Signs of Spring

Spring quarter 2011 has arrived. But the issue of replacing the existing Faculty Center with a large hotel/conference center remains from last spring, when news of the plan was (sort of) made public.

You will be seeing flyers such as the one on the right and related yard signs in the neighborhoods around UCLA. As the flyer points out, there is a public meeting at the Faculty Center about this issue on Wednesday, April 6, at 7 PM.

Earlier posts on this blog have summarized the issues involved. The most recent development was the strong vote against the project by members of the Faculty Club.

The flyer text reproduced above may not be clear, due to technical limitations. The print below the two photos on the flyer reads:

Picture this on Hilgard and Westholme!

(Univ. of Texas Hotel and Faculty Club is the model for UCLA Hotel. http://www.meetattexas.com)

- RESPECT LOCAL ZONING: This proposal violates city zoning, will generate thousands of additional daily car trips and has a parking shortfall of about 500 spaces

- CONFERENCE CENTER YES. HOTEL, NO. Use local hotels and restaurants that pay taxes to the city – revitalize Westwood Village, don’t compete!

- LA Conservancy strongly supports preservation of the 50-year old Faculty Center

- $160 million for a future white elephant (before cost-overruns, like 39% for the Hospital) 282 room, $250/night luxury hotel using substantial student housing reserve funds is unseemly when the UC budget is being cut to the bone

- FACULTY OPPOSED: Faculty Center membership voted 815 to 269 against demolition of existing one-story Faculty Center for a massive six-story hotel

- Commercial intrusion into heart of the historic campus

- City will lose $5 million annually because UCLA does not pay hotel bed tax (14%), parking lot tax (10%) or proposed tourism tax (1.5%)

This is urgent! The project will go to the Regents in May.

= = = = =

The signs of spring do seem to involve chasing away a skunk:



UPDATE: The administration has circulated its version of the proposal today via email and in an article in UCLA Today at http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/policy-would-restrict-use-of-residential-199646.aspx. A key element in this version is a pledge that no non-UCLA business would be done in the new hotel/conference center. Of course, that limitation would cut the hotel/conference center off from a potential revenue stream, which - on its face - seems to add to the financial risk. Moreover, it is unlikely to assuage neighborhood groups since the project creates the same objection for them, regardless of whose business it is doing. Finally, commercial hotels in the area are currently getting some UCLA business which will be diverted from them. So they won't be happy, either.

Question: The current plan could well lead to litigation, problems with neighbors, local hotels, and local politicians. Before the April 6th meeting, wouldn't it be useful to signal that the project planning is being slowed for more review? Wouldn't it be useful to begin thinking about a scaled-back Plan B? Just asking.