Audio of Last Night’s Public Forum on the Proposed UCLA Hotel/Conference Center

A public forum was held on UCLA’s proposal to demolish the Faculty Center and replace it with a hotel/conference center. Most – not all – of the public comments and questions opposed the project or raised issues with it. Comments were made by neighborhood residents, local hotel operators, faculty and emeriti, and students.

The forum began with comments in support of the project by EVC Scott Waugh. Chancellor Block joined the forum about half way through and indicated he had had airplane trouble that caused his late arrival. The chancellor in brief comments echoed the remarks of EVC Waugh.

Below are audios of the forum, divided into six parts. (The audios are actually videos with a still picture from the forum for technical reasons.) Speakers identified themselves before making remarks. In a few cases, comments or questions were called from the audience without use of the official microphone and may not be audible.

There were repeated references to the high room costs that seemed to be the basis of the project’s revenue forecasts. These high prices did not seem realistic either to the hotel operators or to faculty experienced in attending or hosting academic conferences. There were also questions raised about the Luskin gift, specifically whether it was dedicated precisely to the project as described or whether there was flexibility. See last night’s post on that issue. http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2011/04/faculty-center-issue-fungibility-and.html Other concerns raised involved traffic, adverse effect on local business and tax revenue, priority in light of the state/UC budget crisis (whether the money might be better spent on other purposes), and the value of the existing Faculty Center structure to faculty.

As expected, administration spokespersons indicated that there would be a “pause” while the project was re-studied. A precise time frame for the pause was not specified in response to a question. However, it was said at one point that it could be 30 days or 300 days – whatever was needed. Yours truly would opine that given what has occurred to date, if the pause lasted only 30 days – or any short period – the external damage to UCLA would be severe. Internally, there would also be severe harm, given the CPB’s negative review of the project, the negative reviews by other Academic Senate committees, and negative votes by members of the Faculty Center (which includes administrators among its members) and various academic departments.

Below are the audios:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6 (end)