 In the midst of the full might of the Trump regime’s brutal racial terror campaign that has been viciously unleashed on Los Angeles, Traci Park instead chose to praise the LAPD. The recipient of over a million dollars from the LA Police Protective League during her 2022 campaign, Park took to Instagram this week to praise the LAPD for their work in escalating tensions, shooting journalists, and trampling protesters over the last several days of clashes. She instead chose to focus on property destruction and graffiti, as though that is the greatest source of injustice we’ve experienced over the last week. In a moment where the Trump administration has egregiously violated the Constitution and even the pretense of due process, Traci Park seemingly can’t bring herself to condemn what is being done to the city she is elected to represent. Other electeds throughout the city, county, and state have been unwavering in naming that this violence and chaos are a result of the Trump administration’s actions, but Traci Park has yet to make any statement of similar clarity.
Let’s review what has happened in Traci Park’s own district over the last several days. On Sunday afternoon, as the protests in Downtown LA were gripping the world’s attention, ICE agents were conducting brutal raids throughout the Westside. A car wash on Venice Boulevard was raided, and several workers were taken away. This action was so brazen and so shocking that a press conference was held condemning the raid; several local elected officials were present, but Traci declined to attend. Fruit vendors along Venice and Sepulveda were similarly snatched, as well as day laborers from Home Depot. As the week went on, videos of arrests in Westchester went viral, including one of roofers working on a residential street. These were all violent seizures directed at anyone who was brown and working jobs where they were likely to not have legal documentation—in other words, ICE was conducting seizures in full tactical gear under blatant racial discrimination, rather than any form of due process or judicial oversight. Furthermore, it’s important to remember that these raids were happening under the shadow of Trump ordering the National Guard to Los Angeles, overriding Gavin Newsom for the first time. In the following days, Pete Hegseth, the alcoholic, scandal-ridden head of the Department of Defense, ordered the deployment of 500 Marines against the people of Los Angeles. Somehow, Traci Park cannot find it in her heart to condemn this authoritarianism and violence, even as it pounds on the doorsteps of her constituents. Los Angeles is 47% Latino; to not understand the horrors and pain that the Trump administration is inflicting on our city is a dereliction of duty in this moment. As a reminder, Bill Simon of the Heritage Foundation was Traci Park’s advisor during her initial campaign in 2022. She is close allies with Joel Pollack of Breitbart, appearing on a podcast he co-hosts as recently as less than a month ago. After the horrific LA fires earlier this year, Traci went out of her way to thank Trump for supporting the police, rather than confronting him for threatening to withhold resources from wildfire victims. It should really come as no surprise that she is incapable of condemning the Trump administration, given that her entire political career has been based on courting the far right. Los Angeles has a long history of mass rebellions against the excesses of state violence. From the Watts Rebellion to the 1992 Rodney King riots to the 2020 BLM uprisings, part of our culture as a city has been to rebel against racial injustice. These moments are scary and, yes, in some instances have led to the tragic loss of life, but they are also an expression of agony when the traditional avenues of politics and justice have failed. We are living through one such failure now. The failure of elected officials like Traci Park to intervene and name the obvious fascism of the Trump administration has led us to this point. People are rebelling because all of the legal processes and checks that were supposed to stop madmen like Trump have failed. If Traci Park had any moral backbone—if she weren’t so deeply embedded with the right—she would be able to condemn this.
0 Comments
 Traci Park is once again leading the charge to criminalize poverty in Los Angeles. Her latest motion, introduced May 16th, proposes yet another massive expansion of LA Municipal Code 41.18, the controversial ordinance that bans sitting, lying, or sleeping in public spaces. This time, Park is calling for the creation of an ordinance that would automatically and permanently ban unhoused residents from being near not only schools (as is current law), but also all parks, libraries, homeless shelters, freeways, post offices, and fire and police stations citywide.
This would be one of the broadest applications of 41.18 yet, functionally turning most public space into off-limits zones for people experiencing homelessness. The timing is no accident. Park’s motion arrives just days after Governor Gavin Newsom called on cities to begin enforcing the Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that could gut legal protections for unhoused people and pave the way for camping bans nationwide. In her latest newsletter, Park openly celebrated Newsom’s directive, boasting that she has been clearing encampments on the Westside “from day one.” This isn’t policymaking — it’s political theater, designed to appease wealthy property owners and hardline NIMBYs at the expense of the most vulnerable Angelenos. What Park is proposing goes far beyond current law. Under the existing 41.18 framework, exclusion zones must be designated individually by council vote, typically after public hearings and community input. Park now wants to short-circuit that process entirely, creating a default ban on unhoused existence across huge swaths of the city. If passed, this would set a dangerous precedent: homelessness itself would essentially become illegal near almost any public or civic space. With permanent enforcement zones near nearly every neighborhood institution, people with nowhere else to go would face constant displacement, ticketing, and arrest, all for the act of surviving in public. The harm of this approach is well-documented. As Human Rights Watch has shown, LA’s sanitation sweeps and enforcement of 41.18 have led to the routine destruction of personal belongings, including life-saving medication, ID documents, and family heirlooms. People are cited and arrested for minor infractions, pushed into jails or forced into shelters that function more like carceral facilities than pathways to housing. These sweeps are expensive, traumatic, and counterproductive. They do not result in permanent housing placements and often disconnect people from the outreach workers and services that are their best hope of getting off the street. Legal experts, civil liberties organizations, and even some city officials have repeatedly warned that criminalization not only fails to solve homelessness--it also increases the city’s legal exposure. While the Supreme Court ruled in Grants Pass that these sweeps do not violate Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, they may still violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure. Confiscating property during encampment sweeps remains constitutionally questionable and a frequent trigger for lawsuits. Cities like Los Angeles are already facing legal challenges and settlements that cost taxpayers millions, all to defend a strategy that doesn’t work. Fortunately, this particular motion is unlikely to move forward--not because Park sees the light, but because it must first clear the Housing and Homelessness Committee, chaired by Bob Blumenfield and including progressive Councilmembers Nithya Raman and Ysabel Jurado, both of whom have been outspoken critics of 41.18 and advocates for housing-first solutions. Neither Raman nor Jurado is likely to let this motion pass out of committee. But that doesn’t mean the danger has passed. As Newsom veers to the right and right-wing members of City Council continue pushing ever-expanding enforcement, the progressive bloc must take decisive action now. The first step is simple: repeal 41.18 enforcement zones in their own districts and begin working toward a full repeal of the ordinance citywide. Los Angeles is at a turning point. The approach backed by Traci Park of constant displacement, criminalization, and failed enforcement has brought us no closer to solving homelessness. It’s a policy of optics, not outcomes. If we want real change, we need elected officials who reject bluster and scapegoating in favor of solutions that center housing, dignity, and community safety for everyone. That begins with standing up to motions like this, and standing in solidarity with those most impacted. Traci Park Aligns with Newsom’s Call to Criminalize Homelessness, Despite Data and Expert Warnings5/17/2025  In a recent newsletter, Los Angeles City Councilmember Traci Park praised Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest directive encouraging cities to use the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision to increase enforcement against homeless encampments. “I’ve been doing that on the Westside from day one,” Park wrote, referring to the frequent encampment clearings and expansion of anti-camping zones in her district. She also announced new legislation to expand Los Angeles’s controversial ordinance, LAMC 41.18, which prohibits sitting or sleeping in many public areas.
