LA Mayoral Candidate Raman Backs Mansion Tax Relief to Spur Supply

洛杉矶市长候选人拉曼支持减免豪宅税以刺激住房供应 洛杉矶无法通过增税来解决住房和无家可归危机，因为市政繁文缛节抑制了私人建设，市政厅需要审计支出并对开发商松绑以重获选民信任。 洛杉矶市议员兼市长候选人妮西娅·拉曼（Nithya Raman）与主持人格雷厄姆·斯蒂芬（Graham Stephan）及杰克·塞尔比（Jack Selby）展开对谈，共同探讨困扰洛杉矶的系统性危机，涵盖住房负担能力、无家可归问题以及市政治理。斯蒂芬结合自身在迁出该州前作为洛杉矶房东的不良经历，就租金管制、旷日持久的审批延误、针对擅自占地者的保护措施以及ULA提案“豪宅税”带来的意料之外的后果向拉曼发问。拉曼对此提出了具体的政策补救方案，主张为开发商设立具有约束力的审批时限倒计时、对新建多户住宅免征过户税，并制定严格的绩效指标来审计无家可归者服务机构。对话还探讨了公共安全和危机应对，拉曼阐明了她在洛杉矶警察局人员配置、非武装心理健康团队方面的立场，并与极左翼美国民主社会主义者（DSA）的纲领目标保持距离，转而支持切实可行的行政问责。 洛杉矶市议员妮西娅·拉曼承认ULA提案大幅抑制了新建公寓的建设，并主张对新建多户住宅免征过户税。 (10:52) 拉曼报告称，第4市议会选区通过对当地庇护所和街头外展团队严格执行绩效指标，在三年内实现了无家可归者营地和房车数量减少70%。 (39:46) 由于多层级的政府融资方案、官僚审批延误以及现行工资标准的硬性规定，洛杉矶可负担住房的建设成本通常高达每套100万美元。 (37:04) 拉曼反对提议中耗资60亿美元的洛杉矶会展中心扩建项目，并强调市政府预测该项目在未来30年内每年将产生9000万美元的运营赤字。 (62:27)

Los Angeles City Councilmember and mayoral candidate Nithya Raman debates real estate investor Graham Stephan, arguing that structural bureaucratic delays, unmonitored vendor contracts, and slow permitting—rather than progressive aspirations alone—paralyze the city's housing and homelessness response. While Stephan contends that punitive regulations and transfer taxes have driven capital out of California, Raman insists City Hall must restore operational competence and fiscal accountability before asking residents for renewed trust. Permitting Bottlenecks, Housing Supply, and Measure ULA (6:25) Raman and Stephan agree that municipal bureaucracy remains a primary bottleneck to closing the state-estimated 500,000-unit housing deficit in Los Angeles. Raman advocates for a binding permitting "shot clock" that caps reviews at 60 days for zoning-compliant projects and 120 days for non-compliant developments, with the city refunding permit fees if deadlines are missed. She notes that while California's Costa-Hawkins Act exempts post-1978 construction from local rent stabilization, permitting delays, entitlement fees, and unpredictable utility assessments from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power continue to suppress private building. Stephan counters that local multi-family property values have dropped roughly 29% to 30% over four years, citing burdensome tenant rules and costly compliance hurdles—such as waiting six months and spending $40,000 to repair a sewer line under a public sidewalk. Addressing Measure ULA (the real estate transfer tax on properties over $5 million), Raman concedes that subsequent studies indicate the tax chilled new multi-family development, leading her to sponsor city council legislation to exempt new apartment construction from the tax entirely. Homelessness Strategy, Provider Accountability, and Program Costs (39:46) Stephan challenges the effectiveness of municipal homelessness expenditures, highlighting that despite roughly $2.2 billion in regional spending and approximately $400 million directed to Mayor Karen Bass's Inside Safe initiative, unsheltered homelessness rose 7.9% across the city. Raman criticizes Inside Safe for placing individuals into motel rooms at costs reaching $100,000 per person annually, noting that approximately 40% of participants eventually cycle back onto the street. She argues instead for scaling time-limited rental vouchers, which cost between $29,000 and $35,000 annually per person and maintain a 75% housing retention rate after two years. Contrasting citywide numbers with Council District 4, Raman reports a 70% reduction in tents and RVs over three years and a 49% drop in unsheltered individuals in the past year. She attributes this outcome to hands-on contract management: tracking street caseworkers directly, auditing documentation pipelines for IDs and benefits, and terminating partnerships with non-profit service providers that fail to meet performance metrics. LAPD Recruitment Hurdles and Unarmed Emergency Dispatch (68:03) Responding to concerns regarding public safety, open drug use, and neighborhood security, Raman attributes LAPD staffing shortages to administrative friction rather than purely anti-police sentiment. She points out that the city's personnel department currently takes up to an entire calendar year to process an applicant into the police recruit academy, causing the force to shrink through ongoing retirements and departures. To optimize law enforcement capacity, Raman proposes replacing sworn officers in administrative desk roles with civilian personnel to return badge-carrying officers to field patrols, alongside updating 30-year-old patrol deployment maps. Furthermore, she advocates routing non-violent incidents, psychiatric distress, and delayed burglary report filing away from armed officers to unarmed units like CIRCLE (Crisis and Incident Response through Community-Led Engagement), preserving sworn officers for active emergencies and violent crime. Fiscal Oversight, Capital Bets, and Public Trust (62:27) Evaluating whether Los Angeles faces a spending or revenue deficit, Stephan points to high-risk capital proposals, such as the proposed $6 billion Downtown Convention Center expansion ($2.9 billion baseline capital plus roughly $3 billion in debt service), which is projected to run an operating deficit of $90 million annually for 30 years. Raman acknowledges that the city suffers from profound execution deficits across basic services, from repairing streetlights and clearing graffiti to maintaining roadways. While affirming her philosophical stance that wealthy earners should contribute more to public stability, Raman concedes that City Hall currently lacks the public credibility required to raise taxes, pointing to voter rejection of recent ballot measures for tourism and streetlight assessments. While addressing her endorsement by the Democratic Socialists of America, Raman distances herself from platforms advocating the expropriation of private property, stating that private real estate capital is indispensable to resolving the housing crisis. The exchange reveals a shared recognition between real estate investors and progressive local leadership that municipal administrative paralysis is crippling basic city functions in Los Angeles. However, whether Raman's proposed reforms—such as permitting shot clocks, vendor audits, and civilianized dispatch—can overcome deep-seated bureaucratic resistance without further alienating the private capital needed for housing supply remains unresolved.

洛杉矶市议员兼市长参选人 Nithya Raman 与房产投资人 Graham Stephan 展开对话，围绕住房供给危机、无家可归治理与市政财政问责展开辩论。Raman 主张在强化市政运营审计与提高效率之前不应加税，而 Stephan 则基于自身房东经历，直指过度管制与繁重税费正导致民间资本撤离洛杉矶。 住房短缺与繁冗监管的博弈 (6:25) 加州官方估计洛杉矶存在约 50 万套的住房缺口。Raman 直言市政府本身的官僚程序是建设的最大障碍，多户住宅面临审批极其迟缓、许可收费惩罚性过高以及 LADWP 水电局收费不可预测等多重阻碍。为加速开发，Raman 提议设立强制性的审批“出球时限（shot clock）”，规定符合区划的项目须在 60 天内审批，不符合区划的项目限制在 120 天内，若市政府超时则须向开发商退还许可费用。她还以户外用餐许可改革为例，主张采取“自主申报加事后审计”的模式来大幅精简繁文缛节。 Stephan 与 Selby 对政策落地的可行性提出质疑。Stephan 列举亲身经历指出，他在为一套租赁物业申请入住许可证时，遭遇了数次检查员推诿、清单要求反复变动、因砍伐人行道维修排污管耗时六个月并耗资 4 万美元等极端延误，甚至在等待期间还因未在隔离带植树被罚款。尽管 Raman 强调根据加州《Costa-Hawkins 法案》，1978 年后建成的住宅已豁免于本地租金稳定法规（RSO），但 Stephan 反驳称既有管制与政策环境已使得普通个体房东（mom-and-pop landlords）在加州根本无法维系运营。 豪宅税争议与租赁市场失衡 (9:04) 针对引发巨大争议的 ULA 提案（即“豪宅税”，对超过 500 万美元的房产交易征税 4%，对超过 1000 万美元征税 5.5%），Raman 坦承该政策通过后的实际数据显示其产生了严重的负面后果。多项研究表明，该税种重创了洛杉矶新建多户公寓的积极性，为此她在市议会提出提案，主张将新建多户住宅完全豁免于该税，不过该提案在议会内部面临程序与政治阻力。Stephan 指出，洛杉矶多户住宅资产价值在过去四年内下挫了约 29% 至 30%，远远跑输未受同类政策冲击的临近独立住宅市场与周边城市，使得许多房东每月都处于现金流净亏损状态。 在租客与房东权益保护方面，双方分歧显著。节目提及比佛利山庄一套价值 450 万美元的房产被霸房者强占长达 18 个月无法驱逐，以及高收入租客利用长达半年至一年的驱逐诉讼程序逼迫房东支付巨额和解金等极端案例。Raman 辩护称，市政府出资的免费法律援助仅严格面向符合低收入标准的租客，旨在防止弱势群体因非法驱逐而沦落街头。Stephan 则提议以全纳性的租金代金券（vouchers）替代对私有产权的长期租金管制，由公共税收承担兜底责任，以释放自由市场活力；而 Selby 亦质疑这种无限期补贴可能演变为财政持续失血的体系。 无家可归者救助的成效与审计 (39:46) 洛杉矶在大规模财政投入下，街头无家可归者总数仍出现 7.9% 的反弹，引发公众对资金浪费的强烈质疑。Raman 将此归因于缺乏问责机制，并对比了其主管的第四选区（Council District 4）的实绩：通过严格追踪外展团队绩效与四处避难所的个案档案，该选区三年内帐篷与房车露营地减少了 70%，过去一年不设防街头流浪人员减少了 49%。在具体救助模式上，Raman 指出市长 Karen Bass 的“Inside Safe”汽车旅馆安置项目每人每年耗资高达 10 万美元且复流率达 40%，而限期租金补贴（每月最高 2000 美元、最长两年）每人每年仅需 2.9 万至 3.5 万美元，且两年后仍有 75% 的受助者保持稳定居住。 关于危机根源，Stephan 认为街头流浪人员中多达 80% 承受着极度严重的毒瘾或精神疾患，并批评呼叫警察处理巷道吸食海洛因等治安事件时经常得不到及时响应。Raman 则坚持低价住房存量的断崖式下跌才是根本诱因，在约 7 万名地区无家可归人口中，中重度精神病患者约为 1.1 万至 1.5 万人。她主张扩展由非武装专业人员构成的 CIRCLE 危机响应团队接管非暴力求助，将一线警力从繁杂的精神健康呼叫中解脱出来，同时配合针对性街头医疗逐步建立信任。 警务资源重构与市政财政信任赤字 (68:03) 谈及公共安全，Stephan 强调恶化的治安与漫长的出警时间让居民失去安全感。Raman 反驳了仅仅靠无限制扩招警察的思路，指出洛杉矶警局（LAPD）由于退休和离职潮导致规模自然缩减，且人事部门招募入伍流程往往耗时长达整整一年。她主张维持现有警力规模并推行警务平民化改造，将从事行政文书工作的宣誓警员派回一线巡逻，并重构沿用了 30 年的巡逻派警机制，对于嫌疑人已逃离现场的非暴力财产盗窃，应指派平民调查员负责取证记录，以保证对恶性暴力犯罪能做到数分钟内的极速响应。 面对 Stephan 提出的“洛杉矶究竟是支出问题还是收入问题”的质问，Raman 坦言两者兼具，直指会展中心拟耗资 29 亿美元翻修并附带约 30 亿美元债务利息的方案是典型的财政黑洞。在回答关于富人税与美国民主社会主义者（DSA）立场的质询时，Raman 澄清自己坚信私有财产与企业资本在住房体系中不可替代，明确反对剥夺私人产权。针对税收政策，Raman 指出在市政厅通过提供可靠基础服务以重获纳税人信任之前，无权也没有政治资本推行任何新税种，当前首要任务是对现有财政支出实行透明化审计。 本场对话展现了进步派政策制定者与自由市场投资者在城市治理路径上的深层碰撞。双方均认同官僚审批低效与政府问责缺位是当前危机的核心症结；然而，关于如何在保障租客基本权益的同时恢复民间投资信心，以及如何在不增加纳税人负担的前提下扭转城市财务赤字与公共治安困境，仍是未来洛杉矶施政面临的根本考验。

[6:25] Nithya Raman: We need to make it easier, cheaper, faster to build more housing. And the biggest obstacle to building more housing in Los Angeles is often the government. [18:01] Graham Stephan: The rent control restrictions make it so that you cannot run as a mom-and-pop landlord in California at all. [81:55] Graham Stephan: Show results before we increase taxes. [73:46] Nithya Raman: I want to have a system in Los Angeles where if you call 911 for help, that someone picks up the phone quickly and that the right person shows up for your call. [0:00] Nithya Raman: If we want to raise taxes, we got to earn trust again. And I am here to earn your trust.

