to a second term in office.

“We need to separate those people who prey on our people, who are the drug dealers and the criminal element, from the people who are addicted to the drugs, and we need to get treatment for those people,”  Bass said. 

Raman shared the successes on reducing homelessness in her district and wants to center a compassionate response to the ongoing crisis.

“We have had incredible results on addressing homelessness, a 50% reduction in the number of people living on the street just last year, even as homelessness went up citywide,”  Raman said. “I do not believe that a compassionate response to the crisis on our streets and the safety of our residents have to be in conflict.”

Closing statements

For the final question, organizers asked each candidate if they were willing to meet regularly to address the topics discussed, collaborate on other issues if needed and if the candidate was willing to host a retreat.

Bass said that she believes the group meets regularly with her office and agreed to not only host the retreat, but also being there in person.

“I believe the way you bring about change is from the inside and outside strategy,” said Bass. “That’s a must-do, and I also think it’s important that if you really believe in change and if you really believe in all the issues we talk about, then you’ve got to show up. You’ve got to be there. It’s not just about your idea or all of that, but you have to be there.”

Raman said that the needs in the city are so great and city resources are not enough to address them, so she is happy to commit to partnering with One LA-IAF.

“I know from my work on the council that nothing succeeds without partnership with the people, and so I’m deeply committed to coming to you and partnering with you before we put any of this forward, so that we face the highest likelihood of success, and so that we can lift up our city and its needs together,” Raman said. 

Tagorda, who is also a parent of a student at Precious Blood school, told the LA Local that she was happy seeing people from different faiths and parts of the city participating in the event.

“It’s really great to have that cross-religious platform of all the different religious organizations coming together and sharing the same stories and working together to get the government’s attention on issues that are important to us as a community,” said Tagorda.

Looking for the facts about what’s on the ballot and how it will affect your neighborhood? Visit thelalocal.org/elections for voter guides, news and more.

The post Voters take LA mayoral candidates to church in Westlake election forum appeared first on LA Local.