It all comes down to practicality.

Ever-decreasing state funding has taken a toll on UCLA’s academic programs and research, so when an opportunity arises that could help mitigate this financial pressure, it is the university’s responsibility as an academic institution to take it. Even if it means letting go of a cultural treasure.

At the end of the month, UCLA will put the Hannah Carter Japanese Garden and residence, along with other university-owned properties like the Trisonic Wind Tunnel in El Segundo and Mays’ Landing residence in Malibu, on the market. The total revenue from the garden and house is estimated at $14.7 million.

Legal conditions regarding the sale have undergone radical transformation in the last 40 years. In 1964, an agreement between donor Edward Carter, a former UC Regent, and the university specified that the university would upkeep the garden in perpetuity. In 1984, the agreement was changed so that the sale of the house would fund endowed professorships. In 2010, the UC Board of Regents asked an Alameda County court to allow sale of the property based on concerns about maintenance. Their request was fulfilled.

The garden and the other properties have much to offer in terms of revenue. About $4.5 million from the sale is set to go toward endowed chair professorships in medicine and the humanities and $10 million will be placed in the chancellor’s discretionary fund. Similarly, Mays’ Landing will benefit the psychiatry department and the wind tunnel proceeds will go toward the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering.

At one time, each of these donated properties seemed relevant to the school’s academic mission. But they all fell short of their potential. Mays’ Landing was more valuable on the market than as a meeting place. The wind tunnel, intended as a storage or research facility for the UCLA School of Engineering, as never really used. Unfortunately, the same can be said of the garden.

With an average of 2,000 visitors per year, the Carter Japanese Garden educated a few about the culture of Japan, but a majority of the campus had no idea it even existed. It could have been an issue of publicity, or it could be the fault of locational logistics, as the property had few parking spaces, and respect for its Bel Air neighbors limited visitation hours.

Regardless, the garden was underutilized. Even if the property was retained, there’s no guarantee that the number of visitors would increase. Some have called for policy changes or a van service to the garden to encourage a steady stream of visitors, but these measures have price tags. If it cannot make up the difference in the cost of maintaining the garden, which is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, these efforts are futile.

Since UCLA could not, or would not, realize the garden’s potential, it is best if another institution or organization takes the reins. There is no question about the garden’s cultural importance and it should be preserved to educate others about landscape architecture, Japanese traditions and Buddhist religion. But in a time of financial stress, UCLA should not be the one to do it.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board.