[0:00] Los Angeles to me is the epitome of the [0:02] American dream. [music] [0:03] >> So, what would you tell me when I say [0:05] I'm never going to invest another dollar [0:07] in California real estate ever again? [0:08] >> Well, I hope to change that. [0:10] >> Councilwoman Nithya Raman filed to run [0:12] just [music] hours before the deadline. [0:13] Raman and Bass are going from allies to [0:16] opponents. So, what do you think are the [0:17] biggest issues facing Los Angeles? [0:19] >> Homelessness and housing costs. And [0:21] they're two sides of the same coin. [0:23] >> Researchers found that more than 171,000 [0:26] people experience [music] [0:27] homelessness daily across California. [0:29] >> What I am saying is we will audit every [0:31] dollar. We will monitor performance. We [0:34] will ensure [0:34] >> But that's But isn't that what everyone [0:36] else said? Everyone else is saying [0:38] >> I already did it in 6 years. If we want [0:39] [music] to raise taxes, we got to earn [0:41] trust again. And I am here to earn your [0:43] trust. [0:44] >> Yeah, but [music] why should we tax [0:45] first before actually getting the [0:46] spending under control? [0:47] >> That's not what I'm I just literally [0:48] said the opposite, sir. [0:49] >> Speaking of waste, fraud, and abuse, [0:51] what do you think [music] of Nick [0:52] Shirley? [0:52] >> My hope is that we build a system here [0:54] in Los Angeles where Nick Shirley cannot [0:57] come and find anything to complain [0:59] about. [1:03] >> Hey everybody. So, I usually don't do a [1:04] disclaimer like this, but with this [1:06] episode, I have to. I left Los Angeles [1:08] about 6 years ago because I was really [1:10] unhappy with the living conditions [1:12] there, and Nithya Raman is currently [1:14] running for mayor of Los Angeles. We [1:17] reached out to both her and Karen Bass [1:19] to come on. Karen Bass never got back to [1:21] us, but Nithya did, and it got a little [1:24] contentious in a few moments. [1:26] >> If there's not a crime happening there, [1:28] if they're not a threat to themselves [1:29] >> a crime. [1:30] >> And they're they're doing drugs. [1:31] >> Well, they're No, they're they're just [1:32] sitting on your sidewalk and [1:33] >> doing they're doing drugs. [1:35] >> Well, that's a different situation. [1:36] >> Yeah, but I do think that we should give [1:37] her a lot of credit because she agreed [1:40] to come on. She didn't have to do this, [1:42] and she said that we could ask her [1:43] whatever we wanted. So, with that said, [1:46] I hope you enjoy the episode. Thanks so [1:48] much. Let's get into it. Nithya and [1:50] Jason, thank you so much for coming on [1:51] the Ice Coffee Hour. This is a very [1:54] unique panel of guests. Just the fact [1:56] that you're willing to sit down and have [1:59] a conversation, open dialogue, I think [2:01] is extremely commendable because it's [2:03] super, super rare. So, we appreciate [2:05] that. [2:05] >> and I appreciate you guys doing the same [2:07] thing. And and you. [2:08] >> So, this is something that's really [2:09] interesting for me because you're [2:11] running for mayor of Los Angeles and I [2:13] left LA. [2:14] >> Yeah. [2:15] >> A lot of the policies for me were really [2:17] bad and I didn't [2:18] >> Monica, right? [2:19] >> I grew up in Los Angeles. Before Santa [2:21] Monica, it was West Adams. [2:23] >> Okay. [2:23] >> And so, I've lived there for years. I [2:25] moved to Santa Monica and it just [2:26] progressively got worse. And it wasn't [2:28] just Santa Monica, it was everywhere. [2:29] Jack's family's also from, you know, [2:31] Ventura County. So, he grew up there. He [2:33] was living uh with us in Santa Monica as [2:35] well. [2:36] So, I'm curious, for mayor specifically, [2:40] what powers does the mayor actually [2:43] have? [2:43] >> We have a weaker mayor system than other [2:47] cities. So, a city like New York or city [2:49] like Boston, they have a more powerful [2:52] mayor system. Here in California, [2:55] we designed a lot you know, [2:57] historically, [2:59] people designed more decentralized [3:02] governance structures and it was the old [3:04] progressive movement that was pushing [3:06] back against corruption um you know, in [3:09] Chicago. And so, they wanted to make it [3:12] they tried to ensure less corruption by [3:13] making it more decentralized. So, we [3:15] have weaker mayors, generally speaking, [3:17] in California and on the West Coast and [3:19] stronger city councils. But about a [3:23] 25 years ago here in LA, there was a [3:25] charter reform process that actually put [3:27] more executive authority back in the [3:29] mayor's seat. And so, the mayor of Los [3:31] Angeles now has the ability to hire and [3:33] fire every department head. They have [3:35] the ability to actually set the [3:38] priorities of each department. And they [3:41] have the ability to make sure that they [3:43] are designing the metrics through which [3:45] those department heads are held [3:46] accountable. And so, if you care about [3:48] something, like if you care about [3:50] responsiveness to trash complaints. You [3:53] can actually generate metrics around [3:56] that and hold your departmental [3:57] leadership accountable around that. If [3:58] you care about homelessness, which [4:00] everyone does, you can actually say, [4:02] "Hey, let's make a map of encampments. [4:04] Let's make sure that the that the [4:06] entities in responsible for it actually [4:08] making progress for addressing [4:09] encampments over time." [4:11] When mayors don't use that power to [4:13] actually push city departments to [4:15] deliver for residents, it looks like the [4:18] mayor is not as powerful. But, I want to [4:21] use those powers. I want to make sure [4:22] that we're actually governing LA. I want [4:24] to make sure that we're pushing it in [4:25] the right direction and that the [4:26] departments are working to deliver [4:28] results. [4:29] >> So, what do you think are the biggest [4:30] issues facing Los Angeles? [4:31] >> The two that are I think the biggest are [4:33] homelessness and housing costs. And [4:36] they're two sides of the same coin. [4:38] >> Mhm. [4:38] >> Uh obviously homelessness has other [4:40] complexities in it, including mental [4:42] health issues, substance use issues. [4:45] But, if you look again at data from [4:47] across cities in America, where you have [4:49] the most unsheltered homelessness, [4:51] people living on the streets, is also [4:54] where you have the least affordable [4:56] cities. And so, those two issues are [4:58] very connected. [4:59] >> Is it connected or is it that the [5:00] homeless go to the areas where people [5:02] have money to give? [5:03] >> Most of the people who are experiencing [5:05] homelessness in LA, especially outside [5:08] of the beaches [5:10] um and Hollywood, like I represent right [5:12] now a lot of the Valley. And the people [5:14] who are on the streets in the Valley, [5:16] living near the river or in encampments, [5:18] are mostly people who are from LA, who [5:20] came to work, struggled, lost their [5:23] homes, and are now on the streets. Uh or [5:26] people who were born and raised here. Uh [5:28] just like the composition of most [5:29] Angelenos. In some parts of the city, [5:32] there are places where it's a lot of [5:33] people coming from other places. The [5:35] beaches are [5:37] you know, are one of those places. And [5:39] there's also a little bit of outsider [5:42] coming to LA in a neighborhood like [5:44] Hollywood, which attracts actually a lot [5:47] of LGBTQ youth who are [5:50] you know, maybe not accepted at home and [5:52] then they come to LA seeking that [5:54] inclusion and acceptance. So, there's a [5:56] couple of neighborhoods where there's [5:57] definitely a lot of outsiders, but I [5:59] would say for the most part people who [6:01] are homeless in LA are from LA or were [6:04] last housed in LA, came here to seek [6:06] their fortunes, failed to do that, and [6:08] then ended up on the streets. [6:09] >> So, what would you argue is the highest [6:12] impact [6:13] lowest [6:15] effort decision that needs to be made or [6:17] change that needs to be made to [6:19] positively affect the homeless [6:21] population and to positively affect the [6:23] housing costs impact? [6:25] >> For housing costs, I think we need to [6:27] build a lot more housing. The pub- the [6:29] government cannot build all the housing [6:31] that we need. So, it we cannot all be [6:34] 100% affordable publicly funded housing [6:36] to fill this housing shortage. The state [6:38] estimates we need 500,000 more housing [6:40] units in Los Angeles to fill the gap [6:43] based on kind of what they estimate as [6:45] the need locally. [6:47] So, we need to make it easier, cheaper, [6:49] faster to build more housing. And the [6:52] biggest obstacle to building more [6:54] housing in Los Angeles is often the [6:57] government. We make it very hard to [6:59] build apartments. But, we say apartments [7:01] are the thing that we need the most of, [7:03] but it has in LA we have the longest [7:05] processes for approving new apartments. [7:08] We have a lot of costs, permitting [7:10] costs, entitlement costs, so on and so [7:12] forth. DWP costs are often enormous and [7:15] completely unpredictable. So, I think [7:17] the more that we can do to make it [7:19] cheaper, faster, easier to build housing [7:22] and to ensure that we're pushing the [7:24] private market to build the kind of [7:26] housing we need, I think we can actually [7:27] build more housing. And so, [7:28] >> to push back on that. What about [7:30] abolishing rent control? Wouldn't that [7:32] make housing a lot better for privatized [7:35] businesses to go and create more [7:36] housing? [7:36] >> So, here in LA, here in California [7:39] overall, there is a um a state [7:43] regulation that prevents [7:46] new construction from falling under rent [7:48] stabilization or rent control. So, [7:50] anything built after 1978 [7:53] actually cannot have [7:55] >> Yeah, but what about a 1975 to rent [7:57] control tenants in there? You you can't [7:59] tear down the building. [8:00] >> what does rent control restrict new [8:02] build new construction? [8:03] >> It does. [8:04] >> Well, okay, explain. [8:06] >> Because land is limited and if you have [8:08] a building, let's just say like my [8:09] duplex, there was a tenant in there who [8:11] was making well over $200,000 a year, [8:13] they were under rent control. Getting [8:15] them out for the sake of tearing it down [8:17] and building a new four-unit [8:19] >> Act if you actually want to tear it [8:21] down, you can. [8:22] >> But but that is another step. That's [8:23] another regulation that someone now has [8:25] to overcome to get them out to apply for [8:26] the Ellis Act. All it takes is, you [8:28] know, they go and get a free tenant [8:30] attorney, delay the project for a year, [8:32] landlord say, "It's not worth the risk. [8:34] I'm not going to do it. I'm going to go [8:35] somewhere else." [8:36] >> Yeah, and I would say, you know, we have [8:38] a ton of real estate that is along major [8:42] corridors like Ventura or Sunset or [8:46] Wilshire, which right now has no housing [8:49] on it. Unlike most major cities, they [8:51] just have single-story strip malls on [8:53] it. And in other cities, you would [8:55] actually see along these major [8:57] boulevards, you would see more dense [8:59] housing. You'd see apartments being [9:01] built there. [9:02] And this I think is These are places [9:04] where it's absolutely appropriate and [9:07] necessary to build more housing. So, I [9:09] think there's a lot of places where [9:10] there's potential to build. I'm not sure [9:13] that a rent control policy that doesn't [9:15] apply after 1978 is the biggest block to [9:18] building more housing. I would say that [9:20] making it, you know, by right to build [9:22] along our major boulevards, making it [9:24] much easier for the Department of Water [9:26] and Power to show up and [9:27] >> Yes, but the but the problem is that a [9:28] lot of those buildings are built before [9:30] 1978. [9:31] >> But they're not many of them don't have [9:32] any apartments in them at all. They're [9:34] they're, you know, like a strip mall [9:36] like this with no with no apartments. [9:39] And so it wouldn't rent control wouldn't [9:41] apply there. [9:42] >> On April 1st, LA's so-called mansion tax [9:45] kicks in. [9:47] Supporters of the new tax celebrating in [9:49] Koreatown today. [9:51] >> That money is going to raise [9:53] much needed funding for affordable [9:54] housing and tenant protection. [9:55] >> Here's how the mansion tax will work. [9:58] Home sellers will have to pay an extra [9:59] 4% tax on property sales over $5 [10:02] million. [10:03] If your home is over $10 million, the [10:05] tax goes up to 5 and 1/2%. [10:08] >> Um cuz Nithya, you mean you and I think [10:10] this might have been where we sparred, [10:11] actually. [10:12] >> Yes, actually we we sparred over the [10:13] mansion tax. I was a supporter of the [10:15] mansion tax coming in. It created a new [10:17] source of funding for affordable housing [10:20] construction that we didn't have after [10:21] the CRA was dissolved in California. It [10:24] created funds for things I know that [10:26] you're probably very critical of, which [10:28] is legal defense support and things like [10:29] that. [10:30] Uh and rent relief. So, direct payments [10:32] to landlords for uh renters who have [10:35] fallen behind, which actually has been a [10:36] very good intervention that has helped [10:38] renters stay in their homes and has [10:40] helped landlords stay whole. So, I think [10:41] there's a mixed bag of potential goods [10:43] in there that I thought are important [10:45] for Los Angeles. Mixed bag according to [10:47] you, I would imagine. [10:48] >> Mhm. [10:49] >> And I was a supporter of it, and it came [10:52] forward. And what has happened in the [10:54] years since, and I know that there's a [10:56] lot of disagreement out there about the [10:58] data, but I the studies that I have seen [11:01] suggest that the mansion tax has [11:03] actually significantly impacted new [11:07] apartment construction here in the city [11:08] of Los Angeles. [11:10] And for me, as someone who believes that [11:12] unlocking new housing here in LA is the [11:16] single most important thing to [11:17] maintaining the city's resiliency into [11:19] the future, to keeping it a place where [11:21] people can come here and build their [11:23] dreams here. If you can't afford to live [11:24] here, you can't do that anymore. And if [11:26] you're not building new housing units, [11:29] you'll never be able to keep it a city [11:30] of opportunity. And so, for me, [11:32] reforming that mansion tax to exempt new [11:35] multi-family construction was something [11:37] that I felt was very, very important to [11:39] do. I put forward an effort on the city [11:41] council to do that. It for many reasons, [11:44] it hasn't moved forward yet, but I do [11:46] still, based on the data that I'm [11:47] seeing, I still think that that's [11:48] something important for LA. And I [11:50] actually think that's a bigger factor in [11:53] inhibiting new apartment construction [11:56] than rent control because buildings [11:58] after 1978 are not subject to that here. [12:01] And because that has really been There's [12:04] been such a stark difference. You can [12:06] actually see the number of housing units [12:07] that have dropped. [12:08] >> so what would you tell me when I say I'm [12:11] never going to invest another dollar in [12:12] California real estate ever again? [12:14] >> Well, I hope to change that. You know, I [12:16] think that there this I believe that [12:19] this is the most incredible place in the [12:21] world to live. The weather is perfect. [12:23] The food is incredible. It has the [12:26] atmosphere that I want from a city, [12:28] which is an atmosphere that invites [12:30] people here to dream big here, to be [12:32] entrepreneurial. Like, I moved to [12:33] America when I was 6 years old. Los [12:35] Angeles to me is the epitome of the [12:37] American dream. Like, it is a place that [12:39] invites people here to work hard and to [12:42] change their lives. Like, that's There's [12:44] a spirit about this city that feels [12:45] really powerful to me and that I don't [12:48] think is everywhere in America [12:49] necessarily or rather it's much more [12:52] keenly felt here for me than in any [12:54] other part of America that I've been to. [12:55] But, you know, I would say that if we [12:58] can address our unsheltered homelessness [13:01] crisis and and we can get a we can [13:02] really wrap our arms around that, I [13:04] think we can bring investment back into [13:07] Los Angeles. And I also think that if we [13:09] can [13:10] find common ground to I don't think [13:13] whether you're progressive or you're [13:15] more moderate or you're