Don’t Burn Down Los Angeles to Punish Karen Bass

THE BOTTOM LINE - Los Angeles voters have every right to be angry. They are angry about homelessness, crime and disorder, housing costs, City Hall dysfunction, the Palisades Fire, and a city government that too often seems incapable of delivering basic results.

But anger is not a governing philosophy.

And on November 3, Los Angeles voters should be very careful not to turn frustration with Mayor Karen Bass into something they may regret for the next four years.

The choice is no longer between the mayor we wish we had and the City Hall we wish existed. The choice is between Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman. That deserves a clear-eyed examination of what each represents.

Raman is not merely running as a younger or more progressive alternative to Bass. She is a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and DSA-LA has formally endorsed her campaign for mayor.

That endorsement matters. DSA-LA isn't simply putting its name on a campaign flyer. Its organization has described endorsements as commitments involving significant resources and volunteer power. Raman now sits atop a broader DSA-backed Los Angeles electoral effort.

Does that mean Raman agrees with DSA on everything? No. She has publicly disagreed with the organization on significant issues. But voters are entitled to ask what political direction Los Angeles would take with a DSA-backed mayor working alongside an increasingly organized ideological movement at City Hall.

Look at Housing

Bass deserves plenty of criticism, but one of the strongest decisions of her administration has been pushing City Hall to move affordable housing faster. Her Executive Directive 1 dramatically accelerated approvals for qualifying affordable housing projects.

When pressure came to impose additional labor requirements on those projects, Bass faced a fundamental question: Do you make desperately needed housing more expensive to build, or do you prioritize getting units constructed?

The Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ultimately moved its support from Bass to Raman. The union said Bass' policies had failed to adequately address workers' concerns, while Raman emphasized housing production, faster permitting and construction jobs.

That is a legitimate political disagreement. But taxpayers and renters should ask a brutally simple question whenever City Hall adds another requirement to housing: Will this help Los Angeles build more homes or fewer?

We have spent decades proving that good intentions do not automatically produce affordable housing. Los Angeles needs units.

Then There Is Public Safety

Raman's record on homelessness and public-space enforcement should receive equally serious scrutiny. She has repeatedly opposed expanding restrictions on where homeless encampments can be located. In her own responses to DSA-LA, Raman defended those votes in part by arguing that criminalization can make it more difficult for homeless people to eventually obtain permanent housing.

That is a coherent ideological position. But voters are allowed to disagree with it.

Compassion for homeless Angelenos does not require surrendering sidewalks, parks, schools, and neighborhoods to permanent encampments.

A functioning city must be capable of saying two things simultaneously: We will help people living on the streets, and we will not allow public spaces to become permanent encampments.

That isn't cruelty. It's government.

Los Angeles has spent years pretending those principles are incompatible. Residents have paid the price.

We've Seen Ideological Experiments Before

Los Angeles County should have learned something from the George Gascón era. Whatever one's politics, his tenure demonstrated the danger of treating America's second-largest metropolitan area as a laboratory for sweeping ideological change before earning broad public confidence.

Voters eventually rejected him overwhelmingly.

Los Angeles cannot afford another experiment in which ideology comes first and results are evaluated later.

The next mayor inherits a city preparing for the 2028 Olympics while confronting homelessness, housing shortages, public-safety concerns, infrastructure failures and enormous fiscal pressure.

This isn't a seminar. It's Los Angeles. The mayor needs to manage it.

Bass Hasn't Earned a Free Pass

None of this means Karen Bass deserves unquestioning support. She doesn't.

Her administration should be held accountable for its failures. Voters have legitimate questions about homelessness spending, City Hall performance and her handling of the Palisades Fire.

Supporting Bass in this election does not require pretending the last four years were successful. It requires recognizing something more basic: Elections aren't therapy.

A ballot should not be used simply to punish someone who disappointed you. It determines who governs afterward.

A protest vote may feel satisfying when you mark the ballot. But Los Angeles will live with the consequences until 2030.

This Election Is Bigger Than Karen Bass

That is why frustrated voters should think carefully before turning anger at Bass into a vote for Raman.

Ask which candidate is more likely to govern from the center when ideology collides with reality. Ask who will protect neighborhoods while helping homeless Angelenos. Ask who will build housing without making every project prohibitively expensive. Ask who can manage the enormous responsibility of preparing Los Angeles for the Olympics.

And above all, ask whether City Hall needs another ideological revolution or competent, pragmatic government.

Karen Bass was not everyone's first choice. She does not need to be.

Because November 3 isn't a referendum on whether voters love Karen Bass. It's a decision about what kind of Los Angeles we wake up to on November 4.

You can be disappointed with Bass. You can demand better from Bass. You can hold Bass accountable every single day of her second term.

But don't burn down Los Angeles just to punish her.

A protest vote lasts a moment. The consequences of electing a mayor last four years

(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)