The Brief

Los Angeles is on the hook if there are cost overruns for the 2028 Olympics, but that was not the case the last time the city hosted the Games.

In 1984, city officials pressured the International Olympic Committee into making an exception to its rule requiring that host cities foot the bill if the Games were unsuccessful. That fierce public battle guaranteed L.A. wouldn't pay to bring the Olympics to town.

The IOC faced a crisis in the run-up to 1984. Los Angeles was the only bidder to host the Games. The cost of the 1976 Olympics in Montreal exploded from an initial estimate of $120 million to $1.6 billion, leaving the city with debt that took 30 years to pay off. Montreal's mayor had promised his constituents that running a deficit was impossible.

"This essentially scared everybody away except for Los Angeles," said Rich Perelman, who led press operations for the 1984 Olympic Games. "Because of that deficit nobody wanted to bid."

Tehran had considered entering the fray to host the Olympics, but it pulled out due to political turmoil that would soon spark the 1979 Iranian Revolution. That left L.A. as the sole option for 1984.

A "tax revolt" in California

Then-mayor Tom Bradley and other L.A. officials wanted the Games to come to Los Angeles, but they couldn't afford to put city money on the line.

As L.A. was vying to host the Olympics, Californians were in a tax revolt that led voters to pass Prop 13, limiting property taxes. The public made it clear that it also didn't want tax dollars paying for the Olympic Games.

A 1977 survey of 1,200 Angelenos found that 70% supported bringing the Games to L.A. in 1984, according to an official report from the 1984 Olympic organizers. Only 35% remained supportive if the bid required city or county money.

"There has been so much bombastic rhetoric, all negative, about the Games, all predicting huge deficits, all voicing pessimism and gloom," Bradley says in a Sports Illustrated article in 1978, blaming Prop 13 and the media. "The atmosphere has been poisoned."

Making a deal

Public sentiment meant that L.A. officials had no choice but to broker a deal that did not include public monies backing the Games.

This presented a challenge to the IOC, because past Olympic Games had relied on government funds and a public backstop in the case of financial losses. It was the city of Montreal, not the International Olympic Committee, that took the fall when the cost of the 1976 Games ballooned.

The 1976 Games in Montreal left the city $1 billion in debt – a price tag that took 30 years to pay off.

(

Tony Duffy

/

Getty Images Europe

)

The IOC intended to require this of Los Angeles as well, but L.A. had more leverage than past host cities.

"The IOC has usually dictated its will to the host city, and its will has been followed," a New York Times article reported at the time. "But Los Angeles is attempting to use the advantage that goes with being the only runner in a race."

Tensions between the two sides continued to rise. One city councilmember was quoted in the press saying that the IOC could host the Olympics in Timbuktu if it didn't want to agree to the city's terms. Mayor Bradley threatened to pull out of the Games entirely.

Eventually, the IOC gave in. It pretty much had no other option.

In the fall of 1978, the two sides inked a contract that put a local private organizing committee, not the city of Los Angeles, in charge of the Games. The local committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee became the financial guarantors instead of L.A.

"The mayor, whose political fortunes have become closely identified with the OIympics, flashed a big smile, clapped his hands over his head and, in a high-pitched voice, said 'Yeah-hhh!," L.A. Times reporter Kenneth Reich wrote in October of 1978.

One month later, Angelenos overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure blocking public funds from being used on the Olympics unless they were reimbursed.

This sealed the fate of the 1984 Games. Los Angeles would have its cake and eat it too.

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley holds the official Olympic Antwerp flag during the closing ceremony for the XXIII Olympic Summer Games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

(

Steve Powell

/

Getty Images Europe

)

A privately organized – and financed – Olympics

The deal between the IOC and the city of Los Angeles meant that for the first time, a private entity was responsible for staging the Olympic Games. That effort was led by businessman Peter Ueberroth, who took the helm in 1979 and needed a lot of money, fast.

The local Olympic committee controlled the lucrative television rights for the Games, and Ueberroth had broadcasters put down a refundable deposit to be considered. Five companies wrote checks for $750,000 each, according to Ueberroth's memoir. The organizers promptly put all that cash in a bank account earning interest, and used that interest to run day-to-day operations.

ABC eventually scored the T.V. deal and paid $225 million for it. Some of that had to be paid to the IOC eventually, but most of it went to the organizing committee. The local organizers used the interest from those funds to keep doing business. After 1984, the I.O.C. learned its lesson – now the international committee is the one that controls television rights.

Ueberroth and his team also changed the way Olympics sponsorships were brokered. In years past, hundreds of sponsors had kicked in small amounts to play a part in the Olympic Games. He shifted the strategy, instead having corporations bid against each other to be the sole sponsor of different parts of the Games.

Here's one example: When Kodak failed to offer at least $4 million to be the official film for the Olympics, Ueberroth gave Fuji Film 72 hours to sign on instead. Fuji locked in its place with an offer of $7 million.

"These checks started rolling in from sponsors," said librarian Michael Salmon, who works in the 1984 Olympic archive. "Bills were being paid and salaries were being paid."

In the end, the organizing committee made a killing – more than $230 million in profit. It also created a new model for financing the Olympics through huge corporate partnerships that continues today.

Renata Simril, the president of LA84 Foundation, the legacy organization founded with some of those profits, told LAist that that corporate legacy proved a new model for the Olympics could be successful.

"But I do think in some ways it has commercialized the Olympic Games to a degree that hurts my heart," she said. "We have to work harder to see the underlying value of the Olympic Games."

2028 v. 1984

International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach (center) poses for pictures with Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo (left) and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti during the 131st IOC session in Lima in 2017.

(

AFP Contributor

/

AFP

)

Los Angeles faced different circumstances when it bid to host the Olympics this time around. There was competition.

Budapest, Hamburg, Los Angeles, Paris, and Rome all wanted to stage the 2024 Olympics. Then-Mayor Eric Garcetti said a bid would be “dead on arrival” without a guarantee that the city would financially back the Games.

In 2017, the IOC gave the 2024 Olympics to Paris and 2028 to Los Angeles. To secure its third time hosting the Games, L.A. agreed to what it vehemently opposed in 1984. It became the financial guarantor for the Olympic Games.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.