Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Tonia Arey
Current job title: REALTOR
Age: 55
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: Calabasas
Campaign website or social media: arey4supervisor.com
Rate the job the current Board of Supervisors is doing. (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
If we’re being honest, which I am, the current Board of Supervisors is not getting the job done.
This isn’t about politics, it’s about results. And the results speak for themselves. Homelessness continues to grow while billions are spent with little accountability. Public safety concerns are rising, and residents don’t feel protected. Small businesses are struggling, yet enforcement is inconsistent at best. And when it comes to emergency preparedness, we’ve seen firsthand what happens when leadership fails to plan ahead.
The Board of Supervisors controls a massive budget and has enormous authority, but too often that power is used without transparency or measurable outcomes. Programs are funded, announcements are made, but where is the follow-through?
Residents deserve leadership that prioritizes execution over optics. Right now, it feels like the focus is on bureaucracy and politics instead of solving real problems on the ground.
I’m not interested in maintaining the status quo. The people of Los Angeles County deserve accountability, urgency and leadership that actually delivers results.
Due to impacts from federal government cuts to Medi-Cal, the Board of Supervisors put a measure on the June 2 ballot, a half-cent sales tax to raise about $1 billion to stop-gap financial losses and keep hospitals and clinics functioning. How do you stand on this ballot measure? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I understand the urgency; no one wants to see hospitals close or clinics shut down. But asking taxpayers to shoulder another permanent sales tax without first fixing how current dollars are being spent is the wrong approach, and it’s irresponsible.
We’re talking about nearly $1 billion a year. Before going back to residents, many of whom are already struggling, we need full transparency and accountability on where existing funds are going. Los Angeles County operates one of the largest budgets in the country, yet we continue to hear about shortfalls. That’s a management problem.
A sales tax is also the most regressive option; it hits working families and small businesses the hardest to make up for the Board of Supervisors’ shortcomings.
I’m not opposed to funding critical health care services. I am opposed to writing a blank check without structural reform. We should be auditing spending, eliminating waste and prioritizing essential services first. At the same time, we should be aggressively advocating for state and federal solutions rather than defaulting to local taxpayers.
This measure may be well-intentioned, but intention is not enough, and it will probably be mismanaged, and for what? We need responsible leadership that ensures every dollar is used effectively before asking for more.
The County is in a fight with LAHSA regarding homeless services and has formed its own Department of Homeless Services & Housing. What are your thoughts on that plan and the break from LAHSA? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Breaking from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority is long overdue, but simply creating a new department doesn’t fix the problem.
LAHSA has operated for years with limited accountability, unclear outcomes and billions spent without measurable results. So yes, change is necessary. But we can’t pretend that rebranding the same system under a new County department will suddenly deliver different outcomes.
If the County is going to take this on directly, then it needs to be a complete reset, clear metrics, real oversight and total transparency on where the money goes and what results are achieved.
No more blank checks.
No more programs that sound good but don’t move people off the streets.
We also need to shift the approach. Homelessness is not just a housing issue; it’s tied to mental health, addiction and public safety. Any new department must integrate those components, not ignore them.
This is an opportunity to get it right, but only if leadership is willing to do things differently. Otherwise, we’re just moving the same failed system to a different office and expecting a different result.
After the Palisades and Eaton fires, the County Fire and Sheriff have moved to develop a new CAD communications system to better notify residents in case of fire or other disaster. Have the Board of Supervisors and County departments done enough to prevent another such disaster? What else would you like to see implemented if you are elected? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
No, the Board of Supervisors has not done enough. And the biggest issue is the one no one wants to talk about: The Board of Supervisors took emergency preparedness away from the Sheriff and centralized it under themselves — they are not first responders. That decision weakened coordination, diluted accountability and put politics in a space where execution matters most.
A new CAD system is fine, but technology doesn’t fix leadership failures. You can’t patch over a broken chain of command with software.
What we saw with the fires wasn’t just a natural disaster; it exposed a lack of readiness, poor coordination and unclear authority. That’s on the Board.
If elected, I would restore clear operational control of emergency preparedness back to the Sheriff and those trained to execute: our first responders, including the Sheriff. I would implement unified command protocols, real-time interagency coordination and mandatory readiness audits so we know systems actually work before a crisis hits.
We also need infrastructure investment, vegetation management, evacuation route planning and hardened communication systems that don’t fail when we need them most.
Preparedness is not a talking point; it’s a responsibility. And right now, that responsibility is not being met. Emergency preparedness needs to be in the hands of those who train for it every day.
More specifically, what would you do to get LA County residents more prepared for a fire or other major disaster, such as a major earthquake? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Preparedness starts with leadership, and right now it’s lacking.
First, I would restore clear command to trained professionals, our first responders, so there’s no confusion in a crisis. Then I’d focus on the public, because an informed resident is a safer resident.
We need a countywide, no-excuses preparedness campaign: simple, direct and repeated. Every household should know evacuation routes, how to sign up for alerts and what to do in the first 5–10 minutes of a disaster. That means text alerts that actually work, community drills and partnerships with schools, HOAs and local businesses.
I would also require annual readiness audits. Don’t tell us the system works, prove it. Test alerts. Test coordination. Fix what fails.
Infrastructure matters too: clear evacuation routes, proper vegetation management and backup communication systems that don’t collapse when power goes out.
And finally, accountability. If something fails, we identify it, fix it and report it publicly.
Preparedness isn’t complicated — it just requires urgency, coordination and leadership willing to treat it like the life-and-death responsibility that it is. Boots on the ground.
