Tanya Tsikanovsky on Homelessness and Local Politics in West Hollywood

Shabbos Kestenbaum speaks with Tanya Tsikanovsky, a conservative activist and candidate for West Hollywood City Council, about homelessness, local policy and political identity. They begin with a proposal for publicly funded sexual-relief facilities made by a member of the public at a Los Angeles City Council meeting. It was a public comment, not an adopted city proposal.

Tsikanovsky says she initially thought the idea came from the council but later learned it was a public comment. She criticizes the suggestion and links her broader concern to the council’s handling of homeless encampments. Her assessment of local policy is an argument, not evidence that the city adopted the commenter’s idea.

The guest questions California’s spending on homelessness, saying that large sums have not solved the problem. Kestenbaum cites figures for homelessness and unemployment and asks how the state reached this point. Tsikanovsky attributes the situation partly to what she sees as mismanagement and policies that burden employers and landlords.

She argues that wage and leave requirements can become unsustainable for some businesses, and that the resulting closures can hurt workers too. She also questions state control over housing placement under SB 79, saying local governments should have more say in a small city such as West Hollywood.

Kestenbaum cites approximately $24 billion in state funding over five years and says homelessness increased over that period. The California State Auditor’s 2024 report describes nearly $24 billion allocated for homelessness and housing affordability from 2018–19 through 2022–23, and found gaps in tracking costs and outcomes; the figure is not a per-person payment.

Asked about California’s budget, Tsikanovsky criticizes raising taxes on wealthy residents and says she fears more people will leave the state. Kestenbaum cites migration figures and asks how leaders could persuade residents across income groups to stay or move to California.

Tsikanovsky says she wants to improve California but worries about its direction. As a local example, she opposes a Fountain Avenue bike-lane plan, arguing that removing a vehicle lane and parking would push traffic onto side streets. She also raises concerns about the effects of new high-rises on rent-stabilized residents.

The candidate describes herself as a first-generation American whose parents arrived as refugees from the Soviet Union in 1979. She says their experience shaped her belief in American opportunity, and frames her candidacy as an effort to defend the values they taught her.

Kestenbaum asks about immigration enforcement. Tsikanovsky supports stronger borders but says people whose only violation is entering unlawfully, and who otherwise contribute, should have a path to citizenship. She favors removing people in the country unlawfully who commit other crimes.

She expresses support for police and immigration enforcement while acknowledging that individual officers do not always follow the rules. She opposes calls to defund police or abolish ICE and frames her position as a matter of security. Her broader claims about migrants’ intentions are her political views.

The conversation turns to divisions over gender identity and sexual orientation. Tsikanovsky says adults should have freedom and safety, but argues for a distinction between women and trans women and for some separate spaces. She relates this view to her own experience as a lesbian and to a medical experience involving an ovary.

Tsikanovsky says she wants trans people to have protections and freedoms, while also wanting spaces for women and lesbians. She objects to pressure to combine every group into the same space, and says people should be able to live according to their identity without being required to join a particular movement.

Finally, Kestenbaum asks about socialism and the Democratic Socialists of America. Tsikanovsky criticizes socialist politics through the lens of her family’s experience leaving the USSR. She makes strong accusations about named politicians’ intentions; these are her characterizations, not established findings. Kestenbaum closes by thanking her and wishing her well in the race.