Park’s support for heightened enforcement comes as a growing number of civil rights organizations, public health experts, and unhoused advocates warn that this strategy not only fails to address homelessness, but deepens the crisis. The Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling, issued in 2024, overturned a key legal precedent that had protected unhoused people from being cited or arrested when no shelter was available. In response, Newsom urged cities to use the ruling to increase enforcement, framing it as a solution to what he called “unacceptable conditions” in public spaces. But legal advocates argue that what’s being framed as public order is, in effect, the criminalization of poverty. “The Grants Pass decision gives cities legal cover to punish people for being homeless,” said Adrienna Wong, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. “That’s not a solution. It’s a human rights violation.” Park has positioned herself as a leader in enforcement-first homelessness policy in Los Angeles. Her district, which includes Venice, has been the site of frequent encampment sweeps. Park has expanded the use of LAMC 41.18, adding dozens of new locations—such as senior centers and fire-prone areas—where unhoused people are now prohibited from resting. Despite the aggressive approach, the data doesn’t support its effectiveness. A 2024 report from the City Controller’s office found that, over two years of enforcing 41.18, only two people were placed into permanent housing. The vast majority of those displaced simply moved to nearby blocks or returned after city staff left. The report also found that 81% of cleared encampment sites were re-occupied. “What we’re seeing is churn, not solutions,” said an outreach worker in CD11 who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation. “We move people around, destroy their tents and medications, and tell them they’re not welcome anywhere. Then we’re surprised when they don’t just disappear.” The enforcement-heavy approach also comes at a high cost. Millions of dollars have been spent on police-led sweeps, sanitation operations, and fencing off public spaces—money that advocates argue could be used to fund housing and services. Meanwhile, unhoused residents report that belongings are regularly confiscated or destroyed, including ID documents, medication, and survival gear. Dr. Margot Kushel, a UCSF physician and homelessness researcher, warns that the strategy is actively harmful. “When you disrupt someone’s stability—however fragile—it becomes harder to engage them in care or connect them to housing,” she said. “Sweeps don’t make people safer. They make them sicker.” Park’s support for Governor Newsom’s directive has raised alarm among civil rights organizations. In a joint statement, several California ACLU chapters called Newsom’s plan a “cruel tactic” that prioritizes visibility over solutions. The statement emphasized that cities should not be rewarded for displacing unhoused people under the guise of public safety. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board, which often supports centrist policies, warned against using the Grants Pass decision to expand enforcement. “Shooing \[people] from one street to another does not solve homelessness,” the board wrote, specifically criticizing Park’s call for Los Angeles to act quickly to avoid becoming a “magnet” for unhoused people from stricter jurisdictions. In response to such criticisms, Park and her supporters argue that enforcement is necessary to maintain public space and connect people with services. But outreach workers and service providers say the evidence tells a different story. “People don’t accept services during sweeps. They’re in survival mode,” said the outreach worker. “If the goal is housing, this isn’t how we get there.” Instead of expanding punitive policies, advocates are calling for permanent supportive housing, rental subsidies, and investment in health care and mental health services—solutions backed by decades of research and recommended by nearly every major public health authority. As Los Angeles enters another summer without enough shelter beds, Park’s latest legislative push shows the city doubling down on a failed and deeply harmful approach. While the politics of enforcement may appeal to some constituents, the human and fiscal costs continue to grow. “In a city with tens of thousands of unhoused people, we need real solutions—not criminalization dressed up as policy,” said Wong. “Housing ends homelessness. Sweeps do not.” LA City Council Wants to Censor Slurs at Public Meetings — But Where Does Traci Park Stand?5/11/2025  LA City Council is advancing a motion to censor the use of the N-word, C-word, and other slurs during public comment at City Hall. The move comes in response to recent outbursts of racist and misogynistic language during council meetings, prompting members to explore ways to maintain decorum while balancing First Amendment protections.
But while most councilmembers are eager to signal their opposition to hate speech, there's one councilmember whose record raises uncomfortable questions: Traci Park. Before her election, Park famously defended the City of Anaheim in a workplace harassment case that involved repeated use of the N-word against an African American employee. In Harrell v. City of Anaheim (2021), Park represented the city and its deputy public works director, who was accused of using the slur in front of a Black subordinate on multiple occasions, along with other racist remarks and humiliations. The employee alleged he was fired in retaliation for complaining. Park, as the city's attorney, argued to dismiss the harassment claims, effectively taking the position that such language did not constitute actionable workplace harassment. The court rejected that argument and allowed the case to proceed, recognizing the severity of the allegations. Now, as the Council considers whether to censor the same slur from public comment, Park’s silence is deafening. If she supports the motion, she must reckon with her own record of excusing racist language when it was politically or professionally convenient. If she opposes it, she aligns herself with those who see no issue in allowing hate speech to persist in civic spaces. The motion has also drawn serious pushback from free speech advocates. Organizations like the First Amendment Coalition, ACLU of Southern California, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have warned the Council that this policy would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. In formal public comments, these groups pointed out that offensive language, while reprehensible, is still constitutionally protected speech—especially in a public forum like a City Council meeting. FIRE specifically noted that banning specific words without regard to context constitutes "unconstitutional content-based discrimination." They cautioned that the Council's role is not to police speech based on emotional impact, and that vague bans on “offensive” language risk chilling legitimate political discourse. Even the most odious slurs, they argue, must be confronted through counterspeech, not censorship. This creates an awkward tension. Councilmembers want to be seen taking a stand against hate, but they risk trampling over free speech rights in the process. Park, an attorney by trade, surely understands these constitutional concerns. The question is whether her political instincts—or her personal record—will dictate her position. Traci Park can’t dodge this one. Voters deserve to know: Will she stand for free speech, or is she only interested in controlling the narrative when it suits her?  Traci Park’s latest newsletter paints a disturbing picture of her priorities as a City Councilmember. At a time when Los Angeles faces deepening inequality, skyrocketing housing costs, and renewed threats to immigrant families, Park is choosing to invest in expanding LAPD’s surveillance capabilities, defending exploitative wages, and parroting Trump-style fear tactics. It’s not just tone-deaf—it’s dangerous.
She leads the newsletter with a claim about protecting children by reassigning crossing guards to higher-enrollment schools like Nora Sterry and Brentwood Science Magnet. On its face, it sounds like basic governance. But her broader agenda actually puts many children and families in greater danger. Park says nothing about the fear undocumented parents feel when dropping their kids off at school while ICE lurks in neighborhoods. She’s silent on what it means to be a student in Los Angeles today—especially for those living under the shadow of Trump’s revived mass deportation plans. Her version of “safety” ignores the very real danger of family separation, raids, and surveillance that disproportionately target immigrants and communities of color. So what is Park actually prioritizing? As usual, it's the police, who have shoveled hundreds of thousands of dollars into her campaign coffers. She wants to expand LAPD’s Real Time Crime Centers across all 21 divisions, with West LA and Pacific on deck. These centers aren’t about public safety--they’re about police control. They allow the LAPD to pull in footage from thousands of surveillance sources: automated license plate readers, drones, helicopters, gunshot detection systems, and even private homeowners’ cameras. All of that data is piped into centralized monitoring hubs where officers track people in real time, often using AI-enhanced analytics and predictive policing software. This is the same policing model that civil rights experts have warned will lead to greater harassment and profiling, especially against Black and Brown residents. These surveillance centers aren’t being rolled out in Beverly Hills or Pacific Palisades—they’re targeting the neighborhoods that LAPD and politicians like Park label as “high crime” in order to justify extraordinary levels of scrutiny. It’s not just bad policy—it’s a blueprint for institutionalized over-policing. And it comes as the federal government, under Donald Trump, is rolling out an aggressive new law enforcement directive aimed at “unleashing” police to pursue so-called criminals—a category that, under Trump’s worldview, often includes entire immigrant communities. Traci Park isn’t resisting this trend—she’s actively building the local infrastructure to carry it out. Back in 2023, she pushed for teachers and social workers to join the LAPD, and urged the city to support the purchase of a military-style “robot dog” for surveillance. The following year, she led the charge to bring a Real Time Crime Center to the Westside, after LAPD secured \$15 million for a new surveillance network. Now, she’s proud to say that rollout is expanding citywide. This is not about community safety—it’s about consolidating law enforcement power, with almost no democratic oversight. And when she’s not championing surveillance, Park is using her platform to undermine basic economic justice. In her newsletter, she criticizes a proposal to raise the minimum wage for tourism workers to $30/hour—calling it political theater and claiming it will damage a “critical economic sector.” What she fails to mention is that this sector survives off the backs of low-wage workers who wake up at 3:30 a.m., commute for hours, and keep LAX and the city’s hotel industry running—especially as Los Angeles gears up to host the 2026 World Cup, the 2027 Super Bowl, and the 2028 Olympics. Park’s argument that this wage increase would threaten essential services like police and sanitation is misleading at best. The truth is, the real threat to our budget is the $100 million the city pays out annually in LAPD misconduct settlements. If she were serious about fiscal responsibility, she’d be talking about reining in those costs—not defending the right of billion-dollar hotel chains to pay poverty wages. Her opposition to the living wage exposes who she’s really fighting for—and it’s not working Angelenos. She’s protecting the same corporate interests that bankroll her campaigns and benefit from her deregulation-first, pro-surveillance, anti-worker platform. Traci Park likes to present herself as a pragmatic problem-solver, but her track record—and her own words—reveal something else: a politician who is accelerating the worst trends in local governance. More policing. More surveillance. More corporate appeasement. And more danger for the very people she claims to serve. This is not about keeping kids safe. This is not about fairness. This is about power—who has it, who watches us, and who gets left behind.  The financial scandal engulfing the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City (UFLAC) couldn’t come at a worse time for Councilmember Traci Park—and not just because she’s facing reelection. Park is deeply reliant on the union politically and financially: UFLAC and its affiliates poured over $400,000 into her 2022 City Council campaign, helping to power her election win. As one of the union’s most vocal champions on the City Council, Park has leaned heavily on her alliance with UFLAC to posture as a defender of “public safety” and court political capital on the Westside. But now, with top UFLAC officials suspended and the union under conservatorship for allegedly misappropriating over $800,000 in member dues and charitable funds, that alliance has become a liability.
