Holly Mitchell was elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors toward the end of a tumultuous 2020, the year of COVID shutdowns, the murder of George Floyd, street protests, a rise in violent crime, and an overall increase of anxiety. When she took office, Americans’ trust in government and law enforcement was plummeting, and things only got worse with the ransacking of the U.S. Capitol. It was a particularly difficult time to be part of the leadership of the most populous county in the country.
Mitchell accepted the challenge. In a low-profile job that is often misunderstood and difficult to do in a county of any size, and virtually impossible in one with more than 10 million people, he quickly caught up. She and her four colleagues paved a path out of the COVID emergency and into recovery with careful spending of emergency federal aid to keep the county’s most at-risk residents housed and fed, and small homeowners and businesses afloat, despite the disruption to the economy.
The county faces many unresolved challenges. It still has to overcome homelessness, mental health care, addiction, poverty, inequality and child welfare — all seemingly intractable problems that other levels of government defer to counties.
But beyond expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo, Mitchell’s three opponents offer little practical insight into the path forward, and even less evidence of knowledge and ability to succeed. Businesswoman Daphne Bradford is calling for better support for the police. Homeless services provider Katrina Williams wants more permanent supportive housing. Clint Carlton, a former homeless services provider who currently runs an organization that protects people online, calls for a greater sense of urgency in addressing homelessness. These are diagnoses of the county’s problems rather than solutions.
The Times recommends Mitchell for another term.
Mitchell represents the 2nd District, which includes the affluent cities of Culver City, Marina del Rey and the South Bay, as well as historically black and immigrant communities in Inglewood, Compton, Carson and much of South Los Angeles.
The district also includes numerous unincorporated communities, to which Mitchell directs essential urban-type services, such as sanitation and libraries. This is the simplest and most immediately appreciated part of the task, if not the easiest.
Thornier is the task of solving social and economic problems that result in unequal access to justice, education, employment, health care and recreation. On these issues, Mitchell is in many ways the conscience of the board, insisting that equity is not simply a nice complement to county responsibilities, such as managing beaches and art museums, but the essence of the job, because Inequality fuels poverty and despair that create the county’s biggest problems.
There may be no better example of this than the board’s discussion in September of a new court protocol that eliminates monetary bail for many people arrested for misdemeanors. The other supervisors, all of whom express some progressive views on policy issues, were lukewarm on the program because of an unfounded concern that releasing people without bail pending prosecution could increase crime.
Mitchell took a different tack, correctly pointing out that we endanger ourselves and undermine equal justice if we falsely assume that people with enough money to get out of jail will act responsibly, and that people who are released without paying will not. .
Last year, Mitchell became the inaugural president of the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, an intergovernmental organization aimed at fighting homelessness by increasing the stock of below-market-rate housing. LACAHSA aims to get the county and its many cities to work together and may prove a good vehicle for Mitchell, who is eager to work strictly within the fragile lines of Los Angeles County government. But LACAHSA illustrates the structural shortcomings of county government: It was created by state legislation at the behest of Los Angeles activists, not the Board of Supervisors. It is difficult to identify a major county problem that has been resolved by the county government itself, without the intervention of a court order, state legislation, or some other outside power.
Mitchell has made a point of examining the ineffective way the county is governed. Imagine that the state of Michigan (which has approximately the same population as the county) is governed without a governor and only a five-person legislature, and you get an idea of how inadequate the Board of Supervisors is to manage the county of Michigan. The Angels. Mitchell called for studies on more effective structures and procedures, and should continue to push for governance reform in his second term.
Voters should appreciate Mitchell’s focus on the big issues, such as the structure of county government and equity in the delivery of county services. But as Mitchell frequently points out, the delivery of essential services cannot wait, and her constituents should keep up the pressure for more homeless housing, better mental health care, and safer streets. Mitchell has struck a balance and is the right choice for the next four years.
