|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Francisco Chronicle STANFORD -- Stanford
University is confusing the ivory tower with the Great Wall of China. In the still-tempestuous debate over the future of Stanford's open lands and the development of the core campus, the prevailing attitude of the
university is that no one has any authority except the university. Yes, Stanford has participated in a long and laborious public process to approve a plan that would allow immediate development of 4.8 million square feet of
the campus, an increase of about one-third in the land already built on by Stanford, and development of an additional 4 million square feet over the next 25 years. Santa Clara County supervisors are scheduled to vote on the plan
today. But the clear message from Stanford is that any public influence over the proposal is a privilege granted by the university and fully revocable whenever public officials offend the sensibilities of the aristocrats in
charge. Stanford may not want to build a wall around the campus, but they want to construct a political wall that protects them from what they clearly regard as the intrusion of outsiders. The outsiders, in this
case, would be the duly elected officials who are charged with the responsibility of approving development plans at Stanford. What has got Stanford in its latest tizzy is a proposal -- admittedly, a last-minute one -- by
Supervisor Joe Simitian that the university be required to hold 1,000 acres of its western hills in open space for 99 years. That still leaves an additional 1,200 acres of its western lands that could be developed in 25
years. The original plan, developed over nearly two years, was to keep all 2,200 acres in a 25-year open space preserve. Simitian offered his own alternative during a lengthy soliloquy on the whole issue during a town hall
meeting last week. What he was looking for were guarantees that Stanford's commitment to keep its hills undeveloped was a commitment -- not just a short-term promise of convenience. Unfortunately, when it comes to
building on its own lands, Stanford often behaves like any other developer: It wants to decide for itself how much is enough and it will let you know if it will consider the impact of such development on the neighboring communities
that have to manage traffic, housing shortages and a rising cost of living. In other words, the university wants what it wants. The real pattern of Stanford development can be discerned from a series of statistics
offered by Simitian at the same town hall meeting. From 1875 to 1960 -- an 85-year period -- Stanford's total development was 4 million square feet. From 1960 to 1985 -- a 25-year period -- developed land at Stanford
doubled to 8 million square feet. Assuming the development plan is approved today, Stanford's core campus would double again to 16 million square feet over the next 25 years.
Something tells me it's not all going to be infill. Then consider these other comments and proposals that have come from Stanford in the past 15 years: -- If left to its own devices, Stanford already would
have built the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on the very lands in question. -- In prepared remarks to the Stanford academic senate in 1999, then-President Gerhard Casper objected to a group of university residents
going to the county for a resolution of a housing dispute. ``We are deeply concerned that an internal university conflict and a matter for internal university governance is being referred for resolution to outside agencies
whose intrusion can only be harmful to the long-term interests of all faculty and students,'' Casper wrote. Intrusion? Apparently, being part of the Stanford community means waiving your right to petition your government.
-- A week before the town hall meeting -- before Simitian's proposal was made public -- Larry Horton, university director of government and community relations, wrote to the Palo Alto City Council and said any plan that would
put lands in open space for more than 25 years ``is not acceptable to Stanford.'' -- After the town hall meeting, Stanford President John Hennessey sent an e-mail to Stanford alumni urging them to lobby against Simitian's
proposal. Three different times, Hennessey described the 99- year plan as something the university could not accept or regarded as unacceptable. All of which means what, exactly? That they're going to take their campus and
go home? The limits being set on Stanford are limits they have earned. For years, the university has been reluctant to disclose in any detail what it plans to do with the campus. It's only because university officials want
something and are required to get public approval that we know what we do about their plans for the next 25 years. In a formal statement accompanying his e-mail, Hennessey quoted from Simitian's town hall remarks in which
he said it would be wrong to use Stanford's development plans as leverage to force the university to keep more of its land in open space. Hennessey said Simitian's proposal violates that principle. What Hennessey
ignored, of course, is the next point Simitian made --that county government has the right and the obligation to exercise land use authority over Stanford. To do otherwise, on behalf of the community at large, would
be derelict. |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
