As Los Angeles faces housing shortages, homelessness, public safety concerns, and economic pressures, the city’s future may depend as much on civic participation as on who wins election day.
This Tuesday, Los Angeles is experiencing an election that puts Jesus himself, the city, and its millions of residents on trial.
These primary elections have had it all. A mayoral candidate, represented by Spencer Pratt, claims that the Son of God himself spoke with him and expressed a desire for him to become mayor of Los Angeles. We’ve seen political infighting, where one candidate first endorsed and then withdrew her support for the current mayor in an effort to replace her. We have a mayor whose trip to Africa came under scrutiny while warnings about devastating wildfires were reportedly being communicated. We have a city council member who, as a major part of his platform, rented or purchased what appears to be a brand-new RV and parked it in an area where homeless people sleep on the ground or in tents, raising questions about class differences. And there are many more stories like these. Political discourse has become an arena dominated by attacks and AI-generated videos.
Is this what Los Angeles deserves?
It’s one thing for this city to be the mecca of Hollywood. It is another for deterioration and an uncertain future to be burying it while residents seem to watch passively.
Are the politicians solely responsible, those who continue to collect substantial salaries during a time of economic hardship?
Or are the residents responsible for not becoming sufficiently involved to serve as a source of pressure on politicians?
Or both?
The Responsibility of Residents
By nature, we are good at criticizing from a distance. We sit comfortably away from the tension of real problems and evaluate politicians, issues, and decisions without showing up. In everyday conversation, these people are often called “armchair politicians.” When there are town halls, community meetings, city hall gatherings, or district meetings, attendance can often be counted on one’s fingers.
Los Angeles residents share significant responsibility for the city’s problems, but that responsibility is deeply intertwined with the political system, historical urban planning decisions, and the priorities of local governments.
Historically, Los Angeles municipal elections have suffered from very low voter turnout, often below 20 percent. This apathy allows special interests and lobbying groups to dominate the political agenda.
Local elections were moved to even-numbered years to coincide with presidential and federal elections, which has marginally increased voter participation. However, individual council members still wield significant power because of the city’s highly localized district system.
For decades, residents have embraced a strong NIMBY, or “Not In My Back Yard,” mentality, actively opposing the construction of high-density housing, affordable housing, or homeless shelters in their neighborhoods.
Zoning codes have historically protected single-family housing across approximately 75 percent of the city’s residential areas, artificially driving up housing costs and displacing lower-income families.
Angelenos also have a strong car culture. Resistance to reducing automobile dependence and reluctance to support taxes for public transportation infrastructure or bike lanes have limited mobility alternatives.
The city itself was structurally designed around freeways and massive urban sprawl, making public transportation inefficient for many areas.
And there are many other factors.
In one of Parriva’s interviews with a candidate for CD1, she told me that during a recent trip to Mexico, she was surprised to see women leaving their homes early in the morning with brooms, sweeping the section of street in front of their houses, watering trees and plants, and helping keep neighborhoods clean. In her view, that same sense of responsibility should exist in Los Angeles, where waste collection remains one of the city’s most important issues.
Residents elect the mayors and council members who approve budgets, yet those resources are increasingly diverted away from social programs, mental health services, and housing initiatives.
Los Angeles faces many challenges. Campaign rhetoric, meaningless accusations, political attacks, and empty promises will not rescue the city from potential decline. Residents and organizations must increase civic engagement if they want to see meaningful change. Politicians are not untouchable figures beyond the reach of the people. Angelenos have “hired” them to do a job. They are paid to perform that job, and like any employee, they should ultimately be evaluated on their performance. If they do the job well, they stay. If not, they should go.
But that requires voting, voting responsibly and with a clear understanding of the candidates, their platforms, and their specific proposals. In the end, these are the same politicians who come knocking on doors asking for votes, even if that shoe leather campaigning only happens during election season.
The City of Los Angeles Voter Information Pamphlet and research institutions such as the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) have long reported the need to change election dates because voter participation in non-presidential election years was alarmingly low, leaving major decisions in the hands of a small minority. That situation is no longer sustainable.
