The Daily Bruin carries an article, based on a Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) report, on the problem of deferred maintenance of UC buildings. Obviously, buildings have to be maintained or they fall apart - or at least become outdated in terms of such things as modern IT. And there may well be temptations during budget crises to defer needed maintenance. But are there other biases in the system? The article notes that there can be a choice between spending on maintenance and building a totally new structure. One suspects that when donors are approached, there is more of an appeal to building a new structure than just fixing up an older building. More over, the empire that campuses, including UCLA, have built up seem to tilt towards demolition and building a new structure over maintenance and updating of existing structures. Faithful blog readers will recall the silliness of former UC prez Yudof's claim in a radio interview that donations are only put to new buildings if the donors really insist. In fact, donors are enticed to favor new structures. Something the LAO might look at in some future report?