more [13:16] conservative, no one likes government [13:19] red tape. No one likes [13:21] um regulations that stand in the way of [13:24] creativity and entrepreneurship. No one [13:26] likes regulations that stand in the way [13:28] of small businesses being able to [13:30] function well. Like there's a lot of [13:31] common ground here for reforms that I [13:34] hope can bring investment and trust back [13:37] to Los Angeles. And that's part of the [13:38] work that I want to do. [13:39] >> I just want to say though, I feel like [13:41] we oftentimes hear from politicians that [13:44] they want to deregulate, they want to [13:46] make communities safer, they want to [13:47] protect local wildlife, they want to do [13:49] this, they want to do that. But what [13:51] does that actually materially mean from [13:52] a policy perspective? Like if you say [13:54] that we all here agree that we need to [13:56] build more homes and decrease red tape. [13:59] It's like well what policy is the [14:01] specific one that's getting in the way [14:03] of most people that would build if this [14:05] policy was gone, but because it's there, [14:07] this is preventing them from actually [14:09] increasing the housing supply. Like it [14:11] once once you get into office, people [14:13] say "Day one, I'm repealing this act, [14:15] I'm fixing this, and I'm removing this [14:17] person from office and putting this [14:18] person in." [14:19] >> So it's I mean this is it feels [14:21] fairly straightforward to have for [14:23] simple interventions like [14:26] sidewalk dining, which in a city like [14:28] Los Angeles where the weather is [14:29] wonderful, you want obviously to have a [14:31] few cafe tables on your sidewalk, rather [14:34] than having a city process which is [14:36] lengthy, potentially costly, has [14:38] multiple inspectors coming in, just have [14:40] restaurateurs be able to follow a [14:42] straightforward set of rules and [14:44] self-certify that they're meeting those [14:46] regulations, and you come out and audit [14:48] every once in a while, but that you [14:50] don't actually need to have a expensive [14:53] permitting process in order to do [14:55] something that feels very very [14:56] straightforward. Daniel Lurie in San [14:59] Francisco did the same thing. It was one [15:01] of the first things that he did when he [15:03] came into office. And I was like this is [15:05] very straightforward. And I would not [15:06] say that this is a [15:08] left-wing or right-wing thing. It's just [15:10] a straightforward thing to allow the [15:12] thing that we all love, which is great [15:14] food in LA, to be able to thrive. [15:16] >> But what about the housing stuff? [15:17] Because I feel like yeah, restaurants [15:18] are one thing. And really quick, I just [15:20] want to say that cutting the red tape on [15:22] something as simple as a few cafe tables [15:24] just makes a lot of sense. Nobody is out [15:26] there opening up a restaurant because [15:28] they're excited to deal with permits and [15:30] inspections. [15:31] >> Yeah, when you're starting a business, [15:32] you want your time and money going into [15:33] the actual business, not a bunch of [15:35] costly steps before you've even opened [15:37] up your doors. And really one of the [15:38] first things you need is just a way for [15:40] people to find you. Because before [15:42] anyone tries a new restaurant or hires a [15:44] new business, they're going to look you [15:46] up online. And if they can't find a [15:47] website or a business email, a lot of [15:49] people just move on to the next option. [15:51] Which is why we love our partner [15:53] Northwest Registered Agent because they [15:54] give you a domain, website, business [15:56] email, and dedicated business phone line [15:59] for free. [15:59] >> Listen, you don't have to be a paying [16:01] customer, purchase anything, or even [16:03] form an LLC, so you can get started [16:05] without paying for those basics or [16:06] giving out your personal number. And [16:08] your domain and website belong to you, [16:09] so you could move them elsewhere. [16:11] Northwest just wants to help you get [16:12] started, support you as you grow, and [16:14] keep you independent even if you never [16:16] buy anything. So, if you're putting in [16:17] the work to build a business, make it [16:19] easy for people to find you and feel [16:21] comfortable reaching out. Get started [16:22] for free at [16:23] northwestregisteredagent.com/ich. [16:27] >> That is northwestregisteredagent.com/ich [16:30] or just click the link down below in the [16:32] description. But what about the housing [16:34] stuff? Because I feel like yeah, [16:35] restaurants are one thing. [16:36] >> Yes, but so with housing, one of the [16:38] things that I've proposed is a shot [16:40] clock. So, a shot clock is a deadline by [16:42] which departments have to respond to [16:44] your [16:46] your [16:47] request for a permit or an entitlement. [16:50] And so, I'm saying 60 days for [16:54] a zoning compliant project, 120 days for [16:57] a non-zoning compliant project, and [16:59] making sure that the city of Los Angeles [17:02] is not going beyond that to give you the [17:05] approval to build. [17:06] >> And what is taking them so long? [17:08] >> fees back if if they don't come get it [17:10] in time. [17:10] >> that there's an [17:12] that you can actually say and enforce [17:14] that by saying there's an incentive [17:16] There's an incentive enforce that. [17:17] >> what's the average length of time to [17:19] pass these things right now? And like [17:20] what's taking them so long? [17:23] >> Oh, LA, they just did a study that [17:25] compared approval timelines in Los [17:28] Angeles versus I think it was [17:31] one city in Colorado and [17:35] a city in Texas. And we had double the [17:38] time that it took in double or triple [17:40] the [17:40] >> your experience. I I want Nethia to hear [17:42] your your experience about trying to [17:43] permit an ADU. If you could quickly just [17:45] walk through that. [17:46] >> Oh gosh. Yeah, so I set up an ADU and I [17:49] started building it. The approval to get [17:51] it initially constructed really easy, [17:54] but to get the certificate of occupancy [17:55] for a tenant to move in took months. And [17:58] what [17:58] >> that city of LA or Santa Monica? [18:00] >> of LA. [18:01] >> Okay. [18:01] >> Uh all of my rental housing by the way [18:03] was city of LA. And I applied for the [18:07] certificate of occupancy. The first time [18:08] the guy never showed up. The second time [18:10] the guy showed up, inspected it, and he [18:13] said because this AC condenser line was [18:16] like not properly installed, [18:19] we had to reschedule him. And my [18:21] contractor said, "It's a 20-minute fix. [18:24] >> That's just a simple [18:25] >> Yeah, we'll do it right now and then you [18:26] sign off on it." He said it was Friday [18:29] and he wanted to get home early and [18:31] didn't want to wait, but said that he [18:32] could call in and reschedule it. [18:35] And that was it. [18:36] And we rescheduled it. The next guy [18:38] comes out and comes up with a new list [18:40] of things that the first guy never even [18:42] mentioned. Said, "Well, no, that's fine, [18:43] but this and this and this and this." [18:45] >> Right. [18:45] >> Contractor, "You never pointed this out [18:47] to me. Well, now you need to do that. [18:49] Fix those things." Now, the third guy [18:51] comes out and says, "No, this is all [18:52] fine, but we need to do a sewer line [18:54] inspection." The contractor said, "No [18:56] one's ever told me that." Yeah, but now [18:58] you need to do it. We did a sewer line [18:59] inspection. They found a crack in the [19:01] sewer line. We had a tenant who was [19:03] supposed to be moving in. [19:04] >> Mhm. [19:04] >> And they said we can't issue the [19:06] certificate until you get the sewer line [19:08] fixed. And we said, "How about this? We [19:10] just We'll sign a writing that we fix it [19:12] 30 days. Let the tenant move in with a [19:14] conditional [19:15] No, we can't do that. So, we go in to [19:17] try to fix the sewer line. It's $40,000. [19:20] But to get to the sewer line, you have [19:21] to break the city's sidewalk. And so now [19:23] we have to wait for another person to [19:25] come out to give us approval to cut the [19:28] city sidewalk. That was another $8,000. [19:30] It was a delay of about 6 months. In the [19:32] process of that, I got a fine [19:36] uh for not planting a tree [19:38] in front of the median. And after the [19:41] whole experience made me to say, "I'm [19:43] out of here." It's like it's not worth [19:45] it. The rent control restrictions make [19:47] it so that you cannot run as a [19:50] mom-and-pop landlord in California at [19:52] all. There is zero incentive, which [19:53] makes me think if I'm selling out, I'm [19:55] getting out, who's going to maintain any [19:57] rental housing? And I know a lot of [19:59] landlords because their tenants are [20:00] paying so little, they do nothing. [20:02] They're living in dilapidated [20:03] conditions, and the rent control is not [20:07] applicable. It it it applies to the same [20:09] person making $30,000 as the same person [20:11] making $500,000 a year. And I've seen [20:13] people making a half a million dollars a [20:14] year who get the same rent control [20:16] treatment as the other person who's [20:17] barely scraping by. [20:19] >> Didn't you offer your tenant money to [20:21] leave? [20:21] >> $40,000 to leave, and they said no. [20:24] And by the way, this is this is a very [20:25] well-to-do family. These are not people [20:27] who are struggling. And they wanted [20:29] initially $80,000 to [20:31] >> they're making over $200,000 a year, [20:33] these tenants. They're they're [20:34] I think there's a lot of good that uh [20:36] comes with rent control, but I think [20:39] that human nature tends to take [20:41] advantage of of power. And and if you [20:43] give if there's too much power on one [20:45] side, and and we can disagree whether [20:48] there is or not, but I think you would [20:49] be surprised at how cuz I deal with it [20:51] all the time. For I'll give you an [20:52] example. I was trying to sell uh well, I [20:55] was trying to sell a house uh $4.5 [20:57] million house in Beverly Hills. The guy [20:58] guy's father passed away. He inherited [21:00] it. He's living in the house. There's a [21:01] squatter in the house. And he's been [21:04] trying to get him out for a year and a [21:05] half. [21:05] >> In Beverly Hills? [21:06] >> In Beverly Hills. [21:07] >> The city of Beverly Hills. [21:08] >> The city of Beverly Hills. [21:08] >> Even they don't with squatters. [21:09] >> No. No, I guess good point though, it is [21:11] Beverly Hills. But, um and and I just [21:13] walked away. I said, "Dude, I'm not I [21:15] can't deal with this. I can't sell this [21:16] house with this guy in this house." Then [21:18] I had a This is a duplex in LA, and the [21:20] tenant refused to allow us to photograph [21:23] her. She wouldn't let us in. And then, [21:25] we So, we used this aerial photographs. [21:26] We got into escrow. And then the [21:27] appraiser came to measure it, and she [21:30] wouldn't allow the appraiser access. So, [21:32] we lost that loan. We lost that buyer. [21:34] And I said, "I cannot sell this [21:35] property." Now, that [21:37] tenant had no right to do that, [21:38] obviously. Um but, what are you going to [21:41] do? I mean, the it takes 6 months a year [21:43] to go through court. So, I mean, the a [21:45] lot of these owners just throw up their [21:46] hands. They can't [21:48] they can't compete with if they get free [21:50] legal defense. They abuse the system. [21:53] They don't want to leave. They don't [21:54] want a new owner. They don't want [21:55] anything. They can be purposely [21:56] difficult. This is a small minority of [21:57] tenants. I'm not suggesting it isn't. [21:59] But, when you have such a like a [22:01] dichotomy of power, there's so much [22:04] abuse going on among tenants that try [22:07] threaten I have tenants that are making [22:09] a million dollars a year living in my [22:10] house is paying $40,000 a month. [22:13] And I can't sell that property because [22:14] they won't move out unless I pay them a [22:16] fortune. And I can only get one month [22:18] security deposit. I had $300,000 of [22:20] furniture stolen from some fraudster [22:22] that lived ended up living in my house. [22:24] He He was a lawyer. I don't know how he [22:25] lost his license. Blah blah blah. [22:27] I can't even get a security deposit for [22:29] furniture because it goes all the way up [22:31] to millionaires getting protected by the [22:33] city of LA who are paying $40,000 a [22:35] month. And I can't [22:37] negotiate a fair contract with them [22:39] because they have tenants rights, even [22:40] though they're millionaires. [22:41] >> Let me ask you this. How would you feel [22:43] if landlords also got free legal [22:46] assistance? [22:47] >> If they qualified financially for it. [22:49] >> Correct. Yeah, it's not First of all, [22:51] it's not every renter that gets free [22:53] legal assistance from the city. It's [22:55] only renters that meet an income [22:57] threshold. And that kind of policy was [23:00] put in place because of the imbalance of [23:03] power that did exist and that still [23:05] continues to exist in many of the cases [23:07] that we're seeing where when you have a [23:09] very powerful landlord, a landlord who [23:11] has a lot more financial resources, [23:13] they are in court almost inevitably with [23:17] with [23:17] >> how do we know the landlord has more [23:18] financial resources? What if it's [23:20] someone generally they do? [23:21] >> Generally they're they're they're [23:22] property owners, they're making money [23:24] and they are generally represented in [23:25] courts and when tenants go into court, [23:29] especially in cases look and exactly [23:31] like you were saying, a small minority [23:32] of tenants are bad actors. I think a [23:35] small minority of landlords are bad [23:37] actors. Like I I'm you know, I'm a real [23:40] optimist. Like I really believe that [23:41] most people are just good people who are [23:43] trying to make a living and if we could [23:45] just find a way for the rules to work [23:47] better that most people would be able to [23:48] get along, right? [23:50] But there are bad actors who are trying [23:51] to take advantage of the system and in [23:53] those situations, [23:55] uh renters without representation end up [23:58] getting kicked out of their homes more [23:59] often than not. And so to even the [24:01] playing field, we uh you know, there [24:04] there has been a push here in the city [24:06] of Los Angeles to provide more of that [24:08] legal support for renters as well. [24:11] >> landlords? What about for a mom-and-pop [24:13] landlord and they're breaking even? [24:14] Maybe they're paying money every single [24:16] month to keep the property that they [24:18] worked for and maybe that's something [24:20] that they saved decades for and now [24:21] they're losing money and their tenants [24:22] stopped paying. [24:23] >> are resources for business owners as [24:25] well. There's small business resources, [24:26] there's business support that we're [24:28] providing across the board to any kind [24:30] of business owner. [24:31] >> But not for evictions. [24:33] It does not exist for evictions. [24:35] >> Oh, I don't know. I'm I probably not. [24:37] >> It does not. [24:38] >> Yeah. But look, I I just want I'm I hear [24:41] you on the that there are exceptions [24:44] where these kinds of policies feel I [24:47] think harder on landlords, but I will [24:49] say that as someone who, you know, I [24:52] have a council office, we get calls from [24:54] constituents all the time. What we are [24:57] seeing much more frequently is [24:59] situations where renters may not know [25:02] their rights, they're dealing with [25:04] situations where there's [25:05] um services being taken away in a unit [25:08] where landlords are trying to [25:11] you know, issue eviction notices even [25:13] when they don't actually meet the [25:14] criteria for issuing an eviction notice. [25:17] So, what we're seeing much more [25:18] frequently is the other side of the [25:20] case, particularly in the city. And a [25:22] lot of the rules and regulations are [25:24] really trying to say, "Hey, this is a [25:25] necessary thing. And if people get [25:28] evicted, if people lose their homes, [25:30] it's destabilizing for our neighborhoods [25:32] and communities. So, is there a way in [25:34] this environment to make this a more [25:35] even playing field?" What you're saying [25:38] is, "Oh, the playing field has gone too [25:39] far in the other direction." [25:41] >> that. [25:41] >> And I would say I am in constant contact [25:44] with people from [25:46] uh not just from tenants associations, [25:48] but