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.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Boyle Heights residents have seen it all when it comes to finding a place to park: cars in the red, blocked driveways, double parking and even people sitting in lawn chairs to save a spot. At times, disputes over parking spots have escalated into arguments between neighbors. 

The longstanding struggle for parking in the neighborhood only seems to be getting worse as more developments go up across the city — often with limited parking — and multi-generational households share space. Many people have memorized their block’s street sweeping schedules and no-parking zones to avoid a ticket. 

That frustration is showing up in the data.

A city of Los Angeles parking violation sits on the windshield of a car near Michigan Avenue and Cummings Street in Boyle Heights on Wednesday, March 18.

(

Laura Anaya-Morga

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

Parking tickets in Boyle Heights have increased at a rate much higher than the city of Los Angeles as a whole, making it one of L.A.’s most ticketed neighborhoods, according to an analysis of city data by Crosstown. Residents say they aren’t sure what could help remedy the issue but acknowledged that multiple parking tickets feel even heavier as gas and grocery prices rise. 

What the numbers show

Last year, Boyle Heights was the sixth-most ticketed community among the city’s 114 neighborhoods, receiving a total of 60,695 citations, an average of 5,057 per month. 

Between 2023 and 2025, the number of parking tickets handed out across the city of Los Angeles increased by 4.9%. In Boyle Heights, however, the rise was more than three times that — the 60,695 citations dispensed in 2025 was 17.6% more than two years prior, the Crosstown analysis of public parking citation data shows. 

A bar graph showing years 2023 through 2025 where parking tickets increase by year from 51,627 to 60,695.

(

Courtesy of Crosstown LA

)

That is likely an undercount, as city citation data is not available after Dec. 14, 2025 (the Los Angeles Department of Transportation was unable to identify why this happened or when it will be fixed). Even so, the increase in Boyle Heights surpasses that in some other frequently ticketed neighborhoods. Van Nuys registered an increase of 4.5% during that time, while citations in Hollywood fell by 9.6%.  

Some areas suffered even sharper rises: Tickets in downtown and Koreatown rose 21% and 33.5%, respectively.

Hernan Gabriel, who has lived in Boyle Heights for 10 years, said parking hasn’t always been easy, but tickets have been part of his routine. 

On a recent afternoon, he stood outside his home near Cesar E. Chavez Avenue and Chicago Street, keeping an eye on the time before street sweeping restrictions began.

“This is my first ticket of the year,” Gabriel said, as he pulled a $73 parking ticket from the dashboard of his truck that he received in February.

Hernan Gabriel received a $73 parking violation in February for failing to move his vehicle for street sweeping near Cesar E Chavez Avenue and Chicago Street.

(

Laura Anaya-Morga

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

But it hasn’t been his only one. In 2023, he racked up over $2,800 in parking tickets while working deliveries downtown.

“Since I received those tickets, I’ve been paying closer attention,” Gabriel said. While he has access to a parking spot at his home, many of his neighbors don’t. 

A disproportionate impact

Not only are tickets increasing in Boyle Heights, but residents are being cited at higher rates than in much of the city. 

People in the neighborhood of roughly 81,000 residents received 60,695 citations last year — about 0.75 tickets per resident. 

Citywide, the rate is significantly lower: 0.48 citations per resident, based on 1.87 million tickets issued across Los Angeles. 

The types of violations also mirror city trends but at higher concentrations.

Approximately one of every four tickets written in Boyle Heights is for parking in a street sweeping zone — a $73 infraction. Last year, 16,776 such tickets were issued.

The second-most frequent infraction is parking in a red zone — a $93 hit. In Boyle Heights, these made up 20.9% of the community’s total, well above the citywide rate of 12.4%.  

A pie chart showing types of parking violations in 2025.

(

Courtesy of Crosstown LA

)

Stephanie Sanchez, a lifelong Boyle Heights resident, has gotten used to the struggle of looking for a spot and avoiding parking tickets.

“It’s expensive,” she said. “I’ve noticed people from a couple blocks away coming to park here or people who live here going a couple blocks away just to park because it is so cramped.”

Last year, Sanchez received five parking tickets totaling over $350. 

“[I could] buy more groceries, lots of things for my day-to-day living. It would help with gas because gas is ridiculous right now,” she said.

What LA officials say

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) said the number of citations issued across L.A. is a “direct result of posted restrictions, driver behavior, and officer staffing.” According to the department, of the 502 traffic officers deployed citywide, 115 serve the Central Division, with 24 officers specifically assigned to Boyle Heights.

In response to community concerns regarding street congestion and parking, LADOT said in a statement, “street improvements require identifying specific locations and coordinating between multiple City departments. LADOT remains committed to collaborative solutions that address the needs of every neighborhood.”

