Staff Reports
Los Angeles already has a big budget hole. Now the City Council has quietly moved to spend more money building public restrooms. Councilmember Nithya Raman is at the center of the controversy. Critics point to a nearly $1 million permanent restroom at Runyon Canyon and new motions for a Hollywood Walk‑of‑Fame “public amenities” project. For a city worried about a $1 billion deficit, these projects deserve more answers than sound bites.
What the council actually approved
The council files show real action, not just talk. The Hollywood Walk‑of‑Fame public amenities project is tied to Council File 18‑0534‑S1 and uses CRA/LA excess non‑housing bond proceeds for construction. A separate motion, CF 26‑1227, set aside about $61,000 for construction monitoring and labor compliance for that project. At Runyon Canyon the city installed a permanent restroom that cost nearly $1 million once you add purchase, site work, utilities and fees. Councilmember Nithya Raman voted on the Hollywood item and defended the Runyon Canyon facility as grant‑funded and basic park infrastructure.
Why taxpayers should worry
Spending a million bucks on a single restroom is a tough sell when the city is short on cash. The upfront price is only part of the story. Public toilets need regular cleaning, repairs, plumbing work, and security to avoid vandalism. Those ongoing operating and maintenance costs add up. Angelenos are asking whether money meant for roads, public safety, and essential services should instead be poured into expensive park fixtures with no clear long‑term funding plan.
Politics, optics, and the mayoral race
There’s a political angle here, too. Councilmember Nithya Raman is running for mayor, and opponents are using the restroom price tags as evidence of bad judgment and poor priorities. Raman’s office points to grants and says these are overdue public‑health fixes. That defense may be accurate, but optics matter in politics — and “million‑dollar toilet” makes for an easy headline. If you’re campaigning to run the city, voters expect you to show fiscal discipline and transparent accounting, not rely on grant language to dodge hard questions.
Los Angeles does need more public restrooms. But need is not a blank check. The council should publish clear cost breakdowns, name who will pay for year‑to‑year operations, and explain why cheaper alternatives were rejected. If Councilmember Raman wants to lead the city, she should answer those questions now. Until then, taxpayers have a right to ask whether this is sensible infrastructure planning or just another expensive photo op in a crowded mayoral contest.