also from landlords associations to [25:49] say, "Show me the data." And if there [25:52] is, you know, if there's really a crisis [25:55] out there that people are exiting the [25:57] market, if smaller mom-and-pop landlords [25:59] are really facing those kinds of [26:00] conditions, like let's make sure we're [26:02] changing the policies. And I have always [26:04] been very open to that, and I continue [26:05] to be. So, [26:06] >> What do you think is a What do you think [26:07] is a fair rent control cap? [26:09] >> Well, I think it's 3% or 4% now, didn't [26:11] you [26:12] >> It's yeah, 1 to [26:12] >> It's No, it's less. It's whatever It's [26:15] under CPI. [26:16] >> In In LA, it is a 1 to 4% [26:20] uh uh range, right now. [26:21] >> Yes, but it's under CPI. So, whatever [26:23] It's 90% of CPI. [26:25] >> Mhm. [26:25] >> But, that's not necessarily taking into [26:27] account the insurance raises, the [26:29] utility raises, the plumber who's [26:31] costing double, the electrician is [26:33] costing double, all of the other [26:34] expenses, which are way higher than CPI. [26:37] >> Well, I would argue it's not even [26:38] expenses. I mean, this as a as a I think [26:40] an important data point, multi-family in [26:42] Los Angeles is the value of those [26:44] properties are down about 30% in the [26:46] last 4 years. So, a $2 million [26:49] >> Why do you think that is? [26:50] >> It's a multitude of reasons. [26:52] High interest rates is certainly a [26:53] significant aspect. Although, that [26:56] wouldn't explain the the discrepancy [26:57] between a more significant drop in value [27:00] in Los Angeles multi-family versus say [27:02] Beverly Hills or Newport [27:03] >> Or single family, cuz I own both. I have [27:05] a single family and a duplex. The single [27:06] family is up substantially [27:08] >> that a lot of people are I mean, we're [27:10] in debt we're now back to prices from [27:12] about 10 years ago. So, if you bought a [27:13] fourplex in 2017, you made zero money in [27:18] 10 years. You could have put that money [27:19] in the stock market and doubled it. So, [27:21] it is hard to get people [27:22] >> you probably made rental income from it. [27:25] >> No, cuz you No, cuz you generally lose [27:26] money every every month. If you buy a [27:28] fourplex today for $2 million, it's a [27:31] fourplex. You're probably going to lose [27:33] a little bit every month. It's As a [27:34] landlord, you cannot break even with [27:36] rents right now. Even if you don't have [27:38] rent control. You have rent control [27:40] >> you're saying. [27:40] >> No, I'm sorry. If you're buying any [27:41] amount of real estate. [27:42] >> Even if if you're buying a fourplex [27:44] that's under rent control, well, then it [27:46] depresses the price probably another 20, [27:48] 30% depending on how many rent control. [27:49] But, let's say there's no rent control [27:51] at all. If you're buying a fourplex [27:53] today [27:54] for $2 million, and that's it's probably [27:56] going to cost you about call it $12,000 [27:58] a month to carry that property with your [28:00] your loan and your property taxes, [28:02] whatever. You're not going to get [28:03] $12,000 in rent. You'll probably get 10 [28:05] to 11. So, most landlords lose [28:08] about, you know, whatever, one or $2,000 [28:10] a a month to carry their property. Now, [28:13] they generally would like to expect and [28:14] appreciate that their assets going to [28:16] appreciate. But, we're back down to [28:18] asset values of 10 years ago. So, not [28:20] only they losing every month for the [28:21] last 10 years, most [28:23] I'd say most people that own [28:24] multi-family in LA lose a little bit of [28:26] money every month. And unless they [28:29] bought it when interest rates were [28:30] extremely low, maybe they're breaking [28:32] even. But, now they're not making any [28:34] money on the asset. So, they're saying, [28:36] "Why am I going to own multi-family in [28:37] LA?" So, they sell and that reduces the [28:39] price more and then you go buy somewhere [28:40] else. So, there's definitely data points [28:42] showing I think it's 29% is actually [28:44] what apartments have gone down in the [28:46] last 4 years in LA. Across across the [28:48] board. Some where you have let's say a [28:50] tenant paying $1,200 a month and the [28:53] market is 2,100 where no one wants to go [28:56] in there and buy that cuz they know that [28:57] person's never going to leave. And so [28:59] they're never going to be able to get [29:00] increase their rent. So they're not [29:01] getting near that fourplex. So that [29:02] owner who's owned it for 20 years [29:04] everyone's stuck. Now I get that [29:06] obviously you don't want to displace [29:07] that person either. So there are a lot [29:09] of complicated interests, but it is [29:11] worth understanding like how devastated [29:14] the asset values of multifamily in Los [29:16] Angeles have have gone in the last few [29:18] years. [29:19] >> Right. So let's if we were getting back [29:21] to the question of kind of the question [29:24] that you started with which is what is [29:25] the big intervention that you would make [29:28] to increase housing production here? I [29:31] would ask the same thing to you as [29:33] someone who's dealing with this issue [29:34] and looking at kind of changes in [29:36] pricing. What would you say to a policy [29:38] maker who wanted to make a difference? [29:40] >> I I agree with a lot of what you said. [29:42] For one, I I really think that you if [29:44] you if you get in there, I think you're [29:45] going to remove a lot of red tape. And I [29:47] think you've got a lot of good [29:48] strategies on increasing housing [29:49] including [29:50] removing the mansion tax possibly which [29:52] I think is a huge one. [29:53] >> It'll take Yeah, it will have to go back [29:55] to the voters and all that. [29:56] >> Yes, of course. I'm not holding you to [29:57] it, but I know that you at least are [29:59] willing to look at the data. [30:00] >> Yeah. [30:01] >> Uh where I think and maybe this is [30:02] superficial cuz this is a very [30:04] complicated topic, but where I would [30:05] appreciate us [30:07] is saying as a community we want to to [30:10] make sure that we don't displace people [30:12] cuz that's going to make the homeless [30:13] problem worse. [30:13] >> Right. [30:14] >> And we can't just raise someone's rent [30:16] from $1,200 to $1,800. But what I would [30:18] appreciate is if if because it's [30:20] important and we can all agree it's [30:21] important, why don't we give vouchers to [30:23] tenants? Let's let the free market work [30:27] so that we don't destroy the values and [30:28] we don't get people wanting to leave in [30:30] from investing in LA. Why don't we give [30:32] that tenant say, "Hey, your rent's going [30:34] to be able to go up, you know, to [30:35] market, but we're going to as a society [30:37] we we believe that we can't we're going [30:39] to give you the money so you can give it [30:41] to your landlord." So, it's a way of [30:43] saying and I don't even mind so rather [30:45] than putting it all on landlords and [30:47] saying you're just going to have to [30:48] suffer, why don't we all pay our taxes, [30:50] give it to tenants who qualify, and let [30:52] them use that voucher to a landlord so [30:55] we have a free market. [30:56] >> But would that be temporary? Because I [30:57] feel like that would just then be a [30:59] bleeding system if you're just [31:00] constantly feeding these people that [31:01] can't technically afford the market [31:03] price. [31:04] >> I think we do that. [31:04] >> And then it just seems like a lottery [31:05] system that oh you just so happen to [31:07] have rented your place 30 years ago. [31:09] >> And so anyone who makes under a certain [31:11] amount of money can get [31:14] I I I doesn't really bother me. I don't [31:16] mind supporting the people that need it. [31:18] >> why should rent control also be [31:19] indefinite? Why not just apply for [31:21] something like 10 years? [31:22] >> Wherever you land on the rent control [31:24] debate, going from $1,200 to $1,800 a [31:27] month is a huge jump and with rent going [31:29] up every dollar matters. [31:30] >> Yeah, so when you do spend your money, [31:32] you want to get as much out of it as [31:33] possible and that's where our partner [31:35] Cash App comes in. With the Cash App [31:36] card, you get discounts on everyday [31:38] purchases and popular brands you're [31:40] already spending money on with no hidden [31:42] fees. [31:42] >> And the more you use it, the more it [31:43] rewards you, which is exactly what their [31:45] new Cash App green status is built [31:47] around. [31:47] >> Cash App does more than you think when [31:49] it comes to having your back and making [31:50] sure that your money stays your money. [31:52] Cash App just released a new status [31:54] program for the way people actually [31:55] spend called Cash App. [31:57] >> Now when you spend at least $500 a month [31:59] with the Cash App card, you earn green [32:01] status which unlocks benefits like up to [32:03] $200 of free overdraft coverage. [32:06] >> So if you overdraft unexpectedly, there [32:08] are no hidden fees. You also unlock [32:10] higher borrow limits and custom [32:12] personalized cashback offers every [32:14] Friday at places you love to shop. [32:16] >> So turn everyday spending into status [32:18] with Cash App green. Download Cash App [32:20] today or visit Cash App to learn more [32:21] about this and other financial benefits. [32:23] New Cash App customers can earn $10 if [32:26] they use the code Cash App 10 in their [32:27] profile at sign up and send $5 to a [32:30] friend within 14 days. [32:31] >> Terms apply. Download Cash App today and [32:33] make your money work for you. Visit our [32:35] link in the bio. And speaking of places [32:37] you love to shop, for me, a lot of those [32:39] are just local spots. We're talking [32:41] sidewalk cafes that we were just talking [32:43] about. Yeah, local businesses are a huge [32:45] part of what keeps a neighborhood going. [32:47] And the best ones usually have something [32:48] that you will not find anywhere else. [32:50] Right, but finding those products and [32:52] keeping your shelf stocked is a lot of [32:53] work. Thankfully, our partner Faire [32:55] makes that a whole lot easier. They're a [32:57] wholesale marketplace for local [32:59] retailers. Faire gives stores access to [33:00] over 100,000 unique brands from around [33:03] the world across home, apparel, beauty, [33:05] food, and more. Which of course matters [33:06] right now with everyone planning their [33:08] holiday inventory. And the right [33:09] products, by the way, make a huge [33:10] difference because they help your store [33:12] stand out, bring in new customers, and [33:14] keep your regulars coming back. Plus, [33:15] eligible retailers get 60-day [33:17] interest-free payment terms and free [33:19] returns on your first order with every [33:21] brand. So, testing new products is a lot [33:23] less risky. So, if you're ready to join [33:24] more than 700,000 retailers with access [33:27] to over 100,000 brands, sign up today [33:30] and get 50% off your first wholesale [33:32] order up to $100 at f a i r [33:36] e.com/icedcoffee. [33:38] That is f a i r e.com/icedcoffee [33:42] with the link down below in the [33:43] description. Terms may apply. [33:45] >> So, why should rent control also be [33:47] indefinite? Why not just apply for [33:48] something like 10 years? [33:50] >> So, here's I think one of the challenges [33:52] that we face as as a policy maker [33:55] looking at the housing market is that if [33:57] you are just using [34:00] relying on the private real estate [34:02] market to produce housing, what ends up [34:04] happening is that the market does a very [34:06] good job of producing housing for higher [34:09] end [34:10] renters and for like higher income [34:12] people. But as you get into people into [34:15] that kind of section of the population [34:18] that is making [34:20] lower than you know [34:22] um average incomes in an area or [34:25] significantly lower than that, the [34:27] market is just not producing units that [34:30] people can afford. [34:31] >> Yeah, but and so and so in those [34:32] situations what you end up with is [34:34] overcrowding, right? So, what's one way [34:36] that people have solved that problem? [34:38] It's by having multiple families live in [34:40] a single home, or by having multiple [34:42] people live in a single home. And so, [34:44] you have neighborhoods here in Los [34:45] Angeles that are some of the most [34:48] overcrowded neighborhoods in the entire [34:51] country because you have eight people [34:53] living in a one-bedroom apartment. [34:55] That's how COVID spread so much in [34:57] certain neighborhoods here in LA, but it [34:59] was actually a response to the market [35:02] not providing housing for the poorest [35:05] residents. So, my question [35:07] >> though if you build more units? [35:08] >> Potentially, right? So, but my question [35:09] is if the market is never producing for [35:11] people who are amongst the lowest [35:14] income, what is the response? What is [35:17] the [35:17] >> Well, what about allowing more height? [35:19] Allowing more density? [35:20] >> two things. One, look at maybe [35:21] subsidizing it. One is look at So, [35:23] that's where I think a voucher program [35:24] could be helpful, you know, where [35:26] >> we I think we do subsidize and allow I [35:28] mean, if there's if you build low-income [35:31] housing, you get a lot of subsidy. You [35:32] get a lot of density for that. [35:33] >> here's two things. Number one is Austin. [35:34] Look at Austin, Texas. They built a lot. [35:36] They privatized everything and housing [35:37] prices are down about 30% because they [35:39] built so much. Second, here in LA, it's [35:42] land. Land is so expensive because [35:44] everyone wants to live in Santa Monica, [35:45] Venice Beach, Marina del Rey. [35:47] Why should those areas have low-income [35:51] housing when there is cheaper land [35:53] that's further inland? [35:55] Why should someone have the right to [35:57] live in Santa Monica [35:59] versus 20 minutes east? [36:01] >> I think it's less about the right to [36:04] live in Santa Monica and more about what [36:06] kind of communities you're trying to [36:09] support here. Like, are you saying [36:12] if if I were a resident of Santa Monica [36:14] now, I would want a rich, vibrant [36:16] community around me. I would want [36:17] residents who've been in Santa Monica [36:19] for a long time to be able to stay in [36:21] Santa Monica and enrich the community of [36:23] Santa Monica. I would want newcomers to [36:25] be able to come and build their dreams [36:27] in Santa Monica as well. And I don't [36:29] think those two have to be in opposition [36:31] to one another. And so that's the policy [36:33] mix that we're trying to find here. I [36:35] don't believe that you have to think [36:37] about housing policies as a zero-sum [36:40] game. I think there are ways to ensure [36:43] that we are stabilizing existing [36:45] communities, stabilizing existing [36:46] residents while also encouraging new [36:49] housing construction in the [36:50] >> wait, look at the voucher program that I [36:52] just suggested. Under that voucher [36:54] program, you're still stuck. You [36:55] >> they won't go they won't go they won't [36:57] live they won't live in Beverly Hills, [36:59] they won't live in Santa Monica cuz they [37:00] can't afford it. So they'll take their [37:01] voucher and they'll live where the [37:03] market dictates that they would live. [37:04] >> It sounds that sounds like a bleeding [37:06] system where so much money's going to be [37:07] just misappropriate and abused. And I'll [37:10] give you an example in terms of [37:11] >> I have more faith that the government [37:12] would can do right if given [37:14] >> give you an example for a Santa Monica, [37:16] by the way. There's a parking structure [37:18] that is being torn down. You could build [37:21] a ton of units, but instead what they're [37:23] doing is low-income housing. And each [37:25] unit is an estimated cost of a million [37:28] dollars because it's government-funded. [37:30] A million dollars unit is insane. This [37:34] should not happen this should not happen [37:36] at all. And I think if you privatize the [37:38] market, people would have an incentive [37:40] just to build as much as they can and [37:42] yes, land is expensive and yes, not [37:45] everyone's going to be able to live in [37:46] certain cities, but that just is the [37:48] name of the game. That's just how life [37:50] works. [37:51] >> But I don't think you're for the [37:52] government spending $800,000 a unit unit [37:54] building in low-income [37:55] >> I think a lot of some of the the the [37:58] policies that have gotten us to a place [38:00] where