A spokesperson from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office echoed the community’s sentiment about parking issues in the neighborhood and said Jurado is looking into addressing them.

Boyle Heights hot spots 

The most ticketed location in Boyle Heights is Cesar Chavez Avenue and Chicago Street, where 1,070 tickets were dispensed for illegally parking in a bus lane, a $293 infraction. 

Just south is the neighborhood’s second-most ticketed location. A 76-space public parking lot at 249 Chicago St. produced 669 citations in 2025. Most were for an expired meter.

On the stretch of Cesar Chavez between Boyle Avenue and Fickett Street, more than 3,200 bus-lane parking tickets were given out. On a recent visit to the area, there were no easily visible signs warning about bus zone infractions.

No easy fixes in sight 

For many residents, solutions feel limited while the problem gets worse. 

Maria Solis and Orlando Cervantes have lived in Boyle Heights for 30 years and said finding a spot to park in their neighborhood is harder than ever before. After 5 p.m., it is nearly impossible, Cervantes said. 

They suggested limiting how many cars a single person can have. 

Another more obvious solution would be for the city to create more parking lots but that comes with its own problems. “The more parking there is, the more cars you will see,” Solis said.

Sanchez echoed that concern. 

“Theres no space to even create like a parking lot, even then I feel like that would be expensive to pay for a spot,” she said.

The Trump administration is quietly seeking unprecedented access to medical records for millions of federal workers and retirees, and their families.

A brief notice from the Office of Personnel Management could dramatically change which personally identifiable medical information the agency obtains, giving it the power to see prescriptions employees had filled or what treatment they sought from doctors. The regulation would require 65 insurance companies that cover more than 8 million Americans — including federal workers, retired members of Congress, mail carriers, and their immediate family members — to provide monthly reports to OPM with identifiable health data on their members.

The proposal is prompting unease from insurers as well as health policy and legal experts, who are concerned about the legality of OPM acquiring such a sweeping database of sensitive health information, and the agency’s ability to safeguard it.

OPM could use the data to analyze costs and improve the system, said Sharona Hoffman, a health law ethicist at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.

“But,” she said, “they are going to get very, very detailed and granular data about everything that happens. The concern here is the more information they have, they could use it to discipline or target people who are not cooperating politically.”

OPM spokespeople did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The agency’s notice asks insurers that offer Federal Employees Health Benefits or Postal Service Health Benefits plans to furnish “service use and cost data,” including “medical claims, pharmacy claims, encounter data, and provider data.” It says the data will “ensure they provide competitive, quality, and affordable plans.”

The notice, posted and sent to insurers in December, does not instruct them to redact identifying information — a burdensome process that they would need federal guidance to complete.

Instead, it states that insurers are legally permitted to disclose “protected health information” to OPM. Several experts in health policy and law consulted by KFF Health News said they interpreted the request to mean the Trump administration was seeking identifiable data.

The ask comes a year into a Republican administration that has been defined by haphazard mass layoffs and firings of thousands of federal workers, including dozens who say they were targeted in acts of political retaliation or for not embracing the White House’s agenda. Under President Donald Trump, the government has also routinely tested the legal bounds of sharing sensitive and personally identifiable tax or health information across government agencies in its efforts to carry out mass immigration arrests or pursue identify fraud.

“You can anticipate a scenario where this information on 8 million Americans is now in the hands of OPM and there’s a real concern of how they use it,” said Michael Martinez, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, an advocacy organization that filed a public comment opposing OPM’s proposal in February. Martinez previously worked at OPM.

“They’ve given no information about how they would treat that information once they have it,” he said.

Among Martinez’s concerns is how the administration might use information about employees who have sought abortions — 41 states have some type of abortion ban — or transgender treatment, medical care that the Trump administration has tried to curb.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing federal workers, did not respond to requests for comment.

Martinez and others who reviewed the notice for KFF Health News said the proposal was so vague that they were uncertain, exactly, what medical records OPM wants to access.

At the very least, they said, the proposal would allow the agency to access the medical and pharmaceutical claims of patients with their identifying information, such as names and birth dates. Claims data also includes diagnoses, treatments, visit length, and provider information.

OPM’s request to view “encounter data” could allow the agency to look at “anything and everything,” Hoffman noted.

That could include detailed medical records, such as a doctor’s notes or after-visit summaries.

Jonathan Foley, who worked at OPM advising on the Federal Employees Health Benefits program during the Obama and Biden administrations, said he doubts the agency has the capability to ingest such minutiae.

The agency, however, could easily begin collection of personally identifiable medical and pharmaceutical claims information from insurers, he said.

