L.A.’s plan to host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games was already facing a thorny set of challenges, including the scramble to secure lucrative sponsorships and the search for buses to shuttle athletes and spectators across the region.
Now, organizers could soon be faced with yet another threat: a proposed ballot measure that, according to city officials, could force at least five Olympic venues to go before voters for approval.
Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel and restaurant workers, filed paperwork in June for a ballot measure requiring L.A. voters to sign off on the development or expansion of major “event centers” such as sports arenas, concert halls, hotels and convention facilities. The measure takes aim not just at permanent projects but also temporary structures, including those that add more than 50,000 square feet of space or 1,000 seats.
Former City Councilmember Paul Krekorian, who heads Mayor Karen Bass’ Office of Special Events, identified five Olympic venues that could be subjected to a citywide election, including the Los Angeles Convention Center, the John C. Argue Swim Stadium in Exposition Park and the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area in the San Fernando Valley, which is set to host skateboarding, 3-on-3 basketball and other competitions.
“The proposed measure would make vital projects essential for our city and these Games potentially impossible to complete,” Krekorian said in a statement to The Times. “It would also require costly special elections before even relatively small projects could begin.”
A representative for LA28, the nonprofit organizing the Games, declined to confirm whether any Olympic venues would be affected by the proposal, saying only that it is monitoring the situation.
Unite Here has billed the proposal as one of its responses to a business group that is seeking to overturn the so-called Olympic Wage passed by the City Council in May, which hikes the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour in 2028.
The union has not begun gathering signatures for the proposal, which is under review by the City Clerk’s office. If it qualifies, it likely wouldn’t appear on a ballot until June 2026. Nevertheless, it has already raised alarms at City Hall, where some elected officials have portrayed it as irresponsible.
Councilmember Traci Park, who represents coastal neighborhoods, said she fears the measure will force a citywide vote on an Olympic venue planned at Venice Beach, which is set to host road cycling, the marathon and the triathlon. She said it would also be more difficult for the city to attract new hotels and possibly expand its Convention Center.
“This is an absolute assault on our local economy. It’s spiteful and politically motivated,” she said.
Park, who voted against the $30 tourism minimum wage, has been at odds with Unite Here for more than a year. Councilmember Tim McOsker, whose 2022 election was backed by Unite Here and who supported the minimum wage hike, also voiced concerns, calling the proposed ballot measure “an attack on workers.”
McOsker, whose district includes the Port of Los Angeles, said he believes the proposal would force a vote on a plan to create a temporary viewing area for Olympic sailing at Berth 46 in San Pedro. He also fears it would trigger a citywide election for a 6,200-seat amphitheater planned in San Pedro’s West Harbor, a project that is not connected to the Games.
“This is bad for people who build things, bad for people who operate things, bad for people who work in buildings like these,” he said. “[The proposal] harms real people and it harms the economy.”
Ada Briceño, co-president of Unite Here Local 11 and also a candidate for state Assembly, declined to answer questions about the criticism of the proposal. Two other Unite Here representatives did not respond to The Times’ inquiries.
The union’s proposal, titled “Ordinance to Require Voter Approval of Major Development Projects,” argues that sports arenas and other major event venues “do not always justify their cost.”
Unite Here spokesperson Maria Hernandez told The Times earlier this year that the proposal would apply to Olympic venues that reach a certain size, but declined to give specifics. She said it was not clear whether the ballot proposal would impede efforts to expand the Convention Center, saying in an email that “it depends on the timing.”
The ballot proposal would not apply to athletic venues planned by LA28 in other nearby cities, such as Long Beach, Carson, Inglewood, Anaheim and El Monte. As a result, L.A. could face the potentially humiliating prospect of hosting a Games where only a handful of venues are within city limits.
“If it makes it on the ballot, there are projects and events that will be moved out of the city of Los Angeles rather than trying to win at the ballot box,” said Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., a business group.
The city’s future economic health could depend on the success or failure of LA28. Under its host agreement, the city would be on the hook for the first $270 million in losses if the Olympics end up in the red.
Critics have also voiced concern that the quadrennial athletic event could displace low-income tenants, particularly those who live near Olympic venues.
Voters should have been given the opportunity to decide whether L.A. should host the Olympics from the very beginning, said Eric Sheehan, spokesperson for NOlympics, which opposes the 2028 Games. Nevertheless, Sheehan voiced little enthusiasm for the union proposal, saying it doesn’t go far enough.
“What would be stronger would be the chance for Angelenos to vote on whether or not we want the Olympics at all,” he said.
The proposed ballot measure from Unite Here states that hotels can have harmful effects on a city, impeding the construction of new housing and creating a burden on social services. It goes on to offer similar warnings about large-scale development projects, saying they “often involve significant expenditures of taxpayer money” — an argument disputed by some city officials.
Those projects “may take the place of other projects that otherwise could have more directly benefited city residents,” the measure states.
Times staff writer Thuc Nhi Nguyen contributed to this report.