each unit is costing so much [38:03] money, I think do have to they deserve [38:05] real scrutiny. So, you know, a single [38:08] unit in those or single building [38:11] that's an affordable housing unit often [38:13] requires eight different sources of [38:16] financing in order to get built, right? [38:18] So you're getting state funding, you're [38:19] getting city funding, you're getting [38:21] federal funding and by the time you put [38:24] all of these different pieces of funding [38:25] together, you've basically sat on the [38:27] land for six, seven years, then there's [38:31] a lawsuit, then you're waiting to build [38:32] again, and you're slowed further. And [38:35] all of that time, you are paying [38:37] for the land that you've bought and [38:39] you're sitting on. And so, I think [38:41] you've actually increased the cost of [38:43] that housing through the exactly this [38:45] kind of red tape and regulatory [38:47] environment that we're subjecting this [38:49] to. [38:49] >> And then unions also, by the way, [38:51] increase costs a lot. I know that's a [38:52] little sticky topic, but let's not [38:54] >> you know, I I think that's this is a [38:56] this is a [38:57] I think a something that [38:59] Angelenos, Californians have said, "If [39:02] we're using public money, we should be [39:04] making sure that the workers who are [39:05] working on those units are able to make [39:08] a good living." That's a policy decision [39:10] that's been made in California, that's [39:11] been made in Los Angeles. And I think if [39:13] you ask most people who lived here, they [39:15] would sup- support that, you know? Um [39:17] and I understand it increases the cost, [39:19] but I think we say when we're using [39:21] public funding, it should be trying to [39:23] do that. So, that will yes, that will [39:24] mean that each individual unit costs a [39:26] little bit more, but there's all these [39:28] other ways that we can reduce the fun- [39:30] the costs for those individual units, [39:32] like making it a single source of [39:34] funding, making sure that Department of [39:36] Water and Power is not adding time and [39:38] costs to those projects. Like, there are [39:40] ways to reduce the cost of that funding [39:43] that the city is not taking up yet, and [39:44] I want to make sure that it's doing [39:46] that. [39:46] >> What about the amount of money spent on [39:48] homelessness? That has exploded lately, [39:50] and homelessness has not been getting [39:52] any better. I would argue, if anything, [39:53] some areas have gotten substantially [39:55] worse over the last 6 years. Also, [39:56] statistically, they went up this year [39:58] under Bass, 7.9% despite 400 million [40:02] being spent on [40:03] uh inside safe, and 2.2 billion [40:05] approximately being spent overall. [40:07] >> So, this is a huge issue, and I believe [40:10] that we do need spending on homelessness [40:12] to address it. I think we've also lost [40:14] the trust of the people on this issue. [40:16] And so, a lot of the work that I have [40:18] done on my time on City Council and the [40:20] work that I want to do as mayor is in [40:22] making sure that we are tracking every [40:24] single dollar that we are investing in [40:26] what works and we're making sure that [40:28] every single dollar is actually leading [40:30] to people moving off the streets. Here's [40:32] what has worked. In my district we had [40:34] very different outcomes from the rest of [40:35] the city. I've had a 70% reduction in [40:38] tents, RVs, and encampments over 3 [40:39] years. Just last year we had a 49% [40:42] reduction in unsheltered people because [40:45] of the relentless work of our office and [40:47] because we're making sure that every [40:49] single step of that process has [40:51] oversight and accountability. And that's [40:53] >> you guys do differently? [40:54] >> We're ensuring that when we are bringing [40:56] people indoors, so we're making sure [40:59] that outreach workers, when we're [41:00] funding them, are actually going out to [41:01] encampments and working with people on [41:03] their path to housing, right? We're [41:04] holding them accountable for that. We're [41:06] making sure that once people get into [41:08] shelter that they're able to stay in [41:10] shelter. So if you look at our housing [41:12] sites, we have four shelter sites that [41:14] are in the district, we are working [41:16] really hard to ensure that every single [41:18] person in those shelters is getting [41:19] access to substantial [41:21] >> does it cost per person? [41:23] >> It depends on the intervention, okay? [41:26] >> Just on average. Like the average person [41:28] on the street. [41:28] >> So the the most successful intervention, [41:30] the one that I think is [41:32] is scalable, is called a time-limited [41:35] subsidy program, which is a short-term [41:37] rental voucher, exactly what what what [41:39] Jason's been talking about. And what we [41:42] what we have seen is that that [41:43] short-term rental voucher, which is [41:45] about it can be up to $2,000 a month for [41:47] a for a apartment voucher subsidy, um [41:51] that actually has 75% [41:54] of participants staying housed after the [41:56] 2-year voucher ends. And they stay [41:59] housed through a number of different [42:00] interventions. Maybe they go back to [42:01] their families and reunite with their [42:03] families. Maybe they actually build up [42:05] to self-sufficiency. They're able to get [42:07] work, they're able to pay for that unit [42:09] themselves. Or three, they're able to [42:10] get benefits. If they're veterans, let's [42:13] get access to your veterans retirement. [42:15] Let's make sure that you're getting the [42:16] benefits that you need to stay housed. [42:18] Whatever it is, that program results in [42:20] really good outcomes for people and it's [42:22] one of the cheapest, 29,000 per year to [42:25] 35,000 dollars per year per person, [42:27] significantly cheaper than inside safe, [42:29] which can be up to 100,000 dollars per [42:31] person per bed. [42:32] >> What's the worst program to solve the [42:35] homeless crisis? [42:36] >> The worst program is the non-functional [42:38] program. Is the program that is not it's [42:41] not held accountable for outcomes. [42:43] >> So, which one would that be and like why [42:44] is it failing? [42:45] >> I would say that if you don't have [42:47] oversight over program, if you have a [42:49] lot of turnover amongst your employees, [42:52] if you have if you're not held [42:54] accountable for making sure that people [42:57] are getting access to their paperwork so [42:59] that they can move into their next step [43:01] in whatever it is, that that that work [43:04] doesn't always happen. I mean, you've [43:06] all worked in jobs before where if [43:08] you're not held accountable for results, [43:11] >> So, [43:11] >> don't always deliver them. If you're if [43:13] that's not what you are if that's not [43:15] what you're being evaluated by, [43:17] then that's not what you deliver. [43:19] >> So, [43:19] >> And I would say that everyone needs good [43:21] management, everyone needs transparency [43:23] and you know, [43:25] you can have the exact same [43:28] type of non-profit doing the exact same [43:30] type of work and one will have great [43:32] outcomes and one will have worse [43:33] outcomes and the difference is [43:35] management and you know that about every [43:36] business across America. [43:38] >> better at managing these people that are [43:41] holding the people that get the vouchers [43:43] >> We work with Yeah, we you if you are [43:45] monitoring outcomes, you can actually [43:48] take your dollars and put them in those [43:50] non-profits that are delivering results [43:52] for you. If you're monitoring [43:54] performance, you actually are able to [43:56] say, "Hey, this service provider is not [43:59] delivering results. Let's move to this [44:01] service provider." [44:04] >> a perfectly fair answer, by the way. I [44:05] mean, you haven't you seen two companies [44:06] and one's well run and one's not well [44:08] run. [44:08] >> completely fair answer. I'm just curious [44:09] like [44:09] >> Cuz it's the same people. [44:11] >> Yeah, but what is the delta? Is it [44:12] literally just the management? Like you [44:13] have either better employees [44:15] >> a great business and a bad one? [44:16] >> I'll tell you if you I mean if you have [44:17] a question [44:18] >> No, I would agree it's I would say that [44:20] answer would be the same answer. [44:21] >> the same idea, same premise, same style [44:23] of two construction companies, one [44:25] failing, one is not, then it's probably [44:26] yeah, the team member. [44:27] >> Right. So that but so that I would say [44:29] the management yeah [44:30] >> Yeah, the management yeah, that picks [44:32] and moves around, organizes the teams. [44:34] >> And so I would say that you have to be [44:36] able to build a a homelessness response [44:40] system here in the city of Los Angeles [44:42] that is building trust with Angelenos [44:44] again. It has to. And the only way [44:46] you're going to do that is if you are [44:47] monitoring performance and making sure [44:49] you're putting money into those service [44:51] providers that are delivering on [44:53] results. [44:54] >> what do you do? So what do you do with [44:56] someone if they've been offered shelter [44:58] 10 times and they refuse? [45:00] >> So it really depends on the individual [45:02] and I've dealt with so many people who [45:04] are on the streets who when they're [45:05] offered a shelter gladly take it. That's [45:08] the majority of people. But there are [45:10] individuals who are deeply mentally ill, [45:13] who have real real mental health [45:14] challenges. There are people who may be [45:17] dealing with substance use issues. With [45:19] those individuals, you have to follow [45:22] different paths. I remember people with [45:25] we had a gentleman who had PTSD. He was [45:28] um [45:29] he had fought and you know, been [45:31] deployed as a as a in the army multiple [45:35] times and dealt with a lot of issues as [45:37] a result of that. It took outreach staff [45:40] four months and he moved around. You [45:42] know, he'd say, "Oh, we you can't be [45:44] here." Um and then he would move around [45:46] and we were finally able to build trust. [45:48] He started accepting mental health [45:50] treatment. He is now in his own [45:52] apartment. He is working again and he's [45:54] doing incredibly well. [45:55] >> You know, and so that that So the again, [45:58] with individuals who have deeper mental [46:00] health issues, substance use challenges, [46:01] whatever it is, there may be people who [46:04] are [46:05] you know, who are doing [46:07] things that that are that are criminal [46:09] activities, right? Drug sales and all of [46:11] that. That is an LAPD pathway. For [46:14] everyone else, it is relentless [46:16] engagement, relentless work until they [46:17] get off the street. To be honest with [46:19] you, Angelenos, I don't think care how [46:21] you deal with this problem. They would [46:23] prefer that it be done with compassion, [46:25] with services, with care and the [46:27] shelter. And so, what I'm trying to do [46:29] is make sure that the system [46:30] that is built on service to shelter and [46:32] housing works. Cuz I want them to [46:34] believe that that can work, and I want [46:35] to make sure that they can trust that [46:37] system, and that they don't mind that [46:38] their taxpayer dollars are [46:39] >> what if they set up What if they set up [46:41] an encampment? Should that be removed? [46:44] >> If whatever the regulations are should [46:46] be followed. It's not about [46:48] >> but what do you think? Should the [46:49] encampment be removed if it's on the [46:51] sidewalk? [46:51] >> If it's blocking the pathway, if it's [46:54] doing all of that, [46:55] of course it should be removed, but the [46:57] question is if you remove it and don't [46:59] offer that person another place to go, [47:02] all that will happen is that they move [47:04] across the street. Right? I don't have [47:07] No one has in Los Angeles, we don't have [47:09] the capacity to compel a person to [47:14] uh accept shelter. That's [47:15] >> Do you think that you should? Wait, can [47:17] I Can I jump in here? [47:18] >> this is Yeah, please [47:19] >> to jump in cuz I actually researched [47:20] this last night. One of the By the way, [47:23] there's a I think Senate Bill 43, which [47:24] has been expanded so that you can [47:26] actually have involuntary [47:27] conservatorship for people who are [47:29] unable to take care of themselves, [47:30] clothe themselves, feed themselves, etc. [47:33] It is really hard to enforce that when [47:35] you don't have [47:36] beds a [47:38] a and services around there that can [47:40] actually take care of that person. Cuz [47:42] are you going to put them in jail? We [47:43] can't We don't have We don't have the [47:44] room in jail, either. [47:45] >> So, I mean, I grew up [47:46] >> Twin Towers is our largest mental health [47:48] facility, right? It's our largest mental [47:50] health It's our big jail. Our county [47:52] jail is our largest mental health [47:53] facility. And uh you know, that's where [47:56] a lot of people end up because the [47:58] mental health care system is not taking [47:59] people in because it is I think very [48:02] very under-resourced. [48:04] >> We I think we did fund a bond though, a [48:06] California bond to build a lot [48:08] >> kind of you know, it's still playing [48:09] out. We got some of that funding to [48:11] build um we're going to do a um [48:14] What are they called? Not tiny homes, [48:16] like a yeah, like a tiny homes facility [48:18] for women in Hollywood. [48:20] >> different types of beds you have to [48:21] build. Some for people that don't need [48:22] the conservatorship, some that do, some [48:24] that need the medical treatment. So, you [48:27] have to build [48:28] multiple different types of beds over [48:31] the next 5 years, and it's billions and [48:32] billions and billions of dollars. And [48:33] then you can start enforcing the [48:36] conservatorships and Senate Bill 43 and [48:38] >> So, the hard part is I I grew up in I [48:40] grew up in Venice and Santa Monica, and [48:42] it was compassion that I was raised [48:44] with. [48:44] >> Hold on. I just want to I just want to [48:46] say to you that [48:47] what what you have been experiencing is [48:50] a system that is I think broadly has [48:53] values that are aligned with Angelenos, [48:56] but is not functioning as well as it [48:58] could. And so, people are turning away [49:00] from it because they're saying I'm I'm I [49:02] can't I can't have compassion anymore [49:04] because the problem needs to be [49:05] addressed. What I am saying is we will [49:07] audit every dollar. We will monitor [49:10] performance. We will ensure [49:11] >> But then But it's not what everyone else [49:13] said. Everyone else has said [49:15] >> I already did it in 6 years in my in my [49:16] district. We've delivered results, and [49:19] every Angeleno deserves that. I want you [49:22] to not have to ask me this question [49:23] again because our homeless services [49:25] system is so responsive [49:28] that when you see someone who is in an [49:30] encampment that our team is already out [49:32] there doing the work to get them [49:33] indoors. [49:35] That is the city that I want to build [49:36] for you. I want you to not have to ask [49:38] this question again. I'm tired of this [49:40] hypothetical. What I want is a system [49:42] that works. One that is aligned with the [49:43] values of Angelenos, and I will build [49:45] that. [49:46] >> What I'm seeing a lot is people who are [49:48] not mentally well whatsoever being [49:50] offered shelter, but choosing instead to [49:54] scream in the middle of the street, to [49:57] throw rocks at to throw rocks at cars, [49:59] the police take 2 hours to show up. [50:02] People are passed out in the alley, [50:04] they're doing drugs. My mother doesn't [50:06] feel safe. [50:07] Friends with kids don't want to go [50:09] anywhere near the alley cuz there's [50:11] constantly people roaming. Uh one time [50:13] they called the police on people who [50:14] were doing heroin. [50:16] And the police said, "Well, you know, [50:17] unless they're an active threat, we [50:19] don't have time to show up." So we [50:21] called back and said they're OD'ing. And [50:23] immediately they showed up. And so I [50:25] think that [50:25] >> anything even when they do. [50:27] >> Well, once once they showed up, the [50:28] people are like, "Oh, [50:29] uh and they they roamed off. Like that [50:31] that's all that happened. [50:33] >> This By the way, this has been around [50:34] for unfortunately decades. It's been [50:35] getting [50:36] worse. It's probably the what you're [50:38] going to be judged on as as mayor is