Foley said he sees a benefit to OPM having broader access to de-identified claims data. In recent years, OPM has ramped up its analysis of claims data, which has allowed it to examine prescription drug costs and encourage plans to offer federal workers cheaper alternatives. He’s worried, though, that the Trump administration’s proposal goes too far, because it appears to seek identifiable data.

“It’s kind of shocking to think of them having protected health information without having strict guardrails,” he said.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, requires certain organizations that maintain identifiable health information — such as hospitals and insurers — to protect it from being disclosed without patient consent.

Those entities can disclose such information without consent only in specific scenarios, with a justification that it is deemed “reasonable” or “necessary.” Even then, HIPAA mandates that they provide only the minimum amount of information required.

OPM argues in its notice that it is entitled to the information from insurers “for oversight activities.”

But several people who reviewed the notice questioned whether OPM’s explanation for requesting the information is sufficient.

“The language in it seems quite broad and encompasses potentially a lot of information and data and is sort of light on justification,” said Jodi Daniel, a digital health strategist who helped develop the legal framework for HIPAA privacy rules over two decades ago.

Several major insurers that offer federal employee health plans — including the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealthcare — declined to comment on their plans to comply with the notice or offer insight on where plans to implement the data sharing stood.

Only one insurer individually weighed in with a public comment on OPM’s plan. In March, CVS Health executive Melissa Schulman urged the federal agency to reconsider its proposal.

“OPM’s request raises substantial HIPAA compliance issues,” Schulman wrote, arguing that federal law allows the agency to examine records but not to collect data. Insurers would be breaking the law by providing personal health information for OPM’s “vague and broad general purposes,” she added.

Schulman, who did not respond to additional questions from KFF Health News, also raised concerns about a lack of data privacy protections. She noted that insurers could be liable for security breaches or other situations “where consumer health information is inappropriately shared and outside of our control.”

In 2015, OPM announced the personal records of roughly 22 million Americans had been stolen from the agency in a data breach that has been blamed on the Chinese government.

The Association of Federal Health Organizations, which represents CVS Health and dozens of other federal health plan carriers, also weighed in with a 122-page comment opposing the notice. In it, AFHO Chair Kari Parsons emphasized that insurance carriers are bound by HIPAA to safeguard personal health information.

Federal law requires carriers “to furnish ‘reasonable reports’ OPM determines to be necessary,” Parsons wrote, “not to furnish the individual claims data of every individual.”

This isn’t the first time OPM has requested detailed data from insurers. In the AFHO comment, Parsons noted OPM had made a similar proposal in 2010, prompting HIPAA concerns. She described how, after several years of negotiations with AFHO, they discussed — but OPM never finalized — an agreement in 2019 for carriers to share de-identified data with OPM.

But since then, Parsons wrote, OPM has collected such detailed information on enrollees and their families that, with OPM’s new request, the agency may be able to trace even de-identified records to individuals.

OPM has not provided any update since closing comments in March. The agency would need to publish a final decision before anything officially changes.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover on Wednesday responded to the outcry over tickets for the Olympics, saying the average price was "accessible" and that more $28 tickets would be available in later drops.

He also defended the prices, the majority of which are more than $100 and can go as high as $5,500. Each ticket includes a 24% service fee.

"The average ticket price is under $200," he said. "That's an accessible ticket."

Not everyone in Southern California agrees. After the cheapest tickets sold out quickly in the locals-only sale that wraps Wednesday, many Angelenos wondered if they'd missed their chance to get affordable seats at Olympic competitions and said they felt priced out of the Games before they'd even arrived in Los Angeles.

Hoover pushed back against that idea, saying ticket sales were critical to paying for the Games, which could end up costing taxpayers if they're not delivered within budget.

" These are the biggest games in Olympic history. And so in order for us to be able to deliver a fiscally responsible, as well as a safe and secure Games, our ticket prices start at $28 and offer a range of pricing for everybody," Hoover said. "You may get on the website and you're not gonna necessarily find the ticket at your price in this drop. There'll be more drops coming."

What's unclear is how many $28 tickets, or tickets under $100, will be made available in future sales, including the general sale that launches Thursday.

LA28 has avoided sharing exact numbers and prices, outside the promise to make at least 1 million tickets available for $28.

The cost of tickets could get even more expensive in future sales. When LAist asked if Olympics organizers would use dynamic pricing, where sellers can adjust prices based on demand, Hoover didn't rule it out.

" We're not using dynamic pricing in this round of ticket drops," Hoover said. "We may adjust it in the future."

Another way people in Southern California can participate in the Olympics will be to volunteer. But it appears there will be fierce competition for those slots, too. Hoover said Wednesday that he estimated needing 60,000 volunteers and that more than a quarter million people had signed up. That includes some 50,000 locals.