According to a forensic audit released by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), UFLAC President Freddy Escobar—Park’s political ally—and other senior union officers racked up massive undocumented charges on union credit cards, including more than $230,000 in personal expenses by Escobar alone. Former UFLAC secretary Adam Walker allegedly transferred $83,000 from a firefighter foundation’s catastrophic fund into his personal bank account. The fallout has already led to suspensions and forced oversight from the IAFF, and could lead to criminal investigations. That leaves Park in a precarious position. Park has long traded on her connection to UFLAC. During the January 2025 Palisades wildfire, she elevated her ties to the fire union as political currency. She appeared in photo ops with firefighters and used their support to deflect criticism of the city’s weak disaster preparedness and her own refusal to prioritize climate resilience. She has accepted significant campaign donations from the union, and her talking points on public safety are often indistinguishable from theirs. Now, the question becomes: how much did Park know about the misconduct inside UFLAC? And will she be forced to distance herself from the union as their brand becomes toxic? If Park cuts ties, she loses a major fundraising machine. If she doesn’t, she risks appearing complicit. Either way, it’s bad news. Even before this scandal, Park’s close alignment with UFLAC was raising eyebrows—especially during the 2024 campaign over Measure HLA, a ballot initiative to implement the city’s long-neglected “Mobility Plan 2035.” HLA aimed to make streets safer, reduce traffic deaths, and improve transit access—goals that enjoy overwhelming support among Angelenos. But less than a month before the vote, Park and UFLAC came out swinging against it. Park introduced a motion designed to stoke fears about “losing parking spaces” and “traffic lanes,” echoing UFLAC’s misleading ads that falsely claimed the measure would slow emergency response times. Their argument didn’t just fall flat—it backfired. Voters approved HLA with nearly 65% of the vote. The Los Angeles Times editorial board called UFLAC’s ads “fear-mongering,” and mobility experts pointed out that protected bike lanes, dedicated bus lanes, and road diets actually improve emergency access by creating predictable lanes for fire trucks and ambulances to navigate gridlock. Why did Park and UFLAC gamble so hard against a popular initiative? Some speculate that UFLAC’s leadership, already under fire internally, was trying to assert political dominance—and Park, ever eager to appease her car-centric, conservative base, played along. There’s also the uncomfortable theory that UFLAC was more interested in preserving budget space for firefighter raises than ensuring safer streets for Angelenos. But now, as more evidence emerges that UFLAC’s top brass may have been siphoning funds for personal use while fighting against safer infrastructure for everyone else, Park’s alliance with them looks less like strategic politicking and more like willful enablement. Traci Park has long cast herself as a “pragmatic moderate” focused on public safety. But her version of “safety” has meant aligning with corrupt union officials to oppose safe streets, sabotage climate infrastructure, and pad her campaign coffers. With the mask now slipping on UFLAC’s inner workings, it’s not just the union under scrutiny. Park’s political judgment—and her loyalties—are too. Her credibility was already strained. This scandal may just light the match.  At Monday’s Los Angeles Economic and Jobs Committee meeting, Councilmember Traci Park made a stunningly tone-deaf argument against paying tourism workers a living wage—citing her personal pain over $35 hamburgers and $80 salad-and-wine combos at LAX.
Yes, seriously. While workers pleaded with the City Council to finally adopt a long-overdue “Olympic wage” of $30 per hour for hotel and airport workers—a modest proposal considering the billions in profits driven by LA’s tourism economy—Traci Park chose to make the conversation about... airport wine service. “I mean,” she lamented, “it’s a crazy experience to pay 80 bucks for a salad and a glass of wine and not have a single server stop by the table and see if you need a refill.” We’d ask what kind of wine she’s drinking, but the better question is: why does Park expect table service at a food court? And why is her luxury dining inconvenience more pressing than the fact that the workers serving her can’t afford rent, healthcare, or even groceries? Let’s be clear: the problem at LAX isn’t overpriced arugula—it’s the poverty wages paid to the people who clean cabins, prep meals, and make the airport function day and night. Many of these workers make less than $20 an hour in one of the most expensive cities in the country. During the pandemic, they were deemed essential. Now they’re being told their basic survival is too expensive. Park claims to support “fair” compensation but then parrots talking points straight from hotel lobbyists: tourism is down, the sky is falling, and now is not the time. Funny—because workers have been waiting for decades. And if not now, then when? Just after the World Cup? After the Olympics? After the next recession? For Park and her allies, there’s always a reason to delay dignity. If Park actually listened, she would have heard the reality behind LA’s booming tourism economy: workers are the first people millions of visitors will see during the Olympics, the World Cup, and the Super Bowl. And they’re being priced out of their homes while corporate executives and hotel owners rake in profits—and cry poor anytime someone mentions a wage increase. Let’s be clear: those executives have already received billions in bailouts. And the last time Los Angeles raised the hotel worker minimum wage in 2014, doomsayers predicted economic collapse. It never happened. In fact, LA’s tourism sector grew—more jobs, more hotel development, more revenue. And let’s not forget: Park doesn’t seem all that concerned when it comes to taxpayer-funded giveaways to the real estate industry or blank checks for LAPD. But ask her to support higher wages for airport janitors or hotel housekeepers? Suddenly, she’s clutching her pearls about economic collapse. What Monday's hearing made crystal clear is this: the only people who seem to think $30 an hour is outrageous are the ones who think $80 salads are normal. While Traci Park wrings her hands over the cost of Pinot Grigio, thousands of workers are fighting for the right to keep a roof over their heads. The good news? Despite Park’s objections, the committee moved the Olympic wage proposal forward. Because in a city preparing to host the world, the real embarrassment isn’t the cost of a cheeseburger—it’s elected officials who think poverty is acceptable.  Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Los Angeles City Council District 11, recently appeared on a podcast called "Three Homeless Guys" — a show hosted by none other than Joel Pollak, a senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News. Her participation in this podcast raises serious questions about her political alignments and judgment.
Pollak is not just a journalist. He’s a key figure at Breitbart, a far-right media outlet that has long been associated with white nationalist talking points, Trump-aligned disinformation campaigns, and extremist rhetoric. Breitbart was once infamously described by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, as the “platform for the alt-right.” Pollak himself has a documented record of defending figures like Roy Moore amid sexual abuse allegations, promoting deep state conspiracy theories, and aggressively backing Trump-era immigration and policing policies. More recently, Pollak has praised Donald Trump's move to end refugee admissions from most countries while creating a special carveout for white Afrikaners from South Africa — a decision rooted in the far-right conspiracy theory of a supposed "white genocide" in post-apartheid South Africa. That narrative has been amplified by MAGA figures to push anti-DEI sentiment and justify racist U.S. foreign policy. Pollak has also been floated as a potential Trump-appointed ambassador to South Africa, further signaling how closely the alt-right worldview and South African white nationalist grievances are intertwined. Pollak is now promoting his own version of Project 2025 — an even more explicitly ideological blueprint for a second Trump administration, titled "The Agenda: What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days." His recommendations include shutting out legal immigrants, restricting abortion access, dismantling protections for LGBTQ+ people, banning chain migration, launching White House Bible study sessions, and initiating retributive actions against Trump’s political opponents. Pollak's vision is one of aggressive Christian nationalism disguised as policy reform — and it's being amplified by the same right-wing ecosystem Traci Park willingly chose to appear on. This narrative is not abstract — it’s been aggressively cultivated by groups like AfriForum, a white nationalist organization masquerading as a civil rights group. AfriForum has spent years lobbying the Trump administration with propaganda falsely framing land reform and affirmative action policies in South Africa as an attack on the white minority. The group has close ties to Elon Musk, who has parroted its talking points to challenge South Africa’s Black economic empowerment laws, calling them “openly racist.” Musk, who grew up under apartheid, has refused to comply with equity-sharing rules while trying to push his Starlink venture into the South African market. AfriForum has led a campaign claiming Starlink is being blocked because it's “too white.” AfriForum’s efforts are not limited to policy lobbying. Its officials have made media appearances on platforms like Tucker Carlson’s show and Alex Jones’ Infowars to promote the myth that Afrikaners are being systematically murdered and persecuted — a narrative that inspired Trump to cut aid to South Africa and offer asylum to white South Africans while simultaneously banning actual refugees from majority-Muslim countries. The Southern Poverty Law Center has described AfriForum’s leadership as white supremacists in suits. Their fabricated claims echo apartheid-era fearmongering and were even cited in the manifestos of white nationalist mass murderers like Anders Breivik and Dylann Roof. This toxic narrative of white victimhood — born in apartheid nostalgia and now weaponized globally — has even inspired violent extremism. South African right-wing artists like Steve Hofmeyr have used their platforms to promote this ideology and call for intervention from Trump himself. The so-called "Red October" campaign and international petitions for Afrikaner repatriation to Europe or refugee status in the U.S. have been amplified in American alt-right spaces. These myths of a "white genocide" in South Africa have made their way into the manifestos of mass murderers like Breivik and Roof, showing just how dangerous this rhetoric can be when it crosses borders and merges with global white supremacist movements. By appearing on Pollak’s podcast — a show framed around post-disaster recovery but steeped in right-wing grievance politics — Park isn’t just talking about rebuilding efforts in the Palisades. She’s legitimizing a media platform with a long history of pushing extremist narratives. She joins hosts who openly express nostalgia for Trump-era governance and