The Brief

Mayoral candidate Nithya Raman — who is also a sitting L.A. City Council member — unveiled a homelessness policy platform Tuesday that calls for the city to prepare for a breakup with the region’s troubled lead homelessness agency and to scale back Mayor Karen Bass' signature Inside Safe motel program.

In Raman’s new homelessness policy platform, she vowed to build an effective homelessness response system in the city, arguing it’s something that hasn’t existed during her five years as a city official.

“ One of the most persistent challenges with homelessness is that no one is in charge at City Hall,” Raman told LAist. “ There is no centralized management or oversight over our homelessness response system at the city. What we have is a patchwork of programs that have very different outcomes and hugely differential costs.”

Raman, who represents Council District 4 stretching from Silver Lake to Reseda, argues only the Mayor’s Office has the authority to fix that fragmentation and deliver transparency.

She is among 13 candidates challenging Bass in the race for L.A. mayor in the June primary.

Homelessness is one of the top issues in the mayoral race. Los Angeles is home to nearly 44,000 unhoused residents and budgets about $1 billion a year for homelessness.

In response to Raman’s announcement, a spokesperson from Bass’ campaign defended the incumbent mayor’s homelessness strategy and noted Raman had supported it.

“Councilmember Raman has been on the City Council since 2020 and is Chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, and frankly the most success she has achieved is voting yes on Inside Safe,” Alex Stack said in a statement.

Bass introduced Inside Safe through an executive order, with a goal of moving more unhoused residents from encampments into temporary shelter. Raman later voted with the L.A. City Council 13-1 to accept Bass’ 2023-24 budget, which included $250 million for the program.

Raman argues that L.A. should shift spending away from expensive motel-based programs like Inside Safe, toward lower-cost interventions like short-term rental vouchers and shared housing.

“What I'm proposing is to look across our shelter beds and really investing in what works and stretching every dollar as far as possible at a time when the Trump administration is about to cut funds for homelessness response here in Los Angeles significantly,” Raman told LAist.

The Bass campaign criticized Raman’s plan as impractical.

“The campaign plan she threw out there relies on private landlords turning over apartments to people living in tents — it's unrealistic and would increase homelessness,” Stack said.

The campaigns for other candidates, including Spencer Pratt, Rae Huang and Adam Miller, did not respond to requests on Tuesday. Each includes some homelessness policy proposals on their campaign websites.

Inside Safe 

Raman’s proposal took aim at Inside Safe, a city program designed to clear tent and vehicle encampments and move people into shelter, primarily hotel rooms.

The city of L.A. has spent more than $300 million on Inside Safe over the past few years. During that time, the program has moved more than 5,800 unhoused people indoors, according to the Mayor’s Office. Official data shows 40% of those people later returned to the street, as highlighted in a recent L.A. Times report.

The average Inside Safe bed, usually a hotel room, costs the city more than $225 a night, compared to an average nightly cost of about $86 at other shelter or “interim housing” options, according to the Office of the City Administrative Officer.

Raman called Inside Safe “the most expensive temporary housing intervention in the city by far,” estimating the program costs the city about $85,000 per motel room annually.

For the same money, the city could rent three apartments and provide services through its Time Limited Subsidy Program, she said.

That rental subsidy program costs about $24,000 annually per household, according to the Office of the City Administrative Officer.

Since Bass took office, L.A.’s overall homeless population estimates have declined by about 5%. The “unsheltered” population — those who live outside in tents or vehicles, instead of in homeless shelters or similar facilities — declined even more during that period, as Inside Safe moved more Angelenos living on the streets into hotel rooms and other shelters.

Bass’s campaign defended her approach.

“Mayor Bass launched L.A.'s first-ever comprehensive street homelessness strategy, driving street homelessness down nearly 18 percent, posting the first-ever consecutive-year decline in overall homelessness and achieving the first decline in homeless mortality since records have been kept,” Stack said.

As a candidate for City Council in 2020, Raman’s homelessness platform had called for eliminating “policies that criminalize people who are unhoused,” including sweeps of unhoused encampments led by the LAPD and sanitation workers.

Raman’s 2026 mayoral homelessness platform calls for “maintaining” the city’s “capacity for encampment resolution.”

"My approach to homelessness in my district would be exactly what I would be doing citywide, which is trying to ensure that we are using every single dollar and resource that we have to move people indoors as quickly as possible," Raman told LAist.

Accountability questions  

The L.A. City Council has been considering whether to redirect about $300 million in annual homelessness funding away from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and, if so, whether to put the funds under city or county oversight.

As chair of the L.A. City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, Raman is expected to preside over that committee's final discussion on the issue, before it issues a recommendation and sends the issue to the full council for a vote.

Last year, L.A. County officials voted to move hundreds of millions away from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and administer the funds itself through a new county homelessness department. That funding shift begins July 1.

Bass has publicly clashed with county leaders about their decision. She’s also said the city should be cautious about following suit.

“Withdrawing from LAHSA too quickly, without a plan and without the capacity, will no doubt cause unintended consequences that will leave more Angelenos to die on our streets,” Bass said in a statement last month.

Raman said her mayoral platform sets a framework for moving hundreds of millions in city homelessness contracts away from LAHSA.

“The city needs to be prepared to make significant changes including taking on direct contracting for some funds and potentially contracting directly with the county,” Raman told LAist. “The biggest challenge right now is that, despite my efforts, the city still doesn't have the capacity to manage this transition effectively.”

That’s what her plan is designed to build, Raman said.

Raman’s platform describes LAHSA as “plagued with scandal” and “may be on the verge of shuttering.”

Bass and Raman both point to the city’s Bureau of Homelessness Oversight, created last year within the Los Angeles Housing Department, which they say can help deliver accountability and oversight if scaled up.

According to Raman, that bureau has not yet hired a single person, but it is doing some data work using consultants via a private grant.

Raman criticized the current city approach to the 6,500 people living in cars and RVs as "haphazard" and "ineffective, vowing to develop a clearer strategy.

Raman wants more street medicine teams — funded through Medi-CAL reimbursements — to meet health needs in encampments.

She also proposes a citywide unarmed crisis response team to respond to mental health and substance use calls.

Other candidates

Spencer Pratt, a former reality television personality who lost his home in last year’s Palisades Fire, urges a “treatment-first” approach to homelessness, according to his campaign website.

“For years, the Homeless Industrial Complex has prioritized process over outcomes, warehousing over treatment, and press releases over results,” the site states.

His approach would redirect resources to mental health care, drug treatment and stabilization services, according to campaign material.

The Rev. Rae Huang, a community organizer and Presbyterian minister running to the left of Raman, has proposed a new “Mayor’s Office of Housing For All” to coordinate housing and homelessness efforts in the city.

On her campaign website, Huang promises to build more permanent supportive housing and to end “sweeps” or city cleanups of tent encampments.

Candidate Adam Miller is a tech entrepreneur who founded Better Angels LA, a nonprofit that distributes small loans to families facing eviction.

Miller’s campaign platform lists a range of proposals for L.A.’s homelessness system, including 50 more tiny home village sites, more enforcement of anti-camping laws and a better tech system for managing shelter bed reservations.

If no candidate wins a majority of the votes in the June Primary Election, the top two vote-getters will face off in a November runoff.

Topline:

Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

Here are some of the topics they covered:

• Extreme heat
• Emergency preparedness and recovery
• Protecting communities from pollution
• Water
• Public transit

About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

"States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

"It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
Copyright 2026 NPR

A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.

(

Katie DeBenedetti

/

KQED

)

The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

“What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

“If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

“I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

“The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

“The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

“Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.