Conference center still a gamble
By Editorial Board
Nov. 6, 2011 11:45 p.m.
The new proposal for a $152 million hotel and conference center has solved many of the flaws in the old model ““ except for the most glaring one.
The center, now proposed to stand on the site occupied by Parking Lot 6, no longer requires the demolition of the Faculty Center. The cost of the project has also dropped.
But UCLA is still channeling funds into a risky and expensive project when the money could be better spent on research or academic programs, such as tutoring services. Given the dramatic drop-off in state support for the university, the administration should not move forward with the hotel and conference center ““ unless it proves a lucrative enterprise that could bring in money for academia.
By the beginning of next year, UCLA will complete a financial plan for the conference and guest center. The center is projected to break even in about three years, said Steve Olsen, vice chancellor for finance, budget and capital.
The cost of the center would be covered by $40 million from the $100 million donation by alumni Meyer and Renee Luskin, along with bond funds. Student tuition and state funds will not be put toward the project.
But it is not enough for the hotel and conference center to be self-sustaining. In order for this project to be worth the effort and the money, it needs to be profitable.
This enterprise eats up time that administrators could spend on improving other areas of campus. And since the project is essentially taking away funds that support UCLA’s academic mission, the hotel and conference center should be able to bring in enough revenue to make up for that money.
Other justifications for the center, such as its capacity for fostering intellectual exchange, are weak and distract from the main reasons to undertake this project: profit, profit, profit.
If the financial plan does not show potential for strong returns in today’s shaky economic climate, the money slated for the center should be redirected to other purposes, such as setting up a scholarship fund or paying faculty salaries.
Though Olsen said the Luskins were “firmly and specifically committed” to the idea of the center, would the donors really say no to funding scholarships for deserving students?
Still, UCLA administrators were able to orchestrate a plan for funding the hotel and conference center, and we hope that these enterprising efforts will spill over into the academic arena.
It is also commendable that the administration has listened to faculty input about the hotel and conference center and made changes to their plans.
When UCLA administrators release the business plan for the hotel and conference center, they would do well to continue to keep their ears open to skepticism and criticism.
The campus community needs to be confident that this project will help ““ not hurt ““ UCLA.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board.