hostility toward California’s progressive policy framework. Even the name of the show — "Three Homeless Guys" — is a tasteless joke. The hosts are not unhoused, but rather wealthy Palisadians, some of whom own multiple properties and are calling in from vacation in Florida or international trips. To posture as "homeless" while railing against actual unhoused people, many of whom are living in deep poverty or facing life-threatening conditions on LA’s streets, is not just insensitive — it's grotesque. The show’s entire framing mocks the suffering of real Angelenos while cloaking elite grievance politics in faux victimhood. Throughout the interview, Pollak praises Park’s commitment to the Palisades, but the tone and framing of the conversation are loaded with anti-homeless tropes and veiled attacks on LA’s investments in social services. Park does nothing to distance herself from those narratives. In fact, she actively participates in the rhetoric, calling homelessness a “suck” on city resources and repeating talking points that echo Republican attacks on public spending, safety net programs, and progressive governance. At one point, Pollak even cites a report by interim fire chief Alex Villanueva — the disgraced former sheriff who became notorious for defying civilian oversight, refusing to investigate deputy gangs, and embracing far-right conspiracy theories — as proof that homelessness is costing the city too much money. Villanueva, now a hero to MAGA Republicans, has long aligned himself with authoritarian politics and anti-reform messaging. Neither Park nor the hosts question Villanueva’s credibility or extremist record. Instead, his claims are treated as fact. For Park to elevate Villanueva’s perspective without critique is especially troubling given his open contempt for accountability and his attacks on journalists, oversight bodies, and basic civil rights during his time in office. It’s also telling that the other podcast hosts — entrepreneur Oren Ezra and tech executive Ron Goldshmidt — frame California’s regulatory climate and infrastructure investment as part of the state’s decline, comparing it unfavorably to Florida and even suggesting residents should leave LA altogether. Park, rather than challenging these portrayals, sympathizes with them and positions herself as the lone rational actor in a broken city government — a well-worn right-wing narrative. While Park continues to brand herself as a pragmatic centrist, her media choices paint a different picture. Appearing alongside far-right influencers like Pollak and offering no pushback on their extremist framing is not neutrality — it’s complicity. At a time when Angelenos are reckoning with the real consequences of climate change, unaffordable housing, and systemic inequality, Park’s alignment with voices like Pollak’s is not just inappropriate — it’s dangerous. Voters deserve to know exactly who their representatives are legitimizing and amplifying. By joining a platform linked to white nationalism and MAGA extremism, echoing the rhetoric of disgraced figures like Alex Villanueva, and cozying up to a host who defends apartheid-era nostalgia dressed up as refugee advocacy and now openly advocates for a Christian nationalist government, Traci Park is sending a clear signal: her loyalties lie more with the reactionary right than with the diverse, progressive communities she was elected to serve. Just as apartheid South Africa used legal frameworks and fear-driven propaganda to dispossess and control the Black majority, Park's anti-tenant and anti-homeless policies are accelerating a form of racialized displacement on LA’s Westside. Under the guise of public safety and neighborhood restoration, Park has embraced a deeply exclusionary vision for the district — one that criminalizes poverty, undermines rent protections, and prioritizes the comfort of affluent homeowners over the human rights of unhoused people and working-class renters. This is not simply poor policy — it is segregation by design, an American cousin to the same apartheid logic Pollak and his allies are exporting to the global far right. That Park finds common cause with these figures should alarm everyone who believes in housing justice and multiracial democracy.  Councilmember Traci Park is once again drawing fire from labor organizers and working Angelenos—this time for opposing a proposed wage increase for hotel and airport workers ahead of the 2028 Olympics.
At a press conference this week, Park joined a coalition of hotel industry executives to publicly speak out against the “Olympic wage” proposal, which would gradually raise the minimum wage for tourism workers to $30 per hour by 2028, along with an $8.35 healthcare supplement. The ordinance is backed by labor unions and economic justice advocates who say workers need meaningful raises to survive in Los Angeles, especially as the city prepares to host billion-dollar global events. But Park, who chairs the City Council’s Trade, Travel, and Tourism Committee, has become a mouthpiece for corporate hotel executives who oppose paying their workers a minimum wage. She framed the proposal as a threat to the city’s economic recovery, repeating industry claims that it would harm tourism. “Our economy is not strong right now,” Park said, arguing that international travel at LAX is still down and that businesses are struggling. But this isn’t about fiscal responsibility—it’s about preserving profits at the expense of Angelenos living one paycheck away from homelessness. Her comments align closely with talking points pushed by the hotel lobby, which has aggressively opposed the measure for over a year. Industry representatives claim the proposal would result in hotel closures, job losses, and a decline in tourism—even as their own financial filings show steady recovery and high occupancy rates across much of the city. Park’s decision to publicly side with the industry has intensified criticism from labor groups. “Once again, Councilmember Park is choosing corporate profits over working people,” said Maria Hernandez, a spokesperson for UNITE HERE Local 11. “These are the same hotel owners who bankroll political campaigns and then cry poverty when asked to pay their workers enough to keep a roof over their heads.” Workers, too, are speaking out. Jovan Houston, a customer service agent at LAX and a single mother, earns under $20 an hour despite years on the job. She says the wage hike would allow her to give up side gigs and spend more time with her child. “We’ve waited a year and a half for action,” Houston said. “Meanwhile, rent keeps going up.” Even more troubling, Park is ignoring the city’s own data. A report released earlier this month by the Chief Legislative Analyst concluded that raising wages would *boost* the local economy, not harm it. The study found that impacted workers would spend more in their neighborhoods, stimulating business activity and helping offset costs. City staff made clear that the findings were based on a broad review of industry conditions—not just hotel lobbying claims. Park, along with Councilmembers John Lee and Monica Rodriguez, was one of only three votes against moving the proposal forward last December. Her opposition comes despite repeated demonstrations from workers outside City Hall and mounting public pressure to ensure the Olympic Games benefit the people who make them possible. As workers call for dignity and fair wages, Park’s position suggests a troubling pattern: siding with industry insiders over constituents. From opposing expanded tenant protections to undermining sanctuary city policies, Park has built a record of catering to the powerful while ignoring those most in need. Now, with the Olympic spotlight approaching, the Council will soon decide whether Los Angeles will showcase itself as a city of equity—or as one that continues to leave its workers behind. Traci Park has made her choice clear. The question is whether the rest of the Council will follow her lead—or finally push back. A Tale of Two Newsletters: Traci Park, Hugo Soto-Martinez, and the Politics of a Budget Crisis4/26/2025  This week, two Los Angeles City Councilmembers sent newsletters to their constituents — and the contrast lays bare exactly where their priorities lie.
On one hand, CD11 Councilmember Traci Park sent out a breezy update packed with ribbon cuttings, photo opportunities, and self-congratulations. On the other, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez of District 13 issued a clear, urgent message: the city faces a serious budget crisis, and residents must act to protect essential services. The stakes are high. Mayor Karen Bass’s proposed city budget slashes critical services across the board. It calls for the layoff of 1,647 city workers, including hundreds from the Departments of Transportation, Street Services, Planning, and Civil Rights. It guts the teams that inspect housing, maintain streets, and enforce civil rights protections — services Angelenos rely on every day. Yet anyone reading Traci Park’s newsletter would barely know a crisis exists. Park tosses off a vague line about "significant fiscal challenges" before pivoting to celebrate hotel developments, groundbreaking ceremonies, and fire station tours. She offers no real explanation of the looming layoffs. She skips over the departments losing a third of their workforce. She says nothing about how renters, working families, and vulnerable communities will bear the brunt of these cuts. Park never calls on constituents to get involved, never invites public comment, and never acknowledges that residents have a role to play. Instead, she papers over the crisis with photo ops and PR spin. Hugo Soto-Martinez takes the opposite approach. His newsletter names the crisis directly and explains why it matters. He breaks down the departments facing the deepest cuts and spells out the human consequences behind the numbers. He outlines the budget timeline and urges constituents to get involved immediately — offering not just information, but a plan of action. This difference in approach shows far more than just a difference in communication style. It shows a fundamental divide in political priorities — and in who each councilmember chooses to fight for. Traci Park has consistently aligned herself with wealthy homeowners, corporate developers, and the law enforcement lobby — the sectors that lose little when the city slashes public services but gain plenty when police budgets balloon and luxury developments surge ahead. Faced with a budget that guts critical services, Park chooses to distract and deflect rather than fight for the people she represents. Meanwhile, Hugo Soto-Martinez draws on his background as a labor organizer to treat his constituents like partners, not spectators. He understands that public services are not luxuries — they are the foundation of a livable, equitable city. He doesn’t just inform residents; he mobilizes them to defend what matters. In moments of crisis, the true character of leaders is revealed. Some use their platforms to protect their political allies and preserve the status quo. Others use theirs to fight for the people they were elected to serve. Traci Park has made her choice. So has Hugo Soto-Martinez. The question now is whether Angelenos are paying attention.  In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, which gives cities broad authority to criminalize homelessness, Traci Park is pushing legislation that would reestablish the core elements of LAMC 85.02—a law the Ninth Circuit rejected in 2014 for being vague, discriminatory, and unconstitutionally cruel.
