As was expected, the proposal was rubber stamped by the
Building and Grounds Committee after a presentation by Steve Olsen and campus
architect Jeffrey Averill. There was
testimony from the Save Westwood Village group during the public comment period
raising 1) the tax issue that this blog has also cited, 2) concerns that the
Regents mentioned private discussions with UCLA at their July meeting (after
the proposal was not endorsed in March) which may violate open meeting
requirements, and 3) CEQA (the state’s environmental law) requires exploration
of alternatives but UCLA got the Luskins to sign a letter ruling out
alternatives.
Only #1 was discussed subsequently by the Building and
Grounds Committee. During that portion
of the hearing, it was stated that the tax matter had been reviewed and
dismissed in a closed session in July. However,
the campus architect at one point gave an example of a family staying at the
hotel with an incoming student, a use which may raise tax issues. Although technically, the full Board of
Regents has to approve the proposal on Thursday, that is a foregone
conclusion. So what does this mean? In principle, some groundwork has been
established for CEQA litigation.
However, that would likely delay things rather that cause some major
change. It may well be cheaper for hotel interests that don’t want tax-free
competition to let the hotel be built and then closely monitor the usage. Anything that seems to suggest a tax
liability or commercial use (a violation of the tax-exempt financing involved)
can be reported to the tax authorities.
Ultimately, it will be the tax authorities that decide on whether the
use of the hotel is appropriate and tax-free, not UC or UCLA. If a violation is found, there will be
problems in filling the 250 rooms. Even
apart from that issue, there may be problems in keeping the hotel rooms filled.
As we have noted, if the hotel loses money, campus resources
in one way or another will be diverted to cover the loss. But you will never see it because of the “blending”
of the hotel with other campus enterprises.
It would take a detailed ongoing audit which the Regents made no effort
to establish. There were some criticisms
at the Regents about bathroom design and the location of the loading zone for
deliveries. Those matters may prove to
be less important issues than the fundamental business plan.
When we post later on other matters taken up at the Regents,
you will see that another project from UCLA raised issues somewhat similar to
those of the hotel. But the
build-and-bond empire marches on.
Part 1 of Committee
Approval. Public Testimony Followed by
First Part of Committee Discussion:
Part 2 of Committee
Approval:
Document Submitted in
Public Comment Period by Save Westwood Village:
Open publication - Free publishing - More ucla
UPDATE: LA Times story on hotel approval is at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0912-ucla-20120912,0,3154607.story
UPDATE: The LA Business Journal notes that official approval will be on Sept. 13 and includes the following info:
...Save Westwood Village, the coalition of neighborhood groups and businesses, has argued that environmental studies inadequately addressed the project’s potential impact on traffic, local hotels and retail businesses, among other issues. Bob Amano, executive director of the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, said that he could not comment on the potential litigation. However, he did say that the hotel would have an “extreme unfair competitive” advantage over competing off-campus hotels, because it is expected to be exempt from certain hotel, local tourism and parking taxes. In addition, the facility’s location in the middle of the campus would make it less likely that visitors would patronize Westwood restaurants and shops...
UPDATE: LA Times story on hotel approval is at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0912-ucla-20120912,0,3154607.story
UPDATE: The LA Business Journal notes that official approval will be on Sept. 13 and includes the following info:
...Save Westwood Village, the coalition of neighborhood groups and businesses, has argued that environmental studies inadequately addressed the project’s potential impact on traffic, local hotels and retail businesses, among other issues. Bob Amano, executive director of the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, said that he could not comment on the potential litigation. However, he did say that the hotel would have an “extreme unfair competitive” advantage over competing off-campus hotels, because it is expected to be exempt from certain hotel, local tourism and parking taxes. In addition, the facility’s location in the middle of the campus would make it less likely that visitors would patronize Westwood restaurants and shops...
No comments:
Post a Comment