I would like to preface this article by saying that I certainly hope that Loyola Marymount University succeeds reaching its vision to revitalize the campus as articulated in the master plan just released last week.
From what I have seen of the executive summary but without having seen the exact details of the project, it seems to be a plan that will benefit the university, the attending students and the community.
Now having said that, it appears that the students publishing the school newspaper ‘The Loyolan‘ and possibly the university may not be quite ready to enter into an honest dialog with the community and the city given some of the recent editorials and articles coming out of The Loyolan.
Two articles that have recently been published. One in the print version available on campus that is for the most part, for internal consumption and the other available online for the public.
One of the articles, the print editorial in The Loyolan (that could not be found on the website) drew my immediate concern. That editorial spoke of an interview with Fr. Robert B Lawton, S.J., who said that “the most important work from here on out is to make the Master Plan a reality”.
The editorial board went on to say that Lawton’s line of reasoning was meant to suggest that in order to make the Master plan a reality, certain conditions need to be met, among them the city’s approval of the master plan. The editorial was correct, the final decision maker on whether the universities master plan is approved is by the Los Angeles City Council.
What concerned me however was what followed. The student written editorial went on to say that “the importance of reminding our political leaders that refusal to facilitate the Master Plan, along with any nonsense that cramps LMU’s style, will result in the unconditional rejection of these political leaders come election time.”
The editorial then follows by saying that “17,410 undergraduate and 6,955 alumni who live in Los Angeles should be mobilized in order to help LMU pursue this very impressive Master Plan, whether it be writing political leaders, appearing at public hearings or helping finance the Master Plan, the support of this segment of the population is necessary to offset potential hindrances to the Master Plan’s approval (e.g., complaining done by the neighbors because of the recycling center or even because a few students party too hard every now and then)”.
The key words to focus in on are:
- “Nonsense that cramps LMU’s style”?
- “Unconditional rejection of these political leaders come election time”?
- “offset potential hindrances”?
- “complaining done by the neighbors because of the recycling center or even because a few students party too hard every now and then”????
These are the words of the editorial, not mine. Presumably they are not the administrations view either but are they?
This of course led me to wonder:
- Just what is LMU’s style? Is it unabashed self-centeredness whereby they simply dismiss the communities concerns when they’re asked (and expected) to be good neighbors?
- Are they suggesting that our elected leaders (who have been fighting tooth and nail for us over airport expansion and growth issues) can be easily removed from office by them if all of the master plans details are not met?
- Are residents, those perceived by the editorial as potential hindrances, who’s lives are quantifiably changed by drunken weekend partying and industrial recycling operations in their backyards simply overreacting?
Of course one might conclude that the editorial was simply an example of overzealous youthful, naive exuberance by a student editor practicing swordplay for the first time with the mighty pen. I’m not convinced however that this article wasn’t written without some encouragement higher up, perhaps by the university, or perhaps by the universities politically connected consultants (Cerrell) and attorneys (Lathem Watkins)?
I hope I’m wrong, but it’s hard to believe that the university, a revered neighbor for over sixty years would alone take on such a combative tone. Clearly they understand that there should be some deference to the community and I would hope that they understand the value of the process of creating mutual consensus between the schoool and the neighborhood at this early stage of the master plan.
So I’m not entirely convinced that this opinion is simply the work of a naive journalism student. Most of us realize that the students obligation to the university is only for the four years that it takes for them to get there BS or masters degree at the school whereupon they move on to careers and new lives in communities wherever that takes them.
On the flip side, the homeowners surrounding LMU are already in that next step in life and have already taken on much longer obligations such as their 30 year mortgages and lifetime investments in there homes and many raising families. That’s one reason why I think it is odd that the student editorial would take this combative path towards trying to obtain approval for the master plan. It makes no sense.
Deference by LMU however has not been evident towards the folks living on McConnell Avenue who have had to endure an industrial operation that simply popped up in their own back yards. For three years, there has been no progress towards a solution that both parties can agree to. The master plan may in fact create new burdens on the residents of this street as they propose three large student housing complexes further along the street.
Deference by the students has not been evident by the problems of off site partying that seems to have rapidly increased in recent years and have caused much distress to the community. (Yes I have tried to put a three year old child to sleep over the booming repetitive bass notes of rap and rock music on a number of weekends though it was not by LMU students). I am surprised that students of a Catholic university are so dismissive of the communities quality of life.
How honest and deferent will LMU be to the community as they continue to release the details of the project?
On the positive side the school says “The project does not involve any increase in the number of students on campus over the student cap imposed by the city a decade ago,” Mihlsten said.
The current limitation for the total number of students on campus is set at 7,800, according to George Mihlsten of Latham Watkins. The project also does not increase or expand the size of the University. Instead, it is focused on how LMU’s land is being used. “The goal is to improve the overall campus experience [for students, staff and faculty],” he added.
Mr. Mihlsten should add ”to improve the residential quality for our neighbors in the surrounding community” to those goals.
Posted on March 22nd, 2008 by westchester dad
Tags: OUR SCHOOLS
4 Comments »
Cyndi Hench, a Neighborhood Watch member and a member of the Westchester/Playa neighborhood council told us that she was at a meeting at Playa Vista’s Fire Station 67 this evening. At the meeting she learned from Captain Wade that he entered the stations kitchen this evening to find more food than he had ever seen at a station.
Our community suffered the loss of one of its firefighters out of 
This morning the Board of Directors, the LAX Coastal Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously to oppose the massive 