Her new proposal would ban vehicle dwelling within 500 feet of so-called “sensitive areas” like schools, parks, and daycares. But in effect, it would do what 85.02 did for over 30 years: punish unhoused people simply for surviving in their cars. And this time, the legal landscape has shifted in her favor. The Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision eliminated Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment for those who have no choice but to sleep outside, unleashing a wave of new anti-homeless enforcement measures across the country. Park is seizing that moment—and aiming to make Los Angeles a test case. To understand how dangerous this effort is, it’s worth revisiting how we got here. In 1983, Los Angeles enacted LAMC 85.02, which prohibited the use of vehicles as “living quarters” on public streets or city-owned lots. The ordinance was vague by design—it never defined what constituted living quarters, how long someone could stay in a car before violating the law, or what behavior was prohibited. LAPD and City Councilmembers weaponized it aggressively, especially in neighborhoods like Venice, where complaints from affluent homeowners drove enforcement priorities. By 2010, the City had created a dedicated “Venice Homelessness Task Force,” assigning 21 LAPD officers to monitor unhoused residents living in their vehicles. People were targeted for having a blanket, a portable stove, or other everyday items in their car. On first contact, LAPD would issue a warning. On the second, a citation. On the third, arrest. Community members helped compile lists of “problem vehicles,” and the city never followed through on its promises to provide safe parking alternatives. That reign of criminalization ended in 2014 when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles that LAMC 85.02 was unconstitutional. The court found it to be unacceptably vague and prone to arbitrary enforcement, noting it had been used disproportionately against unhoused residents. The ruling marked a significant victory for civil rights and housing justice advocates. But City Hall wasn’t done. Around the same time, officials began leaning on another law: LAMC 80.69.4, passed in 2006. This ordinance allowed for the creation of “oversized vehicle” (OVO) zones, where parking large vehicles like RVs would be prohibited between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. Initially, these zones required a City Council vote and LADOT signage. In 2010, then-Councilmember Bill Rosendahl amended the law to allow councilmembers to bypass the full Council process by submitting a petition and having LADOT verify that certain criteria were met. While it didn’t explicitly ban vehicle dwelling, 80.69.4 became a workaround for reestablishing 85.02’s effect. The City began designating block-by-block zones where RVs and other oversized vehicles were prohibited overnight. In practice, it enabled selective enforcement and displacement of unhoused vehicle dwellers without drawing the same legal scrutiny—at least temporarily. While not explicitly targeting vehicle dwellers, 80.69.4 functioned similarly to 85.02, enabling selective enforcement without the same legal challenges. The Los Angeles City Controller’s office has highlighted the extensive use and impact of 80.69.4. Their analysis reveals:
These findings underscore the ordinance’s role in penalizing unhoused individuals without providing viable alternatives. Throughout the 2010s, this ordinance was used inconsistently and often ineffectively. Many proposals to expand enforcement—especially in Venice—were blocked by the California Coastal Commission, which ruled that they would unfairly limit public access to coastal areas. Lawsuits followed. Safe parking programs were discussed but rarely implemented. Meanwhile, enforcement continued, especially in wealthier neighborhoods with strong homeowner associations. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a pause. Starting in March 2020, Los Angeles suspended most parking enforcement and towing operations, including those targeting vehicles used as dwellings. It was a tacit acknowledgment that these policies were cruel and counterproductive in the midst of a public health emergency. But the reprieve didn’t last. By late 2021 and early 2022, enforcement resumed—first through towing vehicles deemed “abandoned,” and later by targeting “oversized” vehicles under 80.69.4 once again. When Traci Park took office in 2022, she made clear that she intended to bring back aggressive enforcement in CD11. Over the next two years, she introduced motion after motion to create new oversized vehicle restriction zones, often with no formal LADOT review and little public transparency. Her office encouraged constituents to collect petitions—ignoring the fact that petitions alone are insufficient unless paired with a LADOT investigation and compliance with other requirements. In August 2024, Park succeeded in passing a motion authorizing the towing of vehicle dwellings under 80.69.4, prompting a legal warning from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA). And in September, she violated the Brown Act by trying to push discussion of that same towing measure during a Transportation Committee meeting without proper notice. The City Attorney had to intervene repeatedly. Now, with the Grants Pass ruling in hand, Park is attempting to eliminate even the pretense of due process. Her latest proposal effectively revives LAMC 85.02 by establishing blanket bans on vehicle dwelling near broad swaths of public space. It would allow for enforcement without the piecemeal process of creating 80.69.4 zones—no need for LADOT review, no petitions, no council debate over individual blocks. Just a blanket policy criminalizing unhoused people wherever they are most visible. In her April 11, 2025 newsletter, Park boasted: “I joined my colleagues in introducing a motion that would restore former LAMC 85.02, which the City Council allowed to expire in 2020.” There is no ambiguity here. Traci Park has made her choice: She is reviving the very ordinance the courts struck down, using the Grants Pass decision as political cover. And unless the public pushes back, the city may once again become a place where being too poor to afford rent is reason enough to be ticketed, towed, or jailed.  In a recent profile by The Los Angeles Times, Councilmember Traci Park reaffirmed her support for expanding the city’s fire department, stating, “More resources lead to better outcomes.” At first glance, this sounds like a reasonable position, especially in a city increasingly vulnerable to climate-fueled wildfires. But Park’s record tells a very different story.
In 2023, Councilmember Park voted to cut $35.7 million from the Los Angeles Fire Department’s budget. The decision came just months before a destructive wildfire swept through Topanga, within the very district she represents. Firefighters warned at the time that the budget cuts would directly impact emergency response times, staffing, and readiness across the city. Yet Park chose to support the reductions anyway. Her recent claim that more resources improve outcomes appears disconnected from her actual votes. The reality is that Traci Park has consistently prioritized the expansion of policing and surveillance over critical public safety services such as fire prevention, emergency response, and mental health care. This is not an isolated instance of budgetary trade-offs. It reflects a broader governing philosophy in which public safety is narrowly defined through the lens of law enforcement. Park has repeatedly voted in favor of expanding the Los Angeles Police Department’s reach, including supporting massive increases in overtime and backing a $15 million real-time surveillance network for the Westside. At the same time, she has supported policies that do nothing to expand access to housing, social services, or non-carceral responses to crisis. Her record on public safety is especially concerning when viewed in the context of how she responded to one of the most disturbing police killings in recent memory. Just one month after Park took office, Keenan Anderson, a Black teacher and father, was tased to death by LAPD officers less than a mile from her home in Venice. Anderson’s death occurred during the first week of January 2023 and generated national outrage. Park waited a full week to issue a statement, which deflected blame from the police and instead emphasized Anderson’s mental health. When Black organizers approached her at City Hall to demand accountability, she refused to engage and called the police on them. This silence is consistent with Park’s longstanding alignment with law enforcement. Her 2022 campaign for City Council was heavily bankrolled by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which spent over $1.5 million on her behalf. She was endorsed by eight law enforcement organizations and has reliably advanced their agenda at City Hall. From her motion encouraging teachers and social workers to become police officers, to her vocal support for controversial military-grade equipment such as LAPD’s robotic surveillance dog, Park has demonstrated a commitment to expanding police power at nearly every turn. Her career prior to elected office is equally revealing. As an attorney, Park specialized in defending municipalities against civil rights claims, including cases of police misconduct and racial harassment. She worked for law firms known for union-busting and for defending clients such as Raytheon and Joe Arpaio’s sheriff’s department. Since she took office, her former firm has seen its contracts with the City of Los Angeles grow from $100,000 to over $1.3 million, much of it allocated for defending police officers in misconduct cases. This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and her continued financial alignment with the institutions she once represented in court. When Park says “more resources lead to better outcomes,” we must ask: for whom? Her consistent pattern of defunding services that protect and support residents, while pouring public money into policing and surveillance, reveals who she believes deserves investment and protection. In a district increasingly threatened by wildfires, housing insecurity, and a growing need for non-police emergency response, Park’s choices have left residents more vulnerable. Her rhetoric about public safety does not match her record. If she truly believed in allocating resources for better outcomes, she would not have voted to cut fire department funding or expand the carceral system under the guise of safety. Councilmember Park’s actions show us clearly where her priorities lie. Angelenos in Council District 11 deserve a representative who invests in care, not punishment. True public safety will never come from surveillance cameras, robot dogs, or increased police patrols. It will come from housing, mental health care, well-funded emergency services, and strong community infrastructure. Unfortunately, those are not the outcomes Traci Park has chosen to fight for.  For over two years, Councilmember Traci Park has represented Los Angeles’ Council District 11—a district made up of renters, working families, unhoused neighbors, and a growing coalition demanding real solutions to the housing and homelessness crisis. But if you tuned into her latest virtual “town hall” for Venice on April 3, you wouldn’t know any of that.
