competitive

Voters will elect two new Los Angeles City Council members on Tuesday, one representing the San Fernando Valley, the other South Los Angeles.

In the 3rd District, businessman Tim Gaspar and longtime local government employee Barri Worth Girvan are vying to replace Bob Blumenfield, who is termed out. The district includes Canoga Park, Reseda, Tarzana, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.

In Council District 9, residents are preparing for a historic shift: No matter who wins, the district will elect a Latino council member for the first time since 1963.

The South L.A. district has long been represented by a Black council member, but over the last few decades it has undergone a demographic shift and today is about 80% Latino. Councilmember Curren Price also has termed out. Estuardo Mazariegos, co-director of the L.A. chapter of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, and Jose Ugarte, who previously served as a deputy chief of staff to Price, are vying for the seat.

District 3

Gaspar led the June primary with 46.1% of the vote compared to Worth Girvan, who secured 42.5%. Both candidates have spent the last few weeks of the campaign knocking on doors and making their case to voters, saying major issues like public safety and cleanliness are common concerns.

Gaspar, who founded an insurance agency in the Valley that he sold in 2021, would bring a pro-business perspective to City Hall, and among his top priorities would be eliminating “red tape” to stimulate small businesses in the region.

“We need somebody who’s going to come to the table with different ideas,” Gaspar said. “If we keep doing the same thing as before, we’re going to keep getting the same results.”

Worth Girvan, who worked as L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s district director for three years before running, would use her experience in the public sector to advocate for the West Valley.

“I am fortunate to have experience at every level of government,” she said. “That’s going to allow me to leverage relationships and know how to work together across jurisdictions to get things done.”

The race has been filled with accusations. Two weeks ago, Worth Girvan’s campaign published an ad featuring Christina Rackohn, a former employee whose family company merged with Gaspar’s insurance company, who alleged he created a hostile work environment.

Worth Girvan also filed an ethics complaint against Gaspar with the City Ethics Commission in October, alleging he failed to report more than $150,000 in personal and business expenditures related to his campaign and violated the city’s matching fund rules.

Gaspar called the allegations about creating a hostile working environment and violating campaign finance violations “lies.” He said he is focused on campaigning in the final week before the election.

Gaspar said Worth Girvan is a career politician who will only maintain the status quo.

“If she ends up getting elected, she’s going to have the same ideas and the same ways of addressing these issues as what got us into this mess in the first place,” he said.

On homelessness, Gaspar has criticized the city’s Inside Safe program and said a housing-first approach doesn’t work. He praised the anticamping zone law but believes the city should be tougher against encampments.

Worth Girvan supports Inside Safe but wants more permanent housing built instead of relying on interim housing. She would expand the city’s CIRCLE program, which provides 24/7 unarmed mobile response for nonviolent calls involving homeless individuals, to the West Valley.

In fundraising, Gaspar reported bringing in nearly $600,000 during the runoff campaign including matching funds, compared with about $287,000 for Worth Girvan.

District 9

Both Mazariegos and Ugarte share many similarities, including having arrived to the U.S. from Latin America as children and growing up undocumented. Both spent years working as community organizers, but now they diverge on issues such as policing and homeless policies.

Mazariegos and Ugarte were nearly evenly matched in fundraising, with both raising about $350,000 for the runoff in contributions and matching funds. Ugarte placed first in the June primary in a crowded field against five others, winning 39% of the vote. Mazariegos, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America‘s L.A. chapter, came in second with about 26%.

Ugarte’s campaign has received more than $1 million in support from independent expenditures, committees that can receive unlimited donations but cannot coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. Airbnb, Uber and the California Apartment Assn. are among the groups supporting Ugarte.

Mazariegos has criticized the companies supporting Ugarte’s candidacy, accusing them of attempting to displace low-income residents by pouring money into the election.

“They’re trying to displace our community. That’s what this fight is all about,” Mazariegos said. “I know this is a righteous campaign and a righteous cause with the people, alongside the people. Solo el pueblo salva al pueblo.” Only the people can save the people.

Ugarte said he has never met with Airbnb officials but would take a call from any group to figure out what is going to best benefit South L.A., including prioritizing protecting renters.

“I’d open my eyes and see what’s going to benefit South L.A.,” he said. “I want to focus on making South Central clean, safe and affordable.”

While both would defend immigrants, they diverge on issues such as the police budget. Ugarte supports Mayor Karen Bass’ goal of restoring the L.A. Police Department to 9,500 officers, while Mazariegos supports increasing oversight of the department’s budget and reducing its budget to fund other departments, including Recreation and Parks and the Bureau of Street Services.

Ugarte supports enforcing Municipal Ordinance 41.18, which prohibits camps near schools, daycare centers and other “sensitive” areas as a tool to clear homeless encampments. Mazariegos has said all the ordinance does is shuffle people around, and instead the focus should be on addressing addiction and mental health issues.

Mazariegos has been endorsed by Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, City Controller Kenneth Mejia, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), United Teachers Los Angeles, L.A. Forward and several labor unions.

