The current differences between UCSC and the City of Santa Cruz seem the same as 20 years ago, when the last UC Long Range Development Plan was completed.

The fact that the situation is the same with a completely different set of councilmembers and university administrators seems to confirm that the situation comes not from personal differences but from institutional issues.

There is a relatively simple way to explain the conflict: UC, under California’s higher education master plan, must take a certain amount of eligible students every year.  Ten campuses take in this enrollment, each surrounded by a community.  UC is off the local tax rolls, and not subject to local land use review.  If UC does not mitigate impacts of new construction, it’s the locals—with limited local tax dollars—who must pick up the costs generated by UC.

The controversies seem to take similar paths with each new plan.  Yet they seem to have gotten worse.  UC, expecting lawsuits, guides its planning through attorneys as much as land-use planners.  With few other options, cities and counties raise the rhetoric and go to court.

I have waded into this controversy at the state level.  I tried a bill that would have set up a framework for negotiating settlements.  When that didn’t work, I asked for a study by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst on UC’s planning process.

Last month I convened a hearing in the State Capitol to review the resulting study.  The study raised questions about university planning, enrollment projections and UC’s ability to enter into “fair share” agreements with surrounding communities. 

The report and resulting hearing provided a chance to step back from the emotional characterizations of the conflict in order to consider—in a civil, objective way—policies that might allow town-gown conflicts to be bridged.

I am hopeful there can be some practical solutions.  For example, voters last fall approved bonds for university building construction.  The potential bond-funded projects do not include full costs of the buildings—including mitigating local impacts to road, water and sewer infrastructure.

As a result, when those buildings are constructed, either locals must pay the costs, or UC must seek additional funding—which is much harder if those additional costs were not originally included in the bonds.

With some planning and foresight, we ought to be able to solve that problem.  With some cooperation, we ought to be able to work through many of the other problems. It won’t be easy, but it is possible.

For more: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/press/20070130AD27PR01.htm