as [50:40] as how you handle homeless. [50:41] >> It's never been as bad as I've seen in [50:42] the last probably 3 or 4 years. [50:44] >> Not not in my district, though. Like it [50:46] has actually improved in my district. [50:47] Big encampments that were there are not [50:49] there anymore because we're doing the [50:50] work. [50:51] >> What's causing homelessness? [50:53] >> It's definitely rooted in affordable [50:55] housing issues, right? There used to be [50:57] a large number of single room occupancy [50:59] hotels and cheaper housing in Los [51:01] Angeles. I'm not saying that people [51:03] don't have mental health issues or [51:05] substance use issues. There is a lot of [51:07] that as well, but when housing was [51:10] cheaper, people were indoors. People [51:12] were in the single room occupancy [51:14] hotels. People were indoors dealing with [51:15] those same challenges. We had a [51:17] different set of interventions to [51:19] respond to those issues. Now, in a very, [51:22] very expensive housing market, a lot of [51:25] those people who are vulnerable in [51:27] whatever way, who are, you know, one one [51:31] one health [51:32] issue away from um being kicked out of [51:36] their apartment are now ending up on the [51:38] streets. And then once you're on the [51:40] streets, I think it's very, very hard to [51:42] get back in the streets. [51:43] >> And way more expensive to deal with it [51:44] once [51:44] >> expensive. Yeah, and it's much more [51:46] expensive. And so I think at the root of [51:48] it there is a housing issue that is at [51:50] the root of it. That doesn't mean that [51:51] there aren't mental health challenges or [51:53] substance use challenges as well, but [51:56] it's just at the root there is a it's it [51:58] it is a housing issue. [52:00] >> So you think if housing was cheaper we [52:02] would not have as much [52:03] >> Not as much unsheltered homelessness. [52:05] Not as much unsheltered homelessness. [52:07] >> I think that's just a correlative fact. [52:09] You can't argue that. If we immediately [52:11] have [52:11] >> is mental health? Because just again [52:13] anecdotally from what I've seen it seems [52:15] like 80% [52:16] are people with severe drug [52:18] >> 11,000 [52:19] of the [52:21] How many is it? How many people are [52:22] homeless? [52:22] 7,000 of the 70,000 estimates are [52:25] between 11 [52:31] to 15,000 have anywhere from moderate to [52:35] severe mental health. [52:36] >> Why does it seem like it should be [52:38] flipped? That it should be 75%? [52:41] >> You're not A lot of the people that are [52:42] unhoused and mentally stable um are not [52:47] you know, [52:48] screaming and yelling right outside my [52:49] office here. So it it feels like so many [52:51] of them have drug addiction and mental [52:53] illness. [52:53] >> The most visible people, the people who [52:56] are So you'll never see the mother who [52:59] is living in her car with her children [53:02] or or couch surfing um you won't see [53:05] them on the streets. But the people you [53:06] see on the streets are people with [53:08] mental health challenges. The people you [53:10] see on the streets are the people who [53:11] are going to be screaming and yelling. [53:13] >> What do we do for those 20% that are [53:15] severely mentally ill that should not be [53:17] roaming the streets that could be [53:19] >> What we do in the district is what I [53:22] wanted make sure that we're doing [53:23] citywide. Each of those people has an [53:26] individual pathway forward, right? [53:29] And whatever that pathway is, our job as [53:31] a city is to push them into that [53:33] pathway. So for some people it's going [53:35] to be getting back on your meds. You do [53:37] that with street medicine teams. You get [53:39] take injections of antipsychotics. [53:41] You're able to normalize and then you [53:42] get back indoors. For some people [53:44] >> parlay this by the way cuz right now [53:46] you're calling the cop I don't mean to [53:47] interrupt I'm just [53:48] saying but there's a lot of [53:50] policy positions that I agree with [53:52] because we may agree to disagree on how [53:55] much we fund the police and I know that [53:56] you've agreed that your your position is [53:58] not to to remove any funding from the [54:00] police. But one way to help the police [54:02] is to not have the police be doing these [54:04] types of jobs. So can you get into [54:05] >> Yeah, so you know, if we had what I want [54:08] to invest in is making sure that we have [54:10] unarmed mental health responders that [54:13] can take so many of those calls for [54:15] service off of LAPD's plate. That [54:17] situation that you described where [54:19] police showed up two hours after you [54:22] called for help about people who are [54:25] who are out of it in an alleyway. We [54:27] actually have a tool to respond to that [54:29] that would be would have been much more [54:30] effective in that situation. [54:32] Uh we have a something called a circle [54:34] team which is uh trained homeless [54:37] outreach and mental health crisis worker [54:39] who can go out to those calls for [54:40] service. They have a sobering center [54:43] that they can bring people to. They say [54:45] to folks, "Hey, you you're having a [54:47] substance use issue, you can't be here [54:49] but come with us." [54:50] And they'll sit in their van and they [54:52] can, you know, relax there. They can go [54:55] to uh sobering center, they can sit [54:57] there or they can go take them to a [54:58] hospital. Whatever that pathway is, they [55:01] can actually take them off the streets. [55:03] Police are you know, they don't they [55:05] don't have the time even to respond to [55:07] these kinds of calls and they're not [55:10] able to take action there unless there's [55:12] an active crime being committed unless [55:14] someone's being assaulted unless someone [55:16] is in danger. [55:17] >> Yeah. [55:17] >> And so there's actually a response that [55:19] can work. Let's actually build that out [55:21] citywide and let's make sure that we're [55:22] actually getting people with those [55:24] challenges off the streets and into [55:26] places where they can get [55:28] treatment and care. And I think that [55:30] will make [55:31] the city better. That will make our our [55:34] our response much more effective. There [55:36] are people who need things who are [55:38] dealing with mental health issues who [55:40] may need things like involuntary [55:41] conservatorship. That process is long [55:43] for a reason. You're taking away [55:45] someone's freedom. Um and [55:48] that process is something that needs to [55:49] be followed in those cases. There are [55:51] other cases though where people can go [55:53] into a mental health treatment bed or [55:54] can get access to medications that can [55:56] help them stabilize. That's what we need [55:59] to be doing. Let's be out there doing [56:01] that work, fighting for every bit of [56:03] that care, making sure that it's being [56:04] delivered in ways that actually [56:06] addresses the issue. [56:07] >> Speaking of your breath, I'm sorry, I [56:08] want to follow up on this too by saying [56:09] cuz I I feel like it's not a good enough [56:11] answer for you because you're so [56:12] frustrated with [56:13] >> I know. [56:13] >> And by the way, there's no there's no [56:15] one no one can sit here and give you two [56:16] sentences [56:17] as to how we're going to address 10 [56:19] 15,000 mentally ill homeless people [56:21] running in the streets. And I'm equally [56:22] frustrated cuz it's outside my office [56:23] all day long. But I will say [56:26] that maybe the best and first thing that [56:27] we can do is have a CEO and I'm not [56:29] endorsing Nithya and I've got, you know, [56:31] I think there's [56:33] I'm not endorsing Karen Bass or Nithya. [56:35] But I do believe that it takes a good [56:37] CEO to get rid of fraud and abuse, to [56:41] have to judge programs on their [56:43] efficiency and on their success, and [56:47] better manage the money. I mean, that [56:49] really is the first step in solving [56:51] >> And I and I would say in this [56:53] you know, I am in a mayoral race, right? [56:55] And I would just say [56:56] I feel like [56:58] the trust in the system and the results [57:00] that we're seeing are worse under Bass. [57:01] Our worse under Bass. [57:03] >> Speaking of waste, fraud, and abuse, [57:04] what do you think of Nick Schultz? [57:06] >> I think that the I want people to trust [57:09] government again. [57:11] And so my hope is that we build a system [57:13] here in Los Angeles where Nick Schultz [57:16] cannot come and find anything to [57:18] complain about. That's what I want to [57:19] do. [57:20] >> What do you think about the work he's [57:21] doing and the fraud that he's allegedly [57:24] >> think it needs to be personal to Nick. I [57:25] think what Why don't we just address [57:27] fraud, waste, and abuse? [57:28] >> It's bad. It's like I believe in a [57:30] system where people should trust that [57:32] their taxpayer dollars are going towards [57:34] good outcomes and good results, right? [57:35] And so, that kind of if he's un- [57:38] uncovering fraud, it's bad for [57:40] government. It's bad for the cities that [57:43] that that he's operating in. I Again, I [57:45] want to make sure that we're building a [57:47] city that he can't come to and [57:49] >> just seems as though there's a lot of [57:50] money funneling to [57:52] homeless advocates and homeless [57:56] programs [57:57] and it creates an incentive for people [57:59] not to really solve the problem [58:01] >> But that's why That's why audits are [58:03] important. That's why performance [58:05] management is important. That's why [58:06] transparency is important. That's why [58:08] data is important. [58:09] >> get all of that though? I want to know [58:10] how to how do we increase transparency? [58:13] Because that's the main thing. Like if I [58:14] could go documentation on the budgets of [58:17] local governments, federal governments [58:19] is so complicated. It's inaccessible. [58:22] But if there was a sheet that was passed [58:24] out to every citizen or whatever or like [58:26] a email or something that was sent out [58:28] once a month. Hey, this is how much we [58:30] made, this is how much we spent, this is [58:32] what the spending actually achieved. [58:34] Like I don't understand why we don't [58:35] have something like that. [58:36] >> Almost like public corporations have to [58:38] do that every year. [58:38] >> Like the the government would not pass [58:40] an audit, right? And yet I'm supposed to [58:42] be able to keep control of [58:43] >> are audited all the time. There's so [58:45] many audits. [58:46] >> have I mean the Pentagon has failed its [58:47] like eighth audit. And and everything [58:49] runs in a deficit. There's a [58:51] billion-dollar deficit here. Like where [58:52] does the money go? [58:53] >> of the controller cuz I think that Bass [58:55] is [58:55] >> Yes. So, [58:57] to me it feels like transparency [59:00] >> Oh, transparency is number one. [59:01] >> Transparency is the key. Transparency is [59:03] the absolute key. And I What part of the [59:04] reason why I'm I'm you know, I'm I'm [59:07] endorsed by our city controller who has [59:09] asked to audit our homelessness dollars [59:11] including Mayor Bass's inside safe [59:14] intervention which is $400 million, 40% [59:17] of participants back to the streets, you [59:19] know, $100,000 per person per year, some [59:22] of those most expensive motel rooms, [59:25] most expensive interventions in [59:26] homelessness. That is the exact kind of [59:29] thing that we need to be auditing and [59:31] being transparent about. And the way you [59:34] can do it is by partnering with people [59:35] like the city controller to not just [59:38] make it transparent, but to make it [59:39] easily legible for the public. Let's [59:41] really show where our taxpayer dollars [59:43] are going. Let's show where our beds [59:46] are, how many of them are full on any [59:48] given night, and how we can actually [59:50] restore trust in the data that we're [59:51] putting out there. Are we doing [59:53] in-person visits to those sites? Are we [59:55] actually making sure that this data is [59:56] robust? [59:57] That system is one that I have actually [59:59] been trying to build at the city. I [60:02] pushed really hard to create a Bureau of [60:04] Homelessness Oversight. I created the [60:06] first set of data and performance [60:08] metrics at the city on these issues. And [60:11] when I pushed harder to make it [60:12] something that would be for every dollar [60:14] in the city, this mayor and other people [60:17] in leadership pushed back. And so that's [60:18] part of the reason why I'm running. [60:19] >> Why did they Why did they push back? Why [60:21] do they not want the people to get [60:22] better? I can't speak for them. [60:24] It's [60:25] >> It's 40 over 40%. I don't know if the [60:27] word recidivism is is accurate, but 40% [60:30] of the of the [60:31] people that went into the program are [60:32] back on the streets. It's an abysmal [60:35] record. [60:36] The [60:37] the homeless count is up unsheltered [60:40] count is up 7.9% this year. We spent [60:42] Inside Safe [60:44] Bass had a chance to to work on [60:46] homelessness. That was her baby. Inside [60:48] Safe it it has been an abject failure, I [60:50] think, in many [60:51] metrics, and homelessness is up. So, I [60:55] mean, I don't think she wants people to [60:56] audit that. I don't I mean, naturally, I [60:58] don't think she'd want to have that [60:59] audited. [60:59] >> I think that we keep going back to [61:01] homelessness, which is obviously it's a [61:02] very pressing issue and extremely [61:04] important to a lot of people that live [61:05] here. [61:06] I do want to go to the the fraud, [61:09] though, and I am curious if you could [61:10] answer one of two possible answers. Is [61:14] it a spending problem or is it an income [61:16] problem? And that's another question [61:17] that a lot of business owners also ask [61:19] themselves. It's like, am I having a [61:21] spending problem or an income problem? [61:24] Either way, more sales never hurt [61:25] anybody. And with Black Friday coming [61:27] up, this is the biggest chance all year [61:29] to get them. Yeah, this is the time of [61:30] year when more people are already [61:32] shopping online and ready to buy. So, if [61:34] your store isn't online yet, our partner [61:36] Shopify could get you there fast. Before [61:38] I started working with Graham, I set up [61:40] maybe six or seven different Shopify [61:41] stores, and I just kept going back to [61:43] Shopify because there was truly not even [61:46] a competitor. If a simple tin like me [61:48] can figure it out, I'm sure everybody [61:50] else can. If you want to start an online [61:52] business and start selling your product [61:53] or service, Shopify is absolutely the [61:55] best place to start. And now they've got [61:57] Sidekick, which is Shopify's AI [61:59] assistant. It helps you every step of [62:01] the way, from setting up your store to [62:02] planning your Black Friday promotions. [62:04] Plus, their pre-built themes and AI site [62:06] builder can help you create a [62:07] professional storefront without ever [62:09] having to hire anyone to build your [62:11] website. So, if you're ready to launch [62:12] your business before Black Friday, go to [62:14] shopify.com/ich [62:16] to start your free trial. That is [62:18] shopify.com/ich. [62:20] Again, just go to shopify.com/ich [62:23] today to hear your first [62:26] >> I think that we keep going back to [62:27] homelessness, which is obviously it's a [62:29] very pressing issue and extremely [62:30] important to a lot of people that live [62:32] here. [62:33] I do want to go to the the fraud, [62:35] though, and I am curious if you could [62:37] answer one of two possible answers. Is [62:40] it a spending problem or is it an income [62:42] problem? [62:43] >> Both are true, okay? Um we [62:48] we definitely do not have the management [62:51] and oversight that we need over many of [62:53] our essential services to ensure that [62:54] the city is delivering what Angelenos [62:57] expect and deserve. [62:59] Um whether it is on fixing potholes, [63:01] fixing streetlights, [63:03] uh on picking up trash, addressing [63:04] graffiti, [63:06] um investing in our parks and public [63:08] spaces, these are all things that I [63:10] think the departments can do better on [63:12] delivering, and I think with better [63:13] management, better oversight, we can [63:15] deliver better outcomes and results. [63:17] problems. [63:17] >> County though is so much better in terms [63:20] of their services? [63:21] >> I want to interject cuz that's by the [63:21] way it's such a complicated question [63:23] what you just said, but I want to [63:24] interject on a particular point but