Nithya Raman Wants City Hall. First, Explain the $87 Million

THE BOTTOM LINE - Nithya Raman wants Los Angeles voters to trust her with one of the most difficult jobs in America. Before voters give her the keys to City Hall, however, she should answer a much simpler question: What happened with the money?

Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto has raised extraordinary questions about taxpayer funding received by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, or LAFLA, a nonprofit that has played a major role in the city’s eviction-defense program.

According to the City Attorney, LAFLA’s original $7 million contract for Stay Housed LA was amended and extended nine times, eventually growing to more than $90 million. More recent findings have raised an even more alarming question: whether as much as $87 million in public funding cannot be reconciled with available financial records.

That does not establish that $87 million was stolen, disappeared, or was illegally spent. LAFLA disputes the City Attorney’s characterization of its accounting. But when taxpayers are confronted with a potential discrepancy measured not in thousands, but in tens of millions of dollars, “trust us” is not an acceptable answer.

There should be a complete accounting, and Raman should be among the loudest voices demanding one.

This matters because Raman was not a distant observer of Los Angeles housing policy. She has been one of City Hall’s most prominent advocates for tenant protections and eviction-defense programs, and she supported Measure ULA, the real-estate transfer tax promoted as a way to fund affordable housing and homelessness-prevention efforts.

She has every right to defend those policies. But political leadership does not end when the check is written. It includes making sure taxpayers can see what happened after the money left City Hall.

Raman joined her colleagues in supporting continued ULA spending and the Stay Housed LA program. The larger Stay Housed LA contracting effort has reached $177 million across multiple service providers.

Those numbers should change the conversation.

Los Angeles residents were asked to pay more because City Hall promised to do more. That promise creates an obligation: Every dollar should be traceable. Every contract should be scrutinized. Every organization receiving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars should be prepared to demonstrate where the money went and what taxpayers received in return.

This should not be a left-versus-right argument. Tenants facing unlawful eviction deserve access to legal representation. Small landlords also deserve a system that recognizes that many are ordinary Angelenos relying on rental income to pay mortgages, taxes, and maintenance costs.

Both deserve a system governed by law rather than ideology.

And taxpayers deserve something even more basic: Receipts.

That is what makes this controversy so damaging to City Hall. Los Angeles has become accustomed to enormous spending announcements followed months or years later by arguments over oversight, documentation, and results.

We have seen this movie too many times. A program is announced. Politicians promise transformative results. Millions become tens of millions. Tens of millions become hundreds of millions. Then, after the money has gone out the door, somebody finally asks the question that should have been asked all along:

Where did the money go?

Los Angeles cannot afford government by blank check. The city faces enormous challenges involving homelessness, public safety, infrastructure, housing affordability, and fiscal pressure. Every taxpayer dollar committed to one program is a dollar unavailable somewhere else.

That is why this controversy is bigger than LAFLA. It is a test of Raman’s approach to government.

Leadership is not simply identifying a worthy cause and finding money for it. Leadership means establishing safeguards, demanding measurable results, and accepting responsibility when serious questions emerge.

Raman is asking Los Angeles voters to promote her from one of 15 councilmembers to the chief executive of America’s second-largest city. That demands a higher standard of accountability.

She should support a comprehensive, independent examination of the disputed funding and demand that the results be made public. If every dollar is properly accounted for, taxpayers deserve to know that. If the discrepancy results from accounting classifications or incomplete documentation, taxpayers deserve an explanation. If oversight failed, taxpayers deserve to know how and why. And if the City Attorney’s analysis is wrong, LAFLA deserves the opportunity to prove it with records.

But there is one answer Los Angeles should no longer accept: We don’t know.

The question facing Raman is larger than whether eviction defense is worthwhile. It is whether someone asking voters to entrust her with an entire city can demonstrate that she demanded sufficient accountability for public money flowing into programs she championed.

Before Nithya Raman asks Los Angeles for a promotion, Los Angeles should demand an accounting. Eighty-seven million dollars is far too much money for unanswered questions.

(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.)