Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Greek Theatre Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rescinds Greek Theatre extension, orders Recreation and Parks to seek competitive bids
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council voted to rescind the five‑year lease extension for the Greek Theatre and asked the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners to begin a request‑for‑proposals process; vote recorded on item 34.
The Los Angeles City Council voted to rescind a five‑year lease extension for the Greek Theatre and directed the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners to initiate a competitive request‑for‑proposals (RFP) process.The action was taken under agenda item 34 after extended public and council debate about litigation, petition signatures and the integrity of the procurement process.
Councilmember Wax, who moved the rescission and RFP direction, argued the council should not delay and should avoid additional expense to taxpayers, saying, "The voters have spoken, and we will rescind this and go out to competitive bid." City Attorney Walters advised the council it had two clear options because a petition had qualified for the ballot: "You can either place it on the ballot because there are the qualified number of signatures ... or you can rescind the contract." Walters also said there was no court order then barring council action.
Councilmembers who supported rescission cited procedural irregularities and widespread public opposition. Councilmember Feuer said the public interest required rescinding the prior council action and proceeding to RFP so the city could get the best price through competition. Councilmember Goldberg said she wanted to hear legal ramifications in closed session first but later supported the public action after legal issues were summarized.
Opponents warned the decision could set a precedent allowing referendum petitions to overturn council decisions routinely. Councilmember Holden said repeatedly that yielding to petitions could undermine the council's ability to make independent decisions and that it could deter future projects.
City staff and the city attorney explained the litigation posture: petition circulators and petition validity were being contested in court, and the party that had been awarded the extension (the Nederlander organization) had filed a writ petition challenging the referendum process. The city attorney said the petition challengers alleged grounds including deception by petition circulators and that the matter might not be subject to referendum. Walters also said the city faced a possible damages claim if the council rescinded the contract and a court later found rescission caused compensable harm.
After votes to close debate on procedural motions, the council voted on the motion labeled "34 b" to rescind and to ask Rec and Parks to proceed to bid. The clerk tabulated the vote as 14 ayes. The council also adopted other related procedural motions necessary to carry out the board's instructions.
The council did not make findings about the underlying merits of any single proposer during the public discussion; the adopted action instructs the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners to proceed with a competitive selection process. The council record includes discussion that the RFP text and implementation would be prepared by Rec and Parks staff and return as required by departmental procedures.
What happens next: the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners and departmental staff were asked to prepare the RFP and to proceed with the procurement. Any subsequent litigation over the referendum or contract award could continue independently in court.