you [63:26] you didn't raise but I think it's a good [63:28] kind of litmus test for this. [63:31] And I think we'll disagree on on the [63:32] income cuz you know, I'm not as pro-tax [63:34] as you probably, but [63:36] Mayor Bass put [63:37] pushed for a remodel/expansion [63:40] of the downtown convention center. [63:43] Through $2.9 billion project with [63:45] another nearly $3 billion in financing. [63:47] So it's going to cost nearly $6 billion. [63:49] >> And by the way, that that that debt now [63:52] is so much more expensive because of the [63:54] the bond the government Have you seen [63:55] the government bond market? [63:57] Yeah, so it's going to be more [63:58] expensive. [63:59] >> It's like there's a high-speed rail. [64:00] It's our It's the LA version of the [64:02] California high-speed rail in terms of a [64:04] boondoggle. Now, I understand that my [64:06] personal belief is that is that Mayor [64:08] Bass wanted to do this to placate the [64:10] unions, to get a bring jobs to downtown, [64:12] to get money in and endorsements into [64:14] her campaign. [64:15] >> Downtown [64:17] A lot of the downtown business [64:18] interests, Airbnb, were really pushing [64:21] these this intervention. [64:23] >> there was one or two city council [64:24] members. I know you were one of them. I [64:25] think there might have been one other [64:26] that voted against this. And by the way, [64:28] probably not in your interest in your [64:30] political interest because the unions [64:32] probably wanted this and the DSA [64:34] probably wanted this etc. But [64:36] I give her a lot of credit for this. [64:38] It's actually one of my favorite things [64:39] about your I think your approach to this [64:41] is that you're not you don't just say [64:42] yes to every project even if the unions [64:44] are for it etc. But the city's and I'm [64:47] sorry to belabor this cuz you're a [64:48] national audience, but I'll be really [64:49] quick. The city's own rosy scenario, [64:52] meaning their own best-case scenario, is [64:54] that the city of Los Angeles loses $90 [64:57] million a year. That's We don't make [64:59] money on this investment. [65:00] >> 30 years. [65:01] >> Yeah, for 30 years. So we lose $90 [65:02] million and Karen Bass pushed this. And [65:05] now our tax dollars, which who cares if [65:07] it's income or expenditure? Let's say [65:09] it's both. [65:11] The [65:12] You don't need to agree on the income. [65:13] We definitely should not be throwing our [65:15] money away so that politicians are [65:16] getting endorsements and money into [65:18] their into their political campaigns. [65:20] And yes, of course the $6 billion is [65:22] going to create jobs and it's obviously [65:25] we're not burning the money. It's going [65:26] to do some good. But why would you spend [65:28] $6 billion if you're getting $5 billion [65:30] back? That makes no sense. And she said, [65:32] "No, this makes no sense." I I give you [65:34] credit for that. [65:35] >> Yeah, and then but this is the kind of [65:37] thing that I you know, [65:39] this is part of why I want to bring more [65:41] people into into politics. I want more [65:43] people looking at our local political [65:45] system. I want more people making sure [65:47] that politicians are actually pushing [65:49] for things that actually deliver results [65:51] for people. And I think that's that's at [65:53] the heart of what you're asking for is [65:55] transparency and accountability. And I I [65:59] do think that if we have more people [66:01] engaged in our local politics that these [66:04] kinds of decisions which often get made, [66:07] you know, [66:08] in back rooms like they will come out [66:10] into convention center expansion when [66:13] the convention business is shrinking [66:14] that just because downtown business [66:16] interests [66:24] want this that we don't necessarily need [66:27] to invest [66:29] $6 billion of our public funds in it at [66:32] a time when the city is already [66:34] financially unstable, when we have the [66:36] Olympics coming in and we may be facing [66:37] financial issues as a result of that. So [66:40] I think this is exactly the kind of [66:42] thing that we that I believe that cities [66:45] can do better at is actually making the [66:47] case for our public spending, making [66:49] sure that dollars are being tracked, [66:51] making sure that we're actually [66:52] delivering results. And what I want to [66:54] do as mayor. [66:55] >> Honestly, even if it was an abject [66:57] failure, but there was transparency, I [67:00] would be like the first person in line, [67:03] like a rooting just at the ballot box, [67:05] like here we go, Nithya Raman, like [67:06] let's go. [67:07] >> Okay, well I can I can I will commit to [67:09] transparency but I also hope that it's [67:11] not going to be an object failure or [67:13] actually deliver results. [67:14] >> Like of course, yeah, right, naturally. [67:15] >> some lofty goals. [67:16] >> Obviously, that would be an amazing [67:17] thing if it was a success. But for me, [67:20] it's I just like feel like the the [67:22] average person experiences all of the [67:25] negatives and virtually zero of the [67:28] positives of the local policy and they [67:30] also have no idea why things are so bad. [67:33] They don't even know and they ask [67:34] questions like oh well how do you reduce [67:36] homelessness? Well, we're going to [67:37] bolster the initiatives and we're going [67:39] to make it easier to build homes and [67:41] we're going to do that. It's like okay, [67:42] that's like sort of descript, sort of [67:44] nondescript, it's not very specific. I [67:46] don't know what change I can actually [67:47] expect because it's really easy just to [67:49] say this is the villain. [67:51] Like identifying the problem is not [67:53] solving it. [67:53] >> Right, but let's let's audit every [67:55] dollar. Let's be transparent about what [67:58] what we're spending on and let us invest [68:01] let's invest in what works. [68:02] >> and yeah, I have a question. And how do [68:03] you how do you expect to reduce crime? [68:06] >> I think people are feeling unsafe, they [68:09] feel a sense of of kind of insecurity [68:12] because of street homelessness, because [68:14] of [68:15] you know, because of encampments being [68:18] on the streets. [68:21] And I think [68:23] making sure that we're able to bring [68:24] people indoors is really important. Is [68:26] really important for safety and it's [68:28] also important for perceptions of [68:30] safety, you know? Studies have shown [68:32] that people who are on the streets are [68:35] also mostly the victims of crime. Like [68:38] if there is crime in an area connected [68:40] to homelessness, it's usually people who [68:41] are experiencing homelessness [68:43] themselves. [68:43] >> it homeless on homeless crime though? [68:45] >> I that it's hard, you know, people are [68:47] but people are victims out there. It's [68:49] you know, it's not safe to be on the [68:50] streets for mostly [68:53] for people who are actually on the [68:54] streets themselves. Like bringing people [68:55] indoors into safety is really important [68:57] for me. It is a humanitarian crisis on [68:59] the streets. But I also think that if we [69:01] can address graffiti, address pick up [69:04] trash, make sure that we're addressing [69:06] street homelessness, bringing people [69:07] into safety, I actually think that [69:09] people will feel safer. People [69:11] >> think like police wellness is Yeah, but [69:13] do you Don't you think that we need more [69:15] police officers? [69:16] >> So the city has, you know, tried to hire [69:19] more police officers, and our police [69:22] force is shrinking. [69:23] Um and so what a lot of the policies [69:27] that I'm I'm talking about I've said I [69:29] want to maintain this size of our [69:30] existing police force. We need to make [69:31] sure that we're hiring to attrition, [69:33] which means improving our personnel [69:35] department, making it easier and faster [69:38] to recruit people. All you know, all [69:40] stuff that I think needs to happen at [69:41] the city of Los Angeles across the [69:43] board. Uh but I also really do think [69:46] it's important for us to take a lot of [69:48] the calls that are currently coming to [69:50] Los LAPD off their plates. That There's [69:53] thousands of calls that are coming in, [69:56] calls for service that are for things [69:58] that you don't need armed officers to go [70:00] go out for. Like the issue that you had [70:02] with with a person who is on your [70:04] sidewalk, who is clearly homeless, who [70:07] is maybe not someone you feel [70:09] comfortable talking to. LAPD would come [70:11] out to that situation and not be able to [70:13] do anything, right? If they're not If [70:15] there's not a crime happening there, if [70:17] they're not a threat to themselves or to [70:18] >> a crime. They're They're doing drugs. [70:20] >> Well, they're No, they're they're just [70:21] sitting on your sidewalk [70:22] >> they're doing They're doing drugs. [70:24] >> Well, that's a different situation, [70:26] right? What I'm talking about is someone [70:27] sitting on your sidewalk talking to [70:29] talking to themselves potentially. [70:31] >> Oh, no, no, no, no. I mean, that that [70:32] that's That's not what I'm talking [70:34] Anytime the police have been called, [70:35] it's because they're doing drugs in [70:37] public. [70:37] >> Right. So but what I'm talking about is [70:39] there's a whole set of calls that are [70:41] coming in for situations where people [70:43] feel uncomfortable talking to an [70:44] individual, but they clearly need some [70:45] assistance, right? That is where you [70:47] have this unarmed mental health [70:49] responders, and if you actually build [70:51] that out, you can take thousands of call [70:53] load off of LAPD. Thousands of calls off [70:56] of LAPD's plate. leave armed officers [70:58] able to respond to the calls that you [71:00] need armed officers to respond to, and [71:02] you'll have actually trained responders [71:04] for these other calls. We've done it in [71:06] parts of Hollywood, we've done it in Los [71:08] Feliz, there's a group that's responding [71:10] to calls in Sherman Oaks and Van Nuys. [71:12] In all of those places, what we've seen [71:15] is that they are actually responding [71:17] more effectively to those calls. They [71:19] don't often almost never do they [71:20] actually need to call LAPD as backup [71:22] because those situations don't require [71:25] police response at all, but they're [71:26] actually able to deliver more safety, [71:29] you know? More safety for the people who [71:31] are calling. [71:32] >> Also, if you can't hire and listen, I [71:34] think both of us would want more police [71:35] officers. There's obviously budgetary [71:37] constraints, but it would probably be [71:38] more of a priority [71:39] >> think there's there's necessarily budget [71:40] constraints because we're spending, you [71:42] know, we're wasting all this money [71:43] because we have the money for it. [71:44] >> I I don't disagree with you on on hiring [71:46] more police, but I I think the [71:49] there's there is a compromise, which is [71:50] if we're going to keep at least not let [71:51] the police force shrink and keep it the [71:53] same size that at least get those police [71:56] officers out there handling crimes [71:58] instead of being at desk jobs and [72:00] instead of going out to calls [72:02] >> also seems as the police officers lately [72:04] have been villainized and there's less [72:06] of an incentive anymore to become a [72:08] police officer. Like I remember as a kid [72:10] when I was like 6 years old, I want to [72:11] be a police officer. I thought that was [72:12] the coolest thing in the world. [72:13] >> Same. [72:14] >> Now it just seems like, oh, the police [72:15] officer is the bad guy. We don't like [72:17] the police officer. [72:19] >> You know, I think that that environment [72:22] is changing. I think that may have been [72:23] true [72:25] in the past, but I I don't feel like [72:27] that is the that is the reason why we [72:29] are not able to hire here in in Los [72:32] Angeles. The reason why we're not able [72:33] to hire is because our personnel [72:35] department is very slow. It's because [72:38] we're not able to even fill our recruit [72:40] classes fast enough. It takes a year to [72:42] bring someone into a recruit class. This [72:44] is bureaucratic barriers that we're [72:46] facing to hiring. [72:48] >> What about the desk jobs that cuz I [72:49] don't think they're [72:50] >> So, there's like people in LAPD now who [72:52] are doing jobs that are civilian jobs, [72:55] administrative jobs, desk jobs. We need [72:57] to think about how we can actually get [72:59] people higher civilians to do that work [73:01] and get police officers deployed. And I [73:04] think thinking about deployment, making [73:05] sure deployment is adapting to meet new [73:08] conditions. Our basic car and patrol [73:11] plans are from 30 years ago. Like let's [73:13] actually have a conversation about what [73:14] deployment looks like and what it needs [73:16] to be for 2026. [73:18] >> think we should keep the police officers [73:20] the same. You don't think we should hire [73:21] more. [73:22] >> I want to maintain the size of our [73:23] police force. That's what that's where [73:24] we're at right now. And [73:25] >> Why why do you believe that that is the [73:27] right amount of police officers? [73:28] >> it's too many cuz I got pulled over on [73:30] the way over here. [73:31] >> He did. [73:32] >> On full self-driving by the way. Thanks [73:34] Jason. [73:34] >> the record to reflect that I donated [73:36] $100,000 to the police department and [73:38] fire department. [73:38] >> What so they don't pull you over? [73:39] >> And then it and then yeah and you're on [73:41] your phone on full self-driving. All I [73:42] wanted was a bumper sticker to put on [73:43] that I donated so that I can't get [73:44] messed with and I didn't get a bumper [73:46] sticker. [73:46] >> But what makes you think that the [73:47] current amount is the right amount? Why [73:49] not less and why not more? Why is this [73:51] the perfect amount? [73:52] >> So I think that's a good question. I [73:54] That's by the way a question that should [73:56] be asked is like what is the right [73:57] number of officers to respond to these [74:00] >> And we have lower officers per [74:03] citizen than [74:04] >> But if you it's interesting. I just [74:05] looked at a comparison list of the [74:07] number of officers [74:09] like per capita officers comparing a [74:13] number of cities in California to other [74:15] cities across America. And except for [74:17] Beverly Hills, which is an out outlier. [74:19] >> small anyway. [74:20] >> Well, but they have a lot of cops per [74:21] population. [74:22] >> to like Chicago and New York? [74:24] >> So compared to those cities, we have [74:26] fewer officers per capita. But we have [74:28] across Californian cities, we have [74:31] almost the same per capita. [74:33] >> Compared to San Francisco, yeah. [74:34] >> Yeah, like we're compared to San [74:35] Francisco or I think San Diego. I can [74:38] look this up. This was a RAND study. I'm [74:40] sorry I don't have all of the [74:41] information. [74:41] >> you're right cuz I looked at it, too. [74:42] >> It it it's interesting. Like California [74:45] has fewer officers per capita than other [74:48] >> California cities but our cities are are [74:50] are relatively similar. [74:52] >> Yeah, and I don't know what So what is [74:53] the right number? The right number is [74:55] the number that you need to respond to [74:56] the calls for service that you're [74:57] getting, right? So the question that I [74:59] would have is how do we get to that [75:01] answer? What are What are the number of [75:03] calls that we're getting? What kinds of [75:05] calls are we getting? What is the [75:06] appropriate deployment for the kinds of [75:08] calls that we're getting? That's not a [75:10] study that the city of LA has done [75:12] recently. Let's do that work. Let's [75:15] answer those questions, right? This [75:16] isn't What it What has I'm sorry, but [75:18] this This has become just like an [75:20] ideological test. It's like, you know, [75:22] what What do you believe [75:23] >> why I want to push back and ask you [75:24] what's the difference between hiring [75:26] more officers and hiring people to take [75:28] the desk jobs and respond to the calls [75:31] that don't require officers so that [75:33] officers are available to do their work. [75:34] Isn't that the same thing as hiring more [75:36] officers? [75:36] >> I I know so whatever it takes to have a [75:38] call under 10 minutes, I think is [75:40] reasonable to get someone out there. [75:42] >> I want to have a system in Los Angeles [75:44] where if you call 911 for help, that [75:46] someone picks up