 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.
0 Comments
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. |