Instead, you’d think CD11 is home exclusively to wealthy homeowners, beachfront property, and a singular obsession with police-led cleanups of unhoused encampments. Once again, Park used her carefully controlled Zoom event—shielded from real-time criticism or dissent—to push her agenda of criminalization, surveillance, and displacement. She delivered a tightly scripted, LAPD-heavy webinar that doubled down on her now-familiar agenda: criminalizing the unhoused, ignoring renters, and refusing to address the needs of working-class and immigrant communities in Council District 11. Her refusal to hold in-person events continues to be a hallmark of her tenure—an obvious strategy to avoid being challenged by constituents who might disagree with her. Throughout the meeting, Park repeatedly emphasized her office’s work to clear encampments, impound RVs, and expand enforcement zones under LA’s controversial anti-homeless ordinance, LAMC 41.18. She framed these actions as “progress” and described them with pride, citing dozens of vehicle impoundments and encampment “resolutions.” What she didn’t mention is that these sweeps displace people without offering meaningful alternatives—and that her own office’s closure of the Venice Bridge Home in December has left fewer shelter beds available in the district. That didn’t stop her from announcing plans for more cleanups, more surveillance, and more criminalization. Missing entirely from her remarks was any mention of proven, evidence-based solutions to homelessness, like Housing First programs that prioritize stable housing without preconditions. Instead, Park leaned into the same failed status quo: more LAPD, more fences, and more fearmongering. The entire first half of the town hall sounded like a briefing from a police precinct, not a conversation about how to build a more inclusive and equitable city. During the town hall, Park also made a deeply misleading attempt to rewrite history regarding the Venice Dell affordable housing project, obscuring her own role in derailing one of LA’s most urgently needed housing developments. She told constituents that the project had “run into challenges” and pivoted to promoting an alternative site on a smaller, less suitable lot. What she didn’t say is that she herself has worked to obstruct the project at every stage—and that the latest delays are the direct result of bad-faith maneuvers by her office and the City Attorney, not any failure by the developers or community process. The Venice Dell project was approved twice by the City Council, in 2021 and 2022, after extensive public outreach, environmental review, and design revisions. It was carefully planned by Venice Community Housing and Hollywood Community Housing Corp. to turn a city-owned parking lot near the beach into 120 units of supportive and affordable housing. The project also included a redesigned public parking garage and protections for a popular boat launch—addressing every concern that had been raised. And yet, in spring 2023, the newly elected City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto—a longtime critic of the project—issued a stunning and unprecedented order to city departments to stop working with the developers, citing ongoing litigation that had already been resolved. This slow-walking of a fully entitled project wasn’t about legal caution—it was about politics. Instead of defending an approved plan that had already survived two lawsuits, Park seized the opportunity to undermine it. She publicly declared the project “dead,” backed the Transportation Commission’s last-minute claim that the site was “unsuitable,” and introduced a motion to explore housing on a smaller, oddly shaped alternative lot—knowing full well that restarting the process would delay housing for years, if not kill it entirely. At the town hall, Park glossed over this entire timeline, failing to mention that a judge had already ruled the Transportation Commission had no jurisdiction to block the project. The very same city attorney who argued that in court is now claiming the opposite—all part of a manufactured bureaucratic detour designed to bury a project she’s politically opposed to. This isn’t about due process, site feasibility, or neighborhood compatibility. It’s about sabotage. And Park’s performance at the town hall was an attempt to disguise obstructionism as pragmatism. The Venice Dell project represents everything Los Angeles says it wants: permanent supportive housing in a well-resourced neighborhood, built on surplus public land, with community partners and Council-approved backing. It’s exactly the kind of project that should be fast-tracked—not thrown into limbo by a councilmember doing the bidding of anti-housing activists and wealthy homeowners. When it comes to renters, Park continues to be one of the most out-of-step members of the City Council. Her town hall barely acknowledged the nearly 60% of CD11 residents who rent. There was no discussion of rent stabilization, no update on eviction prevention resources, and no outreach to working-class tenants. The only comment even remotely related to housing policy came from a homeowner asking how to expedite an eviction—and Park’s office was more than happy to oblige. That alone says everything about where her priorities lie. While other councilmembers are holding “Know Your Rights” clinics and actively supporting immigrant families threatened by deportation, Park didn’t mention immigration once. In a moment when many LA families are living in fear of ICE raids, her silence was deafening. Her consistent refusal to stand up for LA’s sanctuary policies, or even acknowledge the concerns of immigrant communities, reveals a deeper truth: Park has chosen to align herself with the right wing of Los Angeles politics. Her rhetoric may be polished, but her values are clear—and they’re not with the people who need the most support. This town hall was yet another reminder that Park governs for the few, not the many. She listens to wealthy homeowners, not renters. She funds police overtime, not social services. She focuses on optics and enforcement, not justice or housing. She’s not just absent from the fight for a more humane Los Angeles—she’s standing in the way. CD11 residents deserve a councilmember who shows up—for real. Someone who doesn’t hide behind a Zoom screen. Someone who centers the voices of renters, immigrants, and working-class families. Someone who believes that housing and dignity should come before handcuffs and displacement. It’s time for new leadership in CD11.  Dakota Smith's puff piece portraying Councilmember Traci Park as a compassionate leader guiding Pacific Palisades through wildfire recovery is more than misleading—it’s an insult to the thousands of renters, working families, and unhoused people she has actively harmed while in office. If you read the article in isolation, you’d think Park was a tireless public servant. But here’s the truth: Traci Park isn’t just ignoring the housing crisis—she’s accelerating it.
From supporting mass evictions to undermining tenant protections and blocking affordable housing, Park doesn’t represent the majority of her constituents. She represents the donors who bought her seat at City Hall. Park’s district is majority renters, yet she’s the most anti-tenant voice on the L.A. City Council. And it’s not hard to see why. Her 2022 campaign was bankrolled by over $1.2 million from corporate landlords, including Douglas Emmett—the same real estate giant responsible for one of the largest mass evictions in L.A. history at Barrington Plaza. Park took $566,000 from them and then stood by as over 500 low-income renters were evicted under dubious legal claims. The Barrington Plaza tenants lost their homes because their billionaire landlord refused to install basic fire safety features like sprinklers, even after deadly fires. Instead of forcing them to comply with safety regulations without evicting anyone—as former Councilmember Mike Bonin had demanded—Park did nothing. Her only action? Asking for a report. That’s what half a million in campaign cash gets you. And this isn’t an isolated failure. From February to December 2023, there were over 5,300 evictions in Park’s district alone, according to the L.A. City Controller. That’s not just a statistic—that’s thousands of people being pushed further toward homelessness in a city already overwhelmed by housing insecurity. After the devastating wildfires in January, Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez introduced a motion to temporarily protect tenants impacted by the disaster. It was modest—just a pause on no-fault evictions and non-payment evictions for those who could prove they lost income due to the fires. Park didn’t support it. Instead, she offered an amendment to redirect Measure ULA funds—voter-approved revenue meant to fund long-term housing, tenant protections, and services—to cover emergency rental aid. Her amendment failed because, legally, ULA funds are designated for building housing and protecting tenants—not for carving out favors for her wealthy homeowner base. Meanwhile, Park and others claimed there wasn’t “enough data” to support eviction protections. But Soto-Martínez’s office found evictions had surged to 2,400 just weeks after the fires—nearly double the typical monthly rate. Those are “real people,” as Councilmember Ysabel Jurado put it, being shoved out of their homes while Park pushed process over compassion. Traci Park doesn't just fail to help unhoused residents—she actively helps create homelessness. She campaigned by stoking fear about shelters in Venice. She helped kill transitional housing projects like the Ramada Inn conversion. She led the charge to delay or block 100% affordable housing projects in her own district. Her answer to homelessness has been police, sweeps, and propaganda—not housing. She says she supports "common-sense" solutions, but when presented with permanent supportive housing—the only approach proven to end chronic homelessness—she calls it too expensive. When asked to name a single supportive housing project she supports, she couldn't. Instead, her entire political brand was built around opposing shelters in her own backyard while criminalizing people for being homeless. The L.A. Times says Park is “empathetic.” Maybe—to her donors. But to the majority of her constituents—renters, working people, unhoused residents—she’s been indifferent at best and hostile at worst. Click here to email Dakota Smith, asking that she consider including the perspectives of those harmed by Traci Park's policies in the wake of the fires. From Venice to MAGA: One of Councilmember Traci Park’s Biggest Supporters Joins Trump Administration4/3/2025  When Traci Park ran for Los Angeles City Council in 2022, she framed herself as a pragmatic voice ready to bring “common sense” to Council District 11. But a closer look at her political alliances reveals something much more aligned with far-right ideology—and increasingly tied to figures who have now joined the Trump administration.