Ugarte has been endorsed by the L.A. County Democratic Party, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Action Fund, Rep. Sydney Kamlager Dove, the late Dolores Huerta and Councilmember Tim McOsker.

The World Series is upon us, and this one should be a delight: The team with the best record in the National League, the Milwaukee Brewers, against the team with the best record in the American League, the Tampa Bay Rays.

The players are about to take baseball’s grandest stage. Yet this has somehow become a strange national obsession: not how Jacob Misiorowski or Junior Caminero might shine in the series, but how many people might watch it.

Should you care? Not really. Have you ever thought about watching a World Series game and thought, “Hmmm, let me consider what the ratings might be before I decide to tune in?”

Major League Baseball cares, of course, because its owners count on billions of dollars from the sale of television rights, and those rights are worth more money when more people watch the games. And, since the fog of a collective bargaining war has enveloped the sport, the ratings make for an intriguing subplot in the World Series.

This World Series is what owners say they want: less of, say, the Dodgers and the New York Yankees, more of teams from smaller markets that seldom advance through the playoffs, if they even get there. Neither the Brewers nor the Rays have won a World Series.

Yet the ratings for the Dodgers-Yankees World Series in 2024 almost doubled those for the Arizona Diamondbacks and Texas Rangers in 2023, and this year’s ratings should be much closer to 2023 than 2024.

So, in a sport that already generates the majority of its broadcast revenue in national rather than local packages, amid the collapse of regional sports networks, are the owners taking a risk of making less money on the World Series?

Fox currently airs the World Series as the jewel of a seven-year, $5.1-billion deal that expires in 2028.

Ed Desser, a Santa Monica-based consultant who launched NBA TV and helped negotiate the Dodgers’ record SportsNet LA deal, said the value of a World Series featuring teams such as the Dodgers and Yankees goes beyond the large audiences they command because they play in large markets.

“It’s commonplace for people to hate the Dodgers, hate the Yankees — and, to some extent, that’s good for business, because it’s another rooting interest. Anything that gets people to focus their attention is good,” Desser said. “It’s easy to hate a team that’s in a glamorous place and spends more than almost anybody.

“I’m not sure that anybody has an ax to grind against the Rays or the Brewers. Sports is about passion.”

That said, neither Desser nor Bob Thompson, the former president of Fox Sports Networks, believes MLB is setting itself up for a big fall in revenue from the Fall Classic.

For Fox — and whatever other bidders might emerge come 2028 — ratings would be important, but not as much as you might think.

“Does expected audience matter? Of course,” Desser said. “They’re in the media business, and the way you monetize is by selling subscriptions to your channel and selling advertising.

“But, typically, you’re taking a much longer viewpoint. You’re making a deal that might be five, eight, 12 years. When you do that, you have an expectation that some teams get better, some teams get worse, sometimes you get a large market, sometimes you get a small market. It kind of evens out.”

This is the fifth season of the current Fox contract. The 10 World Series berths have been spread among nine teams, with the Dodgers appearing twice.

To a broadcast outlet, Thompson said, financial success in the World Series is not just about ratings.

“It’s about how good the matchup is and how long the matchup goes. The bulk of the advertising is sold up front (before we know the teams),” Thompson said. “Ratings for the series aren’t going to be a huge deal, unless you’re selling time in, say, Game 6 and Game 7, where you can really be jacking your rates.”

Last year’s Dodgers-Blue Jays World Series extended to seven games, attracting viewers amid a dramatic finish and ultimately getting a higher rating than the 2024 Dodgers-Yankees series, even though Canadian viewers weren’t included in that Nielsen count. The Dodgers-Yankees series lasted five games, and the Dodgers beat up on the Yankees when the Yankees weren’t beating themselves.

Even if the World Series itself might be worth less with more lower-profile teams competing, Thompson said MLB could include it as part of a larger package, or dangle it as an incentive for streaming outlets or other new bidders.

He also noted that the latest MLB collective bargaining proposal calls for fewer regular-season games and more postseason games.

“Playoffs are going to get you a premium over regular-season games,” Thompson said.

And, to the extent that postseason ratings might be in decline, ratings for everything — sporting events, awards shows, news shows, dramas, comedies, you name it — are in decline. Only the NFL is immune to lower ratings.

“Big events matter more than they used to, even with smaller audiences,” Desser said. “The World Series is still a big event, and there is a premium for that.”

The three most-watched shows on broadcast television in the week of Oct. 5-11, according to Nielsen: Sunday Night Football (Atlanta Falcons vs. Baltimore Ravens) with 17 million viewers; SEC Football (Alabama vs. Georgia) with 12 million viewers; NLCS Game 1 (Dodgers vs. Brewers) with 11 million viewers.

The top entertainment show that week: Tracker (CBS), with 7.4 million viewers.

The owners will make their money on the World Series, one way or another.

“Even at a lower expectation for audience, there is still going to be that value,” Desser said. “It’s one of the biggest things happening in October.”