The county’s voters approved Measure G, bringing the number of supervisors up to nine. Other changes include requirements for the county CEO to be elected and for department heads to present budgets periodically to the Board of Supervisors as an act of transparency in budgeting. Give your thoughts on Measure G, its changes and future changes to county governance. (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
Measure G reflects real frustration; people want accountability. I agree with that. But expanding from five to nine supervisors raises a basic question: Where is the money coming from? More supervisors means more salaries, more staff, more overhead, and at a time when the County is already asking taxpayers for more. A seven-member board is a more responsible balance, better representation without unnecessary cost.
I’m also concerned about the shift to an elected CEO. That position will likely come with a higher salary and a larger administrative structure. More importantly, it shifts power away from the Board and into a single office that can override decisions with little real-time rebuttal. That’s not accountability, that’s consolidation under a different title.
The requirement for department heads to present budgets is common sense and long overdue.
But overall, Measure G risks adding cost and concentrating power instead of fixing performance. True reform isn’t about creating new positions; it’s about making sure the people already in office are doing their jobs, transparently and effectively, with real consequences when they don’t.
People who comment on a board item or a general comment are limited to one minute. Some say that is way too short for them to fully express their opinion. The County says they often have hundreds who request to speak on the same item, dragging out meetings until evening. Do you agree with the one-minute rule? Why or why not? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
I don’t agree with the one-minute rule.
We work for the people, not the other way around. Public comment isn’t a formality; it’s the foundation of accountability. Limiting residents to 60 seconds to speak on issues that impact their lives, their safety and their livelihoods is dismissive.
I understand the Board has long agendas and a large turnout. But the solution isn’t to silence people — it’s to manage the process better. Whether that’s extending time for major agenda items or adding additional hearing days, there are ways to balance efficiency without cutting off the public.
People should have at least 5 minutes to speak. That’s a reasonable amount of time to make a clear, thoughtful point.
Right now, it feels like the system is designed for the convenience of government, not accessibility for residents. That is unacceptable and needs to change.
If we want public trust, we have to actually listen — and that starts by giving people the time to be heard.
All the Board of Supervisors are also placed on the LA Metro board, a powerful board in itself. Do you believe all nine members should serve on the board? And, should the LA Metro board, at the request of Fourth District Supervisor Janice Hahn, add actual transit riders to the Metro board, in addition or instead of nine supervisors? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is too important to be treated like an extension of the Board of Supervisors.
I don’t believe all nine supervisors should automatically sit on the Metro board. That concentrates too much power in one group and limits independent oversight. Metro is responsible for billions in taxpayer dollars and decisions that impact daily life across the county; it needs a broader, more balanced governing structure.
I do support adding actual transit riders. If you’re making decisions about safety, reliability and service, you should have people at the table who use the system every day — not just those overseeing it from a distance.
That said, this shouldn’t be symbolic. Rider representatives should be vetted, qualified and have a real vote, not just a seat for optics.
We need a Metro board that reflects both governance and real-world experience. Less consolidation, more accountability and voices that understand what’s actually happening on the ground.
That’s how you build a system people trust — and actually want to use.
Recently, the Board of Supervisors has been using public health and emergency powers, meaning it can pass laws (i.e., for rent stabilization, price-gouging, eviction restrictions, etc.) countywide, affecting not just unincorporated areas of L.A. County, but all 88 cities as well. Do you believe this is justified or too much power? Does this help with these issues? Please explain your thinking. (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
I believe that is too much power.
Emergency authority should be used narrowly, temporarily and only when absolutely necessary — not as a way for the Board of Supervisors to govern all 88 cities from the top down. During the COVID emergency, the County used its emergency framework to set countywide tenant protections as a baseline across incorporated cities in many cases, and price-gouging restrictions likewise applied during a declared emergency.
That may sound helpful in theory, but in practice, it concentrates too much power in five people and blurs local control. One-size-fits-all policy rarely works in a county this large and diverse. What may make sense in one area may not fit another.
I believe government works for the people, not the other way around. The Board should not be using emergency powers as a back door to expand its reach indefinitely.
Real emergencies require targeted action, clear limits and sunset dates.
Do these powers help sometimes? Yes, in the short term. But long term, they can create confusion, overreach and less accountability.
We need lawful, transparent governance, not permanent rule by emergency.
Responding to a surge in jail deaths over the past year, the Board of Supervisors has called on the Sheriff’s Department and other agencies to implement a series of wide-ranging reforms. Supervisors demanded more thorough security screenings and safety checks at the jails, consistent monitoring of surveillance cameras and better access to drug treatment and drug reversal medications. What do you think of this approach to the problem? What else, in your opinion, needs to be done? (Please limit your answer to 200 words or less.)
The surge in jail deaths is unacceptable — full stop. But what we’re seeing from the Board of Supervisors is reactive, not proactive.
Calling for more screenings, camera monitoring and access to treatment sounds right — but where was the oversight before this crisis escalated? These are basic responsibilities, not new ideas.
We need real accountability. That starts with clear leadership and defined responsibility between the Board and the Sheriff’s Department. Right now, there’s too much finger-pointing and not enough ownership.
I support stronger mental health and addiction treatment inside the jails, including access to drug reversal medications. But we also need consistent staffing, proper training and enforced protocols that are actually followed — not just written down.
There should be independent audits, real-time reporting of incidents, and consequences when failures occur. And we need to expand diversion programs so people struggling with addiction or mental illness aren’t cycling through jails in the first place.
This isn’t complicated; it’s about execution. The system didn’t fail overnight and it won’t be fixed with press releases. It requires leadership willing to take responsibility and deliver results.