At the center of this story is Soledad Ursúa, a Venice Neighborhood Councilmember, conservative media figure, and one of Traci Park’s most vocal and visible allies. Ursúa isn’t just a right-wing activist. She’s a regular on Fox News, a contributor to City Journal, and now a senior policy advisor for Donald Trump’s HUD. Yes—Park’s longtime political ally is now serving in the Trump administration. This isn’t guilt by association. It’s a roadmap of mutual endorsement, shared ideology, and coordinated messaging that traces a direct line from Park’s platform in Los Angeles to MAGA politics at the federal level. Soledad Ursúa was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Traci Park’s campaign to unseat progressive Councilmember Mike Bonin. Park stepped into the race in the wake of a failed right-wing-led recall effort against Bonin—a campaign that Ursúa helped spearhead. She later celebrated Park’s entry into the race as a turning point for Venice, calling Park’s campaign “a better political track” and lauding her for “actually caring about the community” when “nobody else would.” This wasn’t just rhetoric—it was an endorsement of a shared worldview: criminalize homelessness, dismantle progressive city policy, and restore “order” through increased policing and sweeps. Throughout 2022 and beyond, Ursúa continued to use her large social media platform to amplify Park’s candidacy and later her policy positions, especially when they aligned with conservative talking points. When Park said it was time to “get serious about public safety” and called Los Angeles a “failed social experiment,” Ursúa echoed it word for word. Even Nathan Hochman, the GOP’s 2022 candidate for California Attorney General, reposted the quote in praise. These weren’t isolated moments—they were signals to a base that thrives on fear, criminalization, and exclusion. Councilmember Park hasn’t just accepted Ursúa’s support—she’s governed in ways that reinforce their alignment. Take the sanctuary city vote in late 2024, when the City Council overwhelmingly approved a resolution making Los Angeles a sanctuary city. Traci Park and one other councilmember skipped the vote. Afterward, Park claimed she would have voted no, calling the measure “symbolic resistance” that could threaten federal funding. Ursúa immediately picked up Park’s quote, broadcasting her stance to conservative followers as validation for their shared skepticism of immigrant protections. This pattern has repeated across issues—especially around homelessness. At a 2023 Venice Neighborhood Council meeting, Soledad Ursúa asked Park if the local Bridge Housing facility was “hosting illegal migrants.” Park didn’t dismiss the framing—instead, she called it “interesting” and engaged with it as a legitimate concern. Park didn’t challenge the inflammatory language. She gave it oxygen. And while Traci Park hasn’t publicly endorsed Ursúa, she has repeatedly praised the “activists” who helped oust Bonin and “restore balance” in Venice—activists like Ursúa, who now sits in a Trump administration housing post helping shape federal policy from the right. Ursúa isn’t an outlier. She’s part of a larger network of Westside figures who backed Park’s rise, many of whom have also pushed for anti-tenant, anti-homeless, and anti-immigrant policies. That network includes former recall leaders, hardline public safety activists, and even former VNC members like Helen Fallon, who not only supported Park’s campaign but also chaired local committees alongside Ursúa. This isn't coincidence—it's coalition. A coalition built on nostalgia for a Venice that excluded unhoused people, pushed out renters, and turned public spaces into battlegrounds. And it’s a coalition that Traci Park has empowered, embraced, and carried with her into office. With Soledad Ursúa’s appointment to HUD, the connection between Park’s local policies and national MAGA priorities is no longer abstract. It’s official. A Park-aligned activist is now helping shape federal housing decisions under Donald Trump. That means the ideology guiding key decisions in CD11—on housing, policing, public space—is being reinforced by a growing MAGA influence. And Traci Park’s close working relationship with Ursúa signals at best a strategic alliance, and at worst a shared agenda. Either way, voters deserve to know: Is this the future Councilmember Park envisions for Los Angeles? Because what started as a local race to replace a progressive councilmember has now become something much more dangerous: a gateway for MAGA ideology to gain ground in L.A. politics—disguised in the language of “common sense,” but backed by federal power.  Following widespread public concern—and a pointed letter from community members urging the Santa Monica Bay Foundation to hold the line on its core environmental and equity commitments--the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission's Executive Committee met to deliberate over revisions to its annual work plan. What transpired was a striking display of institutional contortion, as board members and staff repeatedly tried to find ways to avoid saying “climate change” or “disadvantaged communities”.
The conversation centered on multiple action items in the draft plan where references to “climate change” had been struck through, replaced with more vague or sanitized language like “recurring extreme weather events,” “sea level rise,” “changes in ocean chemistry,” or the ever-flexible “coastal adaptation.” The reason for this? Fear that even mentioning climate change might trigger rejection of the work plan by the Trump administration’s EPA, despite no legal mandate requiring such deletions—and federal court injunctions already blocking the administration’s spending freeze related to climate and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). The board members debated alternatives to the term “climate change” with almost painful precision. One member suggested rephrasing “ocean acidification” as “changes in ocean chemistry,” while another questioned whether “acidification” might itself be a trigger word. Staff suggested compiling a list of climate-related impacts (like sea level rise and harmful algal blooms) to include in the plan’s introduction so they could avoid repeating “climate change” in each action item—essentially saying the same thing, but buried under euphemism. The same pattern emerged around references to equity and disadvantaged communities. Entire action items related to investing in underserved areas were struck from the work plan. In one particularly revealing moment, staff confirmed that a reference to “disadvantaged communities” in connection to L.A. County’s Safe Clean Water Program had to be removed entirely—because they were told by the U.S. EPA that such language could result in the work plan being rejected. Instead, board members proposed vague alternatives like “community benefits” or “green spaces and parks,” without specifying where those benefits are most urgently needed. Some members acknowledged how “ridiculous” this self-censorship was—yet the discussion quickly returned to how best to comply with federal instructions rather than how to stand on principle. Notably, no board member challenged the core premise: that a decision-making body should rewrite its commitments to equity and science in order to protect a funding stream that isn’t even definitively at risk. Multiple federal court rulings have already blocked Trump’s attempts to freeze funding for DEI or climate initiatives. And under the Clean Water Act, EPA does not have unilateral authority to reject local work plans without cause. Even more troubling, staff openly admitted that in some places, striking “climate change” made the action items less coherent or meaningful. Yet the instinct remained to self-censor, despite the fact that the Clean Water Act grants significant discretion to local entities like the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, and the EPA cannot reject plans unless they violate the law, applicable regulations, or the NEP’s own strategic plan—all of which the original language clearly aligned with. This meeting made one thing abundantly clear: the Commission is tying itself in rhetorical knots to appease a president who has no constitutional authority to demand such changes. By scrambling to avoid “trigger words” instead of standing behind its mission, the Commission risks not only its credibility, but also the long-term health of Santa Monica Bay. What’s especially alarming is that this capitulation is coming from a commission and nonprofit that exist to protect public resources in one of the most progressive corners of the country. If the SMBRC won’t say “climate change” or “disadvantaged communities,” who will? This decision also sends a disheartening message to marginalized communities: that a governing body lacking in diversity itself is willing to dilute or even abandon its equity commitments at the first sign of political risk—even when the risk is speculative and the legal standing of such directives is shaky at best. As Yale historian Timothy Snyder has warned, “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” If the Commission caves to climate denialism now, it teaches those in power that intimidation works—and invites further attacks on science, equity, and environmental protection. The Board still has a chance to correct course and restore integrity to this process. But that will require courage—and a willingness to speak plainly about the climate crisis we are all here to confront. For much of her tenure, Mayor Karen Bass has taken a strategic, if not puzzling, approach to her relationship with Councilmember Traci Park. Despite their stark ideological differences—Bass, a progressive leader focused on housing and social services, and Park, a former Republican and one of the Council’s most conservative voices—the mayor has gone to great lengths to court Park’s support.
Bass’ outreach has included backing Park’s hardline stance on homeless sweeps, tacitly supporting her efforts to block the Venice Dell affordable housing project, and appearing alongside her at various district events. The rationale seemed clear: building alliances across the political spectrum to advance her broader agenda. But that alliance may have hit a breaking point. Park was one of only two councilmembers who voted in favor of reinstating former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, whom Bass had fired in February over what the mayor described as failures in the city’s response to the devastating Pacific Palisades Fire. With her vote, Park directly challenged Bass on one of the most controversial personnel decisions of her administration. The question now is: will Bass finally break from Park, or will she continue to accommodate her conservative policies? Bass’ approach to Park has been pragmatic, if not frustrating for progressives. By extending an olive branch to a right-leaning councilmember, the mayor likely hoped to neutralize opposition to her broader agenda. But in the process, she appeared to give Park political cover for policies that disproportionately harm vulnerable communities—most notably, her aggressive stance on encampment sweeps, which have displaced unhoused Angelenos without providing long-term housing solutions. While some saw Bass’ strategy as a necessary evil in a divided city, others viewed it as a betrayal of the progressive values she championed during her campaign. Park’s vote in favor of reinstating Crowley may be the moment that forces Bass to reconsider whether this alliance is still worth maintaining. By supporting Crowley’s appeal, Park has positioned herself in direct opposition to Bass. The former fire chief, backed by the firefighters’ union, claimed she was fired for speaking out about the department’s budget shortfalls and resources. Park, whose district includes Pacific Palisades—one of the hardest-hit areas in the January fire—aligned herself with Crowley’s assertion that she was punished for honesty rather than incompetence and argued that significant personnel decisions should wait until all the investigations have concluded. Bass, on the other hand, painted Crowley’s dismissal as a matter of accountability. She argued that the former chief failed to adequately prepare for the fire and did not communicate urgent risks to city leadership. The overwhelming 13-2 vote against Crowley’s reinstatement suggests that most of the Council agreed with Bass. Park’s decision to break ranks raises an obvious question: If Bass was willing to go out of her way to work with Park before, will she still feel the need to do so now that Park has publicly opposed her on such a high-profile issue? This could be a moment of recalibration for Bass. If her strategy of engaging with Park was aimed at securing cooperation, it may have run its course. The mayor no longer needs to win over Park to govern effectively—she has strong support from the majority of the council and a mandate from voters to implement progressive policies. And Park has shown little willingness to reciprocate Bass’ goodwill. Time and again, she has taken positions more aligned with business interests and law-and-order conservatives than with the mayor’s vision for a more equitable Los Angeles. Bass could use this moment to pivot back toward her base and draw a clearer contrast between her administration’s goals and Park’s agenda. That means rejecting Park’s obstruction of affordable housing, pushing back against her punitive approach to homelessness, and making it clear that her administration will not be dragged to the right in the name of political pragmatism. Bass has long positioned herself as a leader who can unify Los Angeles, but unity cannot come at the cost of core values. Park has now demonstrated that she is not a reliable ally—and rather than continuing to accommodate her, Bass may finally have a reason to distance herself. The fire chief vote may be remembered as a turning point. Will Bass take it as an opportunity to reaffirm her progressive agenda and build stronger coalitions with councilmembers who share her vision? Or will she continue trying to win over a councilmember who has made it clear she is more comfortable obstructing than collaborating? Los Angeles voters—particularly those who backed Bass on the promise of meaningful progress—will be watching.  On a beautiful, sunny day, community members took to the streets in Councilmember Traci Park’s neighborhood to send a powerful message against her anti-immigrant stance. As Park aligns herself with Donald Trump’s politics of fear and punishment, her constituents are making it clear that they reject her vision. They marched not just for justice, dignity, and immigrant protections but also to preserve the diverse, working-class roots of Venice, a neighborhood increasingly under threat from gentrification and displacement.
