Challenges for LA’s 2028 Olympic Plans

Los Angeles is already encountering a series of hurdles in its preparations for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. This includes a scramble for lucrative sponsorship deals and seeking transportation options for athletes and spectators across the city.

Now, there’s a possibility of facing another significant challenge. City officials indicate that a proposed vote could mandate public approval for at least five Olympic venues.

In June, Local 11, which represents hotel and restaurant workers, submitted a request for LA voters to greenlight the development or expansion of major “event centers.” This encompasses sports arenas, concert halls, hotels, and convention spaces. The initiative targets both permanent constructions and temporary installations exceeding 50,000 square feet or 1,000 seats.

Paul Krecorian, former city councillor who currently heads Mayor Karen Bass’s office for special events, identified five potential venues, including the Los Angeles Convention Center, the Swim Stadium at John C. Exposition Park, and the Sepulveda Basin recreation area in San Fernando Valley.

“These proposed measures could render our city and essential projects critical for hosting the games nearly impossible to realize,” Krecorian stated. “Even smaller projects would be subjected to costly special elections before they can proceed.”

Representatives from LA28, the nonprofit organizing the event, are reluctant to comment on how the proposal might affect Olympic venues, saying they’re just keeping an eye on the situation.

The initiative emerged partly in response to business groups that sought to overturn the “Olympic wages” legislation passed by the city council in May.

As of now, the association has yet to begin collecting signatures for the proposal, which is still under review by the city clerk’s office. If it qualifies, a vote may not occur until June 2026. Nevertheless, it has already sparked concern among city officials, who view it as irresponsible.

Traci Park, a councillor from the coastal region, expressed fears that if passed, this measure would require citywide votes on venues for Olympic events like road cycling, marathons, and triathlons. Moreover, she mentioned it could complicate efforts to attract new hotels or expand the convention center.

“This is an outright attack on our local economy. It’s mean-spirited and politically motivated,” she remarked.

Park, who voted against a $30 minimum wage for tourism workers, noted that efforts to raise wages have been supported here. Rep. Tim Makoskar echoed concerns about the proposal, calling it an “attack on workers.”

Makoskar, representing a district that includes the Port of Los Angeles, speculated that the proposal could force a vote on creating a temporary viewing area for Olympic sailing at Bath 46 in San Pedro, potentially leading to broader elections citywide.

“This negatively impacts the livelihoods of those producing and handling goods, along with those working in such facilities,” he said. “[The proposal] threatens real lives and damages the economy.”

Unite co-chair Ada Briceño, a candidate for the State Legislature, declined to respond to the proposal’s criticisms, while two other union representatives also did not comment.

The union’s proposal, titled “Articles Requiring Voters’ Approval for Major Development Projects,” posits that major venues like sports arenas do not always justify their costs.

Mary Hernandez, a spokesperson for Unite, stated earlier this year that the proposal would apply to Olympic venues of a specific scale but did not divulge details. She said it remains uncertain whether the voting proposal would hinder the expansion of the convention center, emphasizing the need for careful timing.

Notably, the voting proposal wouldn’t affect LA28 plans for facilities in nearby cities, meaning Los Angeles could potentially end up hosting only a few venues for the Games.

“If this appears on the ballot, there are projects that might relocate outside of Los Angeles instead of going through the voting process,” remarked Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commercial Group.

The economic future of the city might hinge on the success of LA28. Under the hosting contract, if the Olympics fail to break even, the city could bear up to $270 million in losses.

Critics have also raised concerns that the Olympic events could displace low-income tenants living near the venues.

Eric Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nolympics movement, argued that the public should have a say on whether to hold the Olympics. He expressed skepticism about the union’s proposal.

“The chances are higher that Angelenos will be voting on whether they want the Olympics,” he noted.

The proposed voting law by Unite outlines that hotels could adversely affect cities and impede the construction of new homes, placing additional burdens on social services. It similarly warns that large development projects often require significant taxpayer dollars.

These endeavors “could replace other projects that might better serve urban residents,” the measure asserts.