Los Angeles’s ambitious plan to host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games is already navigating a challenging landscape, including the rush to secure lucrative sponsorships and the logistical nightmare of arranging transportation for athletes and spectators across the sprawling region.
Compounding these existing challenges, city officials have raised alarms over a proposed ballot measure that could mandate citywide voter approval for at least five Olympic venues, complicating the planning process even further.
Filed by Unite Here Local 11 in June, the measure aims to require Los Angeles voters to approve the development or expansion of major event centers, which encompasses sports arenas, concert halls, hotels, and convention facilities.
This initiative targets not only permanent projects but also temporary infrastructures like tents and other structures if they add over 50,000 square feet of space or 1,000 seats, a requirement that could significantly halt progress on Olympic preparations.
Paul Krekorian, former city councilmember and current head of Mayor Karen Bass’s Office of Special Events, identified several Olympic venues potentially affected by this measure. These include the Los Angeles Convention Center, the John C. Argue Swim Stadium located in Exposition Park, and the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area in the San Fernando Valley, which is set to host competitions such as skateboarding and 3-on-3 basketball.
Krekorian expressed grave concerns, stating, “The proposed measure would make vital projects essential for our city and these Games potentially impossible to complete. It would also require costly special elections before even relatively small projects could begin.”
Meanwhile, a representative from LA28, the nonprofit organization responsible for organizing the Games, did not confirm the impact of the proposal on Olympic venues but indicated that they are closely monitoring the developments.
The union behind the proposal asserts it as a response to a business group combating the recently passed Olympic Wage, which elevates the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour by 2028.
Although Unite Here has not begun collecting signatures for the ballot measure currently undergoing review by the City Clerk’s office, if it qualifies, it’s expected not to appear on ballots until June 2026.
This impending initiative has sparked significant concern among elected officials at City Hall, some of whom deem it irresponsible. For instance, Councilmember Traci Park articulated her fears regarding the measure forcing a citywide vote on an Olympic venue planned for Venice Beach, which is scheduled to host road cycling, the marathon, and the triathlon.
Park, who has battled Unite Here over issues including the $30 minimum wage, labeled the proposal as “an absolute assault on our local economy” and expressed concerns that it would complicate efforts to attract new hotels and expand the Convention Center.
Councilmember Tim McOsker, who garnered support from Unite Here during his 2022 election and endorsed the minimum wage increase, also voiced skepticism about the proposed measure, describing it as “an attack on workers” that could negatively impact more than just Olympic-related projects.
McOsker fears the measure may instigate a citywide vote on plans for a temporary viewing area for Olympic sailing at Berth 46 in San Pedro, as well as proposals for a new 6,200-seat amphitheater in the area, which is unrelated to the Games.
He lamented, “This is bad for people who build things, bad for people who operate things, bad for people who work in buildings like these. The proposal harms real people and it harms the economy.”
Ada Briceño, co-president of Unite Here Local 11 and a state Assembly candidate, has refrained from addressing criticisms regarding the proposal.
Unite Here’s proposal is titled “Ordinance to Require Voter Approval of Major Development Projects,” arguing that sports arenas and major event venues often do not justify their high costs to the city.
A spokesperson for the union, Maria Hernandez, stated earlier in the year that while the measure is aimed at Olympic venues exceeding a certain size, specifics were not disclosed. Hernandez did mention uncertainty regarding whether the ballot proposal could hinder efforts to expand the Convention Center, dependent primarily on timing.
Importantly, the ballot measure would not extend to athletic venues set up by LA28 in nearby cities such as Long Beach, Carson, Inglewood, Anaheim, and El Monte. This raises the potential for Los Angeles facing an embarrassing situation wherein only a few venues related to the Games are situated within city limits.
Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, warned that if the measure makes it to the ballot, it could drive projects and events out of Los Angeles as they attempt to circumvent the need to succeed in a ballot vote.
With the city’s economic future possibly hinging on the success of LA28, the implications of such a measure could be disastrous. Under the host agreement, the city would bear the initial $270 million in losses should the Olympics not meet financial expectations.
Concerns extend beyond economic ramifications, with critics highlighting the risk of displacement for low-income residents, particularly those living near Olympic venues.
Eric Sheehan, spokesperson for NOlympics and a critic of the 2028 Games, emphasized that voters should have been consulted at the outset about hosting the Olympics. However, he expressed limited enthusiasm for the Unite Here proposal, asserting it does not sufficiently address the issue.
Sheehan remarked, “What would be stronger would be the chance for Angelenos to vote on whether or not we want the Olympics at all.”
The Unite Here proposal brings to light the various aspects of urban planning, socioeconomic implications, and community engagement surrounding the Olympics, raising critical questions about the future of Los Angeles as the host city.
image source from：latimes