The march was an act of collective defiance and a celebration of community power. Protesters took over the northbound lane of Lincoln Boulevard, marching from California Avenue to Rose Avenue, reclaiming space in a city that has often ignored the voices of the most vulnerable. The energy was electric—cars passing by honked in solidarity, drivers raised their fists in support, and the crowd's chants echoed through the streets. For longtime Venice residents, the march was a poignant reminder of the neighborhood’s historic diversity and the urgent need to fight against the forces pushing out poor and working-class people of color. Venice has long been a cultural crossroads, home to immigrants, artists, activists, and working-class families. But over the years, intense gentrification has pushed out many of the very people who built this vibrant community. Rent hikes, evictions, and aggressive policing have erased Black and Brown communities from Venice’s streets, with developers and wealthier newcomers replacing affordable homes with luxury apartments. Traci Park has aligned herself with law-and-order politics that prioritize criminalization over community support, putting immigrants and unhoused residents at even greater risk. While other Los Angeles leaders have reaffirmed the city’s commitment to sanctuary protections, Park has opposed these efforts, aligning herself with right-wing fear-mongering and divisive rhetoric. The march was not only a demonstration of resistance but also a platform for powerful voices within the community. A diverse lineup of speakers addressed the crowd, each emphasizing the importance of standing in solidarity with immigrants and defending the right to live without fear. The speakers’ words resonated deeply with the crowd, a stark contrast to Traci Park’s stance, which has left many families feeling unsafe and unsupported. The rally’s momentum extended beyond the streets. Organizers are circulating a petition demanding that Traci Park support Los Angeles’ sanctuary policies—a protection overwhelmingly supported by other councilmembers but opposed by Park. Advocates have made it clear that the fight does not end with the march; they are urging community members to sign and share the petition to ensure Park hears their demands. This policy is about more than just symbolic protections—it directly impacts whether immigrants in LA feel safe seeking healthcare, reporting crimes, or accessing city services without fear of deportation. Park’s failure to support these basic protections speaks volumes about who she truly represents—and it isn’t the working-class, immigrant families of her district. The success of this march was a collective effort, made possible by the dedication of numerous grassroots organizations committed to social justice, labor rights, housing security, and immigrant protections. These groups continue to fight every day to build a more inclusive and just Los Angeles:
As the march came to a close, the crowd left with more than just the echoes of their chants—they carried forward a renewed commitment to the fight for justice. The message was clear: Venice belongs to its people—not to developers, not to law-and-order politicians, and certainly not to those who would abandon immigrant families in their time of need. What good is saving a celebrity’s house if the entire neighborhood is at risk of burning down?2/15/2025  LA Times reports today that "LAFD could have had at least 10 engines patrolling Palisades hills" according to a former department chief. And since everyone is in the business of pointing fingers, perhaps we should take a closer look at CD11 Councilmember Traci Park.
When the Palisades Fire ignited on the morning of January 7, it was a disaster waiting to happen. Eight months of drought had turned the hillsides into a tinderbox. The National Weather Service issued dire warnings about the strongest Santa Ana winds in recent years. Fire officials had all the information they needed to anticipate a major fire event in the region. Yet when the flames erupted, there was no firefighting force on the ground to stop them. Why? Because city officials, including Los Angeles Councilmember Traci Park, failed to act. Park, who represents Council District 11, has cultivated a close relationship with the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD)—one of her largest campaign donors. But when it came time to ensure that fire crews were deployed in her district ahead of an inevitable catastrophe, she was nowhere to be found. The first 911 call came in at 10:29 a.m., reporting flames flickering over a ridge near Piedra Morada Drive. It took 18 minutes for the first fire engine to arrive. By then, the blaze was already spreading out of control. Former fire chiefs have stated that the LAFD had ample resources to deploy additional engines to the Palisades before the fire started. That’s what was done in previous years when extreme fire conditions were predicted. Engines patrolling the hillsides could have detected the fire early and hit it hard before it had a chance to grow. But this time, the decision was made to send pre-deployed crews elsewhere—leaving one of L.A.'s most fire-prone neighborhoods dangerously unprotected. Where was Traci Park? Why wasn’t she demanding that LAFD pre-deploy engines to her district, as they had in past fire seasons? As a councilmember who enjoys close ties with the LAFD—one of her biggest campaign donors—why didn’t she use her influence to ensure that firefighters were on the ground before disaster struck? While real fire threats loomed over her district, Traci Park was busy playing dress-up. She dedicated more time and energy to stopping the demolition of Marilyn Monroe’s former home in the Palisades than she did to fighting for fire safety measures. She posed in a black dress, pearls and a fancy hairdo for a press release celebrating the home's preservation—ignoring the reality that the Palisades is not just a playground for nostalgia but one of the most fire-prone areas in the state. What good is saving a celebrity’s house if the entire neighborhood is at risk of burning down? Park should have been fighting for resources to protect her district. Instead, she allowed her own donors at LAFD’s leadership level to leave the Palisades exposed. If she truly had the community’s best interests at heart, she would have demanded answers when fire engines weren’t staged in advance. She would have held LAFD accountable for prioritizing other areas over her district. She would have ensured that residents weren’t left to fend for themselves when the inevitable disaster struck. Instead, she remained silent. The Palisades is a beautiful community, but it is also an extremely dangerous one. Decades of unchecked development have placed thousands of homes directly in the path of inevitable fires and floods. Scientists and fire experts have warned time and again that the Palisades, like other wildland-urban interface areas, is not sustainable in its current form. A responsible leader would have been honest with residents about the risks. A responsible leader would have pushed for stronger fire safety measures, better evacuation plans, and stricter regulations on development in high-risk zones. Instead, Traci Park chose the easy path: pretending everything was fine. Now, after 7,000 structures have been lost and at least 12 people have died, we’re left asking: why didn’t Traci Park act? Traci Park Joins Conservative Majority in Rejecting Protections for Renters Affected by the Fires2/14/2025  On Friday, LA City Council failed to pass a measure that would have protected renters facing eviction after January’s devastating fires. The proposal, led by Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, needed eight votes to move forward but fell short—thanks in part to Traci Park, who once again sided with landlords over struggling Angelenos.
Instead of acting to keep people in their homes, Park and conservative ally John Lee argued that more study was needed, a classic delay tactic. As renters reel from economic hardship, Park has made it clear where she stands—with corporate landlords and wealthy homeowners, not the majority of working-class residents in her district. Park’s opposition to renter protections isn’t new. She’s consistently worked to benefit corporate landlords while ignoring the needs of everyday Angelenos. Despite the fact that 75% of renters in LA live in properties owned by large investment firms, she’s refused to support strong tenant protections and has instead blocked necessary reforms. During her campaign, Park courted wealthy homeowners’ associations while ignoring renters. She even refused to attend a debate at Mar Vista Gardens, the only public housing complex in her district. Once in office, she introduced policies to give secretive homeowner groups more influence while renters continued to struggle. It’s no surprise that Park prioritizes landlords—her campaign was bankrolled by them. In 2022, she accepted $1.2 million from real estate giants like Douglas Emmett, Kilroy Realty, and the California Apartment Association. Douglas Emmett alone funneled $566,000 into her campaign. Now, she’s paying them back by standing aside while they carry out mass evictions. Park has been instrumental in allowing Douglas Emmett’s eviction of 700+ tenants at Barrington Plaza, a rent-stabilized building. After two deadly fires, instead of installing fire sprinklers while keeping tenants housed, Douglas Emmett opted to empty the building to jack up rents. When former Councilmember Mike Bonin opposed the plan, Douglas Emmett dumped cash into Park’s campaign—knowing she’d support their eviction plan. Since taking office, Park has refused to challenge the legality of these evictions or push the City Attorney to intervene. Instead, she has left hundreds of tenants to fight on their own. |