the phone quickly and [75:48] that the right person shows up for your [75:50] call. And I will do whatever it takes to [75:53] build that system out here in the city [75:54] of Los Angeles. [75:55] It's not an ideological response. It's [75:58] literally how do we make sure that [76:00] residents of Los Angeles are getting the [76:01] help that they need. [76:02] >> I think that's a really good uh [76:04] data point because I What I love about [76:06] your perspective is you want everything [76:08] to back into some sort of metric that [76:10] you can say, "Okay, you know, this used [76:12] to be [76:13] 45-minute average call time responding, [76:16] you know, person on scene. I'm going to [76:18] get that down to 32." [76:19] >> Right. [76:19] >> And you slowly kind of like try to chip [76:22] away at that. I really enjoy that. What [76:23] would be an I You said every single call [76:26] gets responded to, you're going to have [76:27] someone there. What would be a good [76:29] amount of time that the citizens of Los [76:31] Angeles could kind of fall back into? [76:33] >> much nuance from I mean, that's just a [76:36] >> Yeah, it's a tough question cuz [76:37] depending on the call, [76:38] right? [76:38] >> yeah. [76:38] >> Because well, yeah, you're going to have [76:39] people my cat's stuck in a tree and [76:40] stuff like that. [76:41] >> And also where they live. I mean it it's [76:43] an impossible question to give an a [76:44] minute you know a minute eight eight [76:46] minutes or 12 minutes and then is it a [76:47] murder or [76:48] >> Right. [76:48] >> And there's and there's if it's an crime [76:50] in commission, if there's violence [76:52] happening, you need someone to show up [76:54] immediately. [76:55] >> Drones, just saying. [76:56] >> Sure. [76:57] >> Yeah. [76:57] >> Uh but if you but if you have a [76:59] situation where um you have a burglary [77:03] that's already occurred, right? So let's [77:05] say the burglar is gone, your home has [77:07] been burglarized, what is the [77:08] appropriate and minimum time that you [77:10] think someone should take to respond? [77:12] >> which is what it is uh [77:14] >> Well, that's not yet. Three days is too [77:15] long, hours is too long. What is the [77:18] appropriate time? Let's try and meet [77:19] that goal. I don't know off the top of [77:21] my head what what that goal should be [77:23] that we should set, but let's set a goal [77:24] and let's meet it. You know, and let's [77:26] say if you don't need PD armed officers [77:28] showing up to take the report after a [77:31] burglar has already left, but you need [77:33] someone to show up there and collect [77:34] evidence and to make sure that you're [77:35] filing a police report appropriately, [77:38] who can we send out? How do we make sure [77:39] that that person goes out quickly? How [77:41] do we actually make sure that system is [77:42] responsive? These are questions that I [77:43] want to ask about the city and how it [77:46] functions that I think believe that I [77:48] believe require real discussion and [77:50] analysis. We don't have that and [77:52] standards, and I want to set those [77:53] standards. [77:54] >> Guys, I don't want to interrupt you, but [77:55] I know I know you're probably going to [77:56] tap out at some point. You know, and I [77:58] want to push on this [77:59] >> know how you guys have the stamina. [78:00] >> Oh, yeah. [78:00] >> [laughter] [78:00] >> Keep Keep going. [78:01] >> I mean it's wild. [78:02] >> It's just just chatting with friends. [78:04] >> Yeah, it doesn't give me [78:05] >> Let me Let me just muscle in [78:06] >> I don't know, but I'm on I'm in the hot [78:08] seat here. You just [78:08] >> You can turn us in the hot seat. [78:10] >> Ask us questions. Yeah, like [78:11] >> Pin it around. I am so down. We can flip [78:13] it around. [78:14] >> [laughter] [78:15] >> Yeah. But for for benevolent reasons, [78:17] and that is because I think a lot of [78:19] people dismiss you because of the DSA [78:21] association. And by the way, [78:23] in most elections, probably so would I. [78:26] Um if I hadn't met you and I probably [78:27] didn't and I didn't take the time to [78:29] follow your policies and follow your and [78:31] say I mean actually figure out what [78:32] you're about, I probably would have [78:34] dismissed you cuz I you You not everyone [78:35] has the time. [78:36] >> Right. [78:37] >> Um so I want to press you on some the [78:39] the DSA has some [78:41] pretty extreme policies of which I [78:43] highly doubt you you espouse and I'm not [78:45] going to [78:46] force you to like see, you know, it's [78:48] not a litmus test here. [78:48] >> Sure. [78:49] >> But at the same time, I I do want to get [78:51] out some of these policies which concern [78:54] a lot of people, uh, moderates and [78:55] conservatives moreover and that is [78:59] you know, abolishing prisons and [79:01] abolishing the Senate and abolishing the [79:02] Constitution. [79:03] >> Well, I don't want to do any of that. [79:05] So, I just want to be very clear. [79:07] >> tax? Wait, but I want to hold on. I want [79:08] to finish on the DSA policies if you [79:09] don't mind. [79:10] >> Sure. [79:10] >> Because one of them is also getting rid [79:12] of expropriating property from private [79:15] ownership which means basically the [79:18] government owns housing and landlords [79:21] and individuals like me and Graham can't [79:23] own [79:24] housing. [79:26] >> I So, I believe in a public housing as [79:29] well. Like public housing plays a role, [79:31] right? There's no [79:32] >> But does private [79:33] >> Private also plays a role. Must play a [79:36] role in I mean, does play a role and [79:38] must play a role and [79:39] >> And must continue to play a role. [79:40] >> continue to play a role and my goal is [79:41] to make it better. I mean, to make it a [79:44] better environment for people to rent [79:46] in, make it a better people environment [79:47] for and I would say even make it a [79:49] better environment for people to build [79:50] and invest in, right? [79:51] >> I just I just want to check out but not [79:53] I just want to check out these policies [79:54] so people can't say [79:56] >> No, no. [79:57] >> But there's a there were I apologize for [79:59] not but there's a couple [80:00] others that I'm trying to Oh, yeah. Uh, [80:02] government owning large businesses. So, [80:05] literally part of the policy is that the [80:08] government would take [80:09] over ownership of Walmart or Tesla or [80:12] other large companies. I mean, do you [80:13] believe in corporate enterprise and or [80:16] that the government should own those? [80:17] >> I mean, I do believe in corporate [80:19] enterprise, um, and [80:22] I would say the Trump administration has [80:24] actually been doing more of this [80:25] government ownership. [80:26] >> Yeah, I don't disagree. [80:27] >> You know. [80:27] >> But I would just want to set these off [80:29] so that people can't just say cuz [80:31] I if you go on the DSA website it is a [80:33] concerning [80:34] >> That's [80:35] >> but I don't think you're espousing even [80:37] though you're [80:38] endorsed by them I don't think you're [80:40] espousing that [80:40] >> I didn't they like refuse to endorse you [80:42] after the housing thing or the mansion [80:44] tax thing happened? [80:46] >> No, they've endorsed me again, but yes, [80:47] we have some disagreements, but I would [80:49] just say look the DSA I think there's [80:52] I don't want to I don't want to delve [80:55] too deeply necessarily, but I will just [80:56] say that I think there's a lot of robust [80:58] conversations out there even within the [81:01] DSA about housing policy and it's a big [81:04] tent and and the coalition that I'm [81:07] bringing into this race is the biggest [81:08] possible tent you know, and it has to be [81:10] because we're up against establishment [81:12] politics and to me the definition of [81:15] establishment politics in a in a in a [81:18] city like this is one where you take the [81:21] voters for granted where you're not [81:23] working every single day to earn their [81:25] trust and I have never been that kind of [81:27] politician and that's what I want to I [81:28] want to be a mayor that works every day [81:31] to earn Angelinos trust [81:32] >> And we shouldn't By the way, we should [81:33] not be going to the ballot box holding [81:35] our noses and casting a vote and I will [81:37] say that every single person I've talked [81:39] to that supports Karen Bass and I'm not [81:41] taking a position, but I don't think [81:43] I've met someone [81:45] who actually is excited to vote for [81:47] Karen Bass if anything they are going to [81:49] hold their nose and check on Karen Bass [81:52] in the ballot box and that is not how we [81:54] should be voting for a mayor [81:55] >> Yeah, but on financial policy for [81:56] millionaires like Graham and [81:58] billionaires like Jason would you [82:00] introduce or do you support do you [82:02] support some sort of a wealth tax and [82:04] how would their taxes change? [82:05] >> I think that wealthier people should pay [82:08] more in taxes. I do believe that okay. I [82:10] know this we may [82:12] disagree [82:13] >> I'm not philosophically against taxation [82:14] >> But I will yes and I think [82:17] you know, I think that people who are [82:18] making more money should pay more [82:20] because we are all contributing to a [82:22] society and that society [82:25] uh, more stable that society is the [82:27] better off everyone is, right? And I [82:29] believe that people who are wealthier [82:30] should pay more. Hold on. Hold on. I [82:32] don't have Look, [82:33] >> We I think we all agree on that. I think [82:35] >> here's the reality. Here's the reality [82:36] right now. [82:37] >> disagree. [82:38] >> Here's Here's why Here's [82:39] >> I'll tell you [82:39] >> Oh, really? [82:40] >> I'll tell you why. [82:41] >> Here's why I really believe I keep [82:43] harping on the issue of trust though, [82:45] because [82:46] the city of Los Angeles [82:48] it does not have the trust of its [82:50] residents right now. The city hall has [82:51] lost the faith and trust of Angelenos. [82:54] And so, even if I wanted to pass a tax [82:56] right now, I don't think I could get it [82:58] passed. In fact, I know that because in [82:59] June, there were two taxes on the [83:01] ballot. Um, a tourism tax, meaning [83:05] residents weren't even going to pay it, [83:06] tourists were going to pay it, and the [83:08] residents of the city of Los Angeles [83:10] said no to that tax increase, and they [83:12] said no to a tax increase to fund street [83:14] light repairs. So, the city of Los [83:17] Angeles, if we want to raise taxes, we [83:19] got to earn trust again. And I am here [83:21] to earn your trust. [83:22] >> Okay, so here's my back and here's my [83:24] No, no, no, no. [83:25] >> I would pay tax if I trusted it was [83:26] going to that. [83:27] >> Yeah, yeah, of course. Everything hinges [83:29] on transparency. [83:29] >> Yeah, but but that's why But that's why [83:31] I'm saying no on higher taxes, because [83:33] it's raising taxes and then it's just [83:35] being squandered. It is just being [83:36] wasted. [83:38] >> Those are two separate arguments and [83:39] >> Yeah, but why should we tax first before [83:40] actually getting the spending under [83:41] control? [83:42] >> what I'm I just literally said the [83:43] opposite, sir. [83:45] You know, I'm saying let's build trust [83:48] again, and then I'll come back to that. [83:49] >> to say that rich people should pay more. [83:51] >> Well, I I would say that, too, but I [83:53] would also say [83:55] >> Show results before we increase taxes. [83:57] >> California's already you're paying more [83:59] than 50%. So, like, when is it just [84:01] purely just [84:02] >> policy, Bobby. We're not dictating [84:04] federal policy. [84:05] >> And I'm really I'm just I'm what I'm [84:06] here to say is that I not have a [84:08] hypothetical argument. What I'm here to [84:10] say is that the city of Los Angeles [84:12] needs to deliver essential services and [84:14] earn your trust again, and that's what I [84:16] am running for mayor. I want to do that. [84:18] I really believe in city hall. I think [84:20] it can I want people to raise their [84:22] expectations for Los Angeles and I want [84:24] to work as hard as possible to meet [84:25] them. That is my goal. [84:26] >> So in all honesty, [84:28] if I'm at the ballot box with the [84:30] limited information that I have, I would [84:32] vote for you. And the reason is the [84:34] reason is I mean you and I probably [84:35] disagree pretty aggressively on things. [84:37] We do. [84:38] >> Yeah. [84:38] >> I deeply, deeply, deeply admire your [84:41] willingness to come and sit down on a [84:42] podcast and like I don't even know you [84:45] you I don't I don't I don't think you [84:46] asked for editing privileges or [84:48] anything. You're like, yeah, I'm going [84:49] to come, I'm going to sit down, like I'm [84:51] going to have a conversation, I'm [84:52] willing to have nuanced discussions and [84:54] I I really admire that. Not just because [84:56] it's really nice for us because we want [84:57] to make episodes, but also because like [84:59] it's great that you're you're willing [85:01] and able to do that. A lot of people [85:03] completely deny that and the only thing [85:06] the only logical conclusion that I can [85:07] have is that they're too ideological and [85:09] they're not willing to actually back [85:10] into their beliefs. They just want to [85:12] say something, get people to support [85:14] them and then leave. [85:15] >> Yeah, so I appreciate you doing [85:16] >> And in fairness as well, we did reach [85:18] out to Karen Bass. We never heard back. [85:20] So for the record, we tried, you [85:22] responded back, you came on. I really [85:25] appreciate that. [85:26] >> And so [85:26] >> And I appreciate you too and I I really [85:28] I want to say that um [85:31] I know that yeah, there's probably a lot [85:33] that we have real disagreements about, [85:35] but I hope that if I am elected mayor [85:38] that we can have this conversation in [85:39] two years and that you'll say yes, I [85:42] have more trust and faith in the city of [85:44] Los Angeles. That's my goal and that's [85:45] and we're going to ring that bell. [85:47] >> [laughter] [85:48] >> And if I could ever be of service or [85:51] just a sounding board for housing [85:52] policy. Okay, yeah, for anything. [85:53] Seriously, I I would love to be [85:55] available at any point because I like I [85:57] said, I grew up here and unfortunately [85:59] I've had really bad experiences. So if [86:00] there's anything I could provide from my [86:02] perspective, whether or not it goes [86:04] anywhere, I'm always open. [86:05] >> Let's see what happens on November 3rd, [86:07] but let's keep this conversation open. [86:08] So I just want to say to everyone who's [86:10] watching out there maybe with some [86:12] skepticism, [86:14] my my strongest ideology is delivering [86:17] results for the residents of Los [86:18] Angeles. And definitely go out and vote. [86:22] Definitely go out and make your voices [86:24] heard. And I hope that I have the chance [86:26] to deliver for you. [86:27] >> Thank you so much for coming on the I [86:28] have to say I really appreciate it. [86:29] >> Thank you guys. [86:30] >> Thanks for watching. Until next time. [86:32] >> Bodybuilding is the worst sport you [86:34] could possibly do. [86:36] >> [music] [86:36] >> What do you think about fat shaming? [86:38] >> I think fat shaming can absolutely work. [86:40] >> Is it really bad that I don't want to be [86:42] fat? That I don't want to be unhealthy? [86:44] >> If someone's trying to ascend, give us [86:47] the first five things they do today. [86:49] >> Number one is [86:51] >> Mr. Mike is delusional. He's convinced [86:53] himself in order to cope that he's on [86:55] low doses. [86:56] >> What if Mike Israetel came to you and [86:58] said, "Look, I don't like it when you [86:59] make these videos on me?" [87:00] >> Mike Israetel has literally said you can [87:02] do anything you want, talk about me [87:03] whenever you want. [87:04] >> Just cuz I'm popular. If I fall off [87:06] tomorrow, Greg will never make another [87:08] video about me again. [87:09] >> What muscles do you think women look for [87:12] most in men? [87:13] >> All these guys [music] doing hand [87:15] workouts to try to impress. I'm like, "I [87:16] don't know." Look, spend less time on [87:17] that and get a job and have some money. [87:19] Girls care about your wallet. [87:21] >> How does a 16-year-old look like this? [87:22] >> A lot of steroids and a lot of working [87:25] out. [87:25] >> Like 16-year-olds are doing steroids now [87:27] and bragging about it. It's at at this [87:29] point it's it's insane. [87:30] >> Who is the worst fitness influencer [87:32] right now? [87:35] >> [music] [87:42] [music]