2008 Woodie Awards
Selling Our Campus?
A Dissent
Arthur Lutz . Instructor, Machine and Metals Technology
Issue date: 11/28/02 Section: Faculty Voice
- Page 1 of 2 next >
On August 29th at a special meeting of the Board of Trustees, CMA Inc. a San Francisco real-estate development firm, presented its Facilities Assessment of the College of Marin.
They concluded that due to our deteriorating infrastructure and inefficient space utilization, perhaps our best option would be to sell off both our campuses and build a single new one, a modern, hi-tech one, closer to the freeway.
And because of the high sale price that our present real estate would bring, this new campus could probably be built for zero dollars. In that way we would be getting rid of two decrepit sites and acquire a shiny new one, complete with 21st century infrastructure, visual presence and freeway accessibility and all for free.
Although this proposal may sound a bit curious, it actually is not a new departure. For ten years our administration has been attempting to solve our problems by renting, leasing, trading, developing, and /or partnering our facilities with a whole host of individuals and agencies, both public and private.
This current proposal by CMA Inc. is merely a logical culmination of these efforts, the ultimate and final solution to our troubles. Complete divestment.
Many of us feel that our administration's emphasis on entrepreneurial solutions over the past decade was unnecessary and undesirable, and we similarly question CMA's current recommendation to divest and rebuild.
Colleges are not like shopping centers where newness and modernity are essential for success. Oxford University is 800 years old. Harvard is 350. Neither has a particularly modern infrastructure, yet no one would suggest that they be torn down and rebuilt anew, closer to a freeway. No one perhaps except for a real-estate developer. And that exactly illustrates why our Board of Trustees has selected the wrong analyst to undertake an assessment of our College's problems; because CMA Inc. is a development company, and developers believe that new always means better.
They concluded that due to our deteriorating infrastructure and inefficient space utilization, perhaps our best option would be to sell off both our campuses and build a single new one, a modern, hi-tech one, closer to the freeway.
And because of the high sale price that our present real estate would bring, this new campus could probably be built for zero dollars. In that way we would be getting rid of two decrepit sites and acquire a shiny new one, complete with 21st century infrastructure, visual presence and freeway accessibility and all for free.
Although this proposal may sound a bit curious, it actually is not a new departure. For ten years our administration has been attempting to solve our problems by renting, leasing, trading, developing, and /or partnering our facilities with a whole host of individuals and agencies, both public and private.
This current proposal by CMA Inc. is merely a logical culmination of these efforts, the ultimate and final solution to our troubles. Complete divestment.
Many of us feel that our administration's emphasis on entrepreneurial solutions over the past decade was unnecessary and undesirable, and we similarly question CMA's current recommendation to divest and rebuild.
Colleges are not like shopping centers where newness and modernity are essential for success. Oxford University is 800 years old. Harvard is 350. Neither has a particularly modern infrastructure, yet no one would suggest that they be torn down and rebuilt anew, closer to a freeway. No one perhaps except for a real-estate developer. And that exactly illustrates why our Board of Trustees has selected the wrong analyst to undertake an assessment of our College's problems; because CMA Inc. is a development company, and developers believe that new always means better.