Charter Reform Must Deliver a Capital Infrastructure Program and the Leadership to Match
Who is in charge of public infrastructure in Los Angeles? As the City prepares to host the 2028 Olympics and faces a $1 billion budget deficit, that question has never been more urgent. Our sidewalks, streets, and parks are strained, crumbling, and governed by a fragmented system with no clear leader. The Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission will hold public meetings on planning and infrastructure on October 18 in Pacoima and October 22 at City Hall. These conversations are a critical opportunity to focus not just on what we build, but how we manage it and who is responsible.
What Los Angeles needs is not just more funding. It needs clarity, coordination, and leadership. The City needs a Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP), and it needs someone clearly accountable for delivering it. Everyone agrees the system is broken. Everyone agrees we need a plan. But few are asking the most important question: Who is in charge of making it happen?
Earlier this year, Investing in Place called for the creation of a Director of Public Works — an executive-level leader to coordinate infrastructure across departments and manage a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program. But in the months since, we have heard growing consensus that this role must carry more weight. A job this central to the future of LA’s public infrastructure needs the authority and visibility of a Chief of Public Works. This person should be a peer to the Police Chief or Fire Chief, accountable to the Mayor, trusted by the public, and hired through a national search.
This shift from a director to a chief underscores how serious we must be about reform. This is not just about changing org charts or moving departments around. LA’s current infrastructure system is fragmented, reactive, and stuck in short-term cycles. The City adopts its budget each June for the fiscal year beginning July 1. But by October, just four months in, staff are already writing internal memos for the following year’s budget. There is little time to assess progress or reset priorities. It becomes less about long-term planning and more about managing under pressure, motion by motion and crisis by crisis. Departments are expected to coordinate without a shared direction, because currently no long-term goals are identified or tracked.
A well-defined Capital Infrastructure Program would change the way Los Angeles does business. It does not require moving every department into one place. What it does require is getting everyone on the same page, working from a shared, multi-year playbook. It focuses on outcomes, not just on rearranging boxes in an org chart. Departmental changes might eventually be necessary, but that is a conversation for further down the line. First, we need structural reform that makes coordination possible and sets the City up to deliver on the basics. A CIP provides staff with a consistent and transparent work plan that is budgeted and tracked over time. It reduces the need for political workarounds or reactive motions just to get a streetlight fixed or a stop sign installed. This is how we move from chasing problems to delivering results. And this is why leadership, accountability, and Charter-level commitment must come first.
A Capital Infrastructure Program led by a Chief of Public Works would bring the structure and clarity Los Angeles needs. But these reforms cannot be left to departmental memos or piecemeal legislative changes. The City Charter must define the Capital Infrastructure Program and require a public, five-year plan with clearly prioritized projects, timelines, and funding sources. It must also establish the processes that guide how the plan is developed, updated, and shared with the public. This includes how projects are selected, how departments coordinate, and how progress is measured. Most importantly, the Charter must name who is responsible for delivering the plan. Los Angeles needs a Chief of Public Works to lead this work—someone with the authority to hold departments accountable and the responsibility to keep the public informed. Without this clarity, coordination will remain optional and accountability will remain elusive.
Some have proposed more modest changes, like merging departments or shifting responsibilities without updating the Charter. We strongly disagree. Los Angeles has spent decades trying to legislate around structural dysfunction. It has not worked. If we want long-overdue reform, we need to build it into the foundation.
Right now, even the City’s most high-profile planning effort — a Capital Infrastructure Program tied to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games — has no dedicated funding and is relying on pro bono assistance. It is scheduled to be published in January, but its future remains uncertain. That speaks volumes.We cannot build a modern, well-run city on volunteer time. And we cannot leave something as critical as the City’s Capital Infrastructure Program up to the priorities of whichever mayor happens to be in office.
This work must be embedded in how the City is managed. It must be defined in the Charter, staffed appropriately, and funded as a core public responsibility. That is how we build continuity, public trust, and long-term impact.
In the months ahead, Investing in Place will continue listening, researching, and learning to inform our full set of recommendations. But we are speaking up now because in all the Charter Reform conversations so far, one critical question is being overlooked. Who is in charge? This cannot be a rhetorical question. It must be answered in the City Charter. Our recommendation is clear: Los Angeles needs a Chief of Public Works — someone with the authority, technical expertise, and public accountability to deliver a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program.
As the Charter Commission begins to develop its recommendations, this is the moment to ask: Who will be responsible for leading LA’s Capital Infrastructure Program? Is it the Mayor? City Council? A Board? Or a Chief Executive? These questions are foundational, and they need to be discussed now. Report-backs from the October 22 meeting should clearly lay out the options, because the public deserves to know who will be accountable for delivering the infrastructure this city needs.
Public infrastructure shapes everything from mobility and climate resilience to economic opportunity and quality of life. When it fails, it is not just inefficient. It is unjust. The upcoming Charter Commission meetings are an opportunity to fix that. Let us not settle for surface fixes. Let us define the CIP. Let us name a Chief. And let us finally give Los Angeles the tools it needs to care for its public spaces and the people who use them.
