Despite claiming to be an "urban planner," the only things Raman has ever "urban planned" are a couple of academic papers.

But she has "plans" for your neighborhood next.

Just as she betrayed her constituents in Hollywood, Los Feliz and the Melrose Avenue area by carelessly ignoring 12+ years of community work and consensus on their Hollywood Zoning Update, she will do the same to Larchmont, Windsor Square, Hancock Park, and the Mid-Wilshire Miracle Mile areas NEXT—these are all CD4 neighborhoods slated for zoning updates while Raman is in office.

This zoning “update” lasts for at least 25 years. Never has it been more critical to have a competent councilperson in office, one who listens to their community. We will not find that person in Raman. In the few short months she has been in office, she has proven this repeatedly.

Raman also supports neighborhood-destroying California Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), which would allow cities in the state to build 10-unit apartment buildings —plus two ADUs (Granny Flats) and two junior ADUs — on one single-family lot, right next to single-family homes, with zero provision for affordable housing. 

And though Raman recently announced she is not in support of SB 9, which eliminates all single-family zoning in the state of California, Raman has flip-flopped and mischaracterized her position so many times, it is almost impossible to determine her precise stance on SB 9.

In fact, her recent position paper on the subject seems to base her opposition to SB 9 on the argument that the bill does not go far enough. Raman states she would like SB 9 to “allow for modest density increases and increased rental opportunities in historically exclusionary, high-resource neighborhoods.” 

This is deceptive language on her part. SB 9 currently protects “historic districts.” But this proposed change would allow density increases applicable to any historic neighborhood in her districts (given that original historic deeds all typically contained exclusionary language).

The only thing Raman seems in favor of? Apparently she would like SB 9 to be amended to protect her hillside neighborhood with language excluding “high fire risk hillsides.”

Guess Nithya doesn't want a multi-unit apartment building next door to her home. Do you?