The mayor adds of the prospect of a second term: “You can [enact] policies but you have to follow up on them and make sure they’re working and find out where you can tweak them.” As for FilmLA, the city’s permitting office, whose longstanding chief resigned last year following sustained criticism, Bass acknowledges that “it could be improved — obviously, it’s not as effective as it should be.”

The meltdown in Hollywood’s backyard has been a decades-long, asleep-at-the-switch governance disaster. Other places — states, countries — lured jobs away with tax incentives. Vancouver and London are now where major movies and TV shows are made.

For a while, the streaming boom’s overall content spend masked this downturn. Then came the bust. The past couple years have seen historically low levels of shoot days in L.A. The declines have been escalating in recent months. Filming for TV shows ended 2025 over 50 percent below the five-year average, and features dropped off more than 30 percent in the same span.

Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom successfully raised the state’s cap on incentives from $330 million to $750 million. The programs in New York and Georgia remain more generous, yet the move demonstrates a serious attempt to regain production. During an April 15 press briefing for CBS’ 2026-2027 primetime lineup, Paramount chair of TV media George Cheeks noted that his company would like to shoot in California “as much as possible, but we do have a financial model that we have to hit,” adding that the state covering above-the-line costs with its tax credits would make it more attractive.

In March, the L.A. City Council unanimously greenlit some measures of its own to fight back. They include speeding up soundstage certification, better coordination of permit regulations, launching an independent audit of the permitting system and allowing free “microshoots” which involve just a few people. Adrin Nazarian, the councilman who proposed these efforts — his industry-oriented district includes North Hollywood, Studio City, Valley Village and Toluca Lake — is now pushing for new transparency and accountability for the filming office, as well as a pilot program to waive fees for productions with 50 or fewer personnel.

The three main mayoral candidates seem to have finally prioritized the problem, or at least understand its value as a cudgel against each other.

Pratt has offered a list of policy prescriptions, including slashing location fees “in half,” the creation of “a dedicated concierge team” to finesse problems, quicker permitting approvals, “zero on-set city staff for 90% of productions” and public subsidies for the local filming office which are currently paid for by fees from productions. He continued, “I will direct all departments to waive all location, staff, and inspection fees for shoots under $2M. I will mandate LADOT/Police/Fire instant pre-approvals for standard street closures and safety plans.” (Pratt wouldn’t discuss his proposals with THR.)

For her part, during her first term Bass has streamlined some processes and, in May 2025, issued a directive which required city departments to make iconic city properties like the Griffith Observatory more accessible and affordable for shoots by cutting review timelines and lowering certain fees. She also pushed to reduce the number of city staffers required to be on-set to just one, and to improve government-side communication about ongoing infrastructure projects around town that could impact shooting schedules.

Perhaps most surprising in this discussion is Nithya Raman, the insurgent progressive candidate who, as a city councilmember, represents an industry-heavy swath of L.A. including Sherman Oaks, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Koreatown, the Miracle Mile and the Hollywood Hills. Her initial 2020 council campaign was heavily supported by the entertainment business — she’s the former executive director of Time’s Up and her husband is a seasoned TV producer (30 Rock, Modern Family).

While Nazarian, her council district neighbor, has led the way with his reform efforts, Raman has been notably quiet on the issue, focusing attention instead on her signature civic concerns, like housing affordability. At least until Baywatch became a flashpoint in the mayoral race.

On Apr. 14 she wrote on the social platform X: “For too long, Los Angeles has treated Hollywood as an inconvenience rather than an asset. The result: 50,000 jobs lost. When I’m mayor, LA will be a reliable partner to film productions. We’ll staff a real city film office, eliminate fees for smaller productions, simplify permitting, and get rid of ridiculous conditions that stall production.”

Speaking to THR, her solutions — which center on cutting governmental red tape and pushing back against NIMBY residents who dissuade shoots — aren’t much different than those of her rivals. Raman’s main gist: Bass has done too little, too late.

“It doesn’t feel like our mayor has been fighting to keep the jobs with every tool at the city’s disposal,” she says. “It doesn’t feel like there’s changes in a timely manner. We need to respond to this issue with more urgency.” As Exhibit A, Raman pointed to a dedicated city film czar who was appointed in late 2024 and began working in early 2025 — deep into Bass’ term and L.A.’s production emergency. “That’s not good enough.”