Homeowners outline their
ideal for campus growth
BY LISA TREI
Campus homeowners who sit
on a university-appointed Faculty/Staff Housing Task
Force established to examine issues related to
construction in their subdivision have released a paper
called, "If Everything Were Right."
The report was released
after publication of the university's "Faculty
Housing and Development Proposals," which detail why
new housing is needed on campus and what may be built. In
a letter to Stanford Report, Professor James
Sweeney, a task force member and homeowner, writes that
"this proposal can be expected to lead to very
intense debates over the next month and the anticipation
of this proposal has already engendered much controversy
among homeowners on campus."
The homeowners' report
describes the residential community at Stanford; the
importance of preserving greenspace; the need to explore
multiple ways to provide more affordable housing; and the
need to communicate with homeowners more openly.
"We hope that it will
inform leaseholders about what the SCRL [Stanford Campus
Residential Leaseholders] sees as its large goals,"
the paper states. Each section describes the
"current reality" and concludes with a
discussion titled, "If everything were right."
The paper says that the
university community is not only for students and their
families, but also for the nearly 900 families of faculty
and staff who have chosen to make their home on campus.
In addition to those who work at the university, family
members are part of the fabric of campus life, the paper
states: "Stanford is their university too,
and they care deeply about the well-being of their
neighborhoods, their community and their
environment."
If everything were right,
the report continues, "the [university]
administration would work actively to build a positive
relationship with campus homeowners; it would take
proactive steps to improve the environment; and it would
respect residents as partners, not just tenants on
Stanford land."
Concerning the importance
of neighborhood greenspace, the paper describes the work
SCRL has done to help improve parks and open spaces. If
everything were right, the section says,
"improvements which make campus neighborhoods
attractive to new faculty and staff . . . would be viewed
not as amenities or luxuries, but rather as an investment
in the university's greatest resource, its community of
scholars."
"Future improvements
might include children's play equipment, benches, playing
fields, badminton or volleyball courts, and natural
plantings. Homeowners would have a major voice in
deciding what facilities they want in their
neighborhoods," the report says.
On the subject of
affordable housing, the report points out that the
university administration has established programs to
help faculty and staff buy homes, but that these can no
longer keep pace with escalating real estate prices. If
everything were right, the report states, and the
university decided it needed more campus housing,
"the pros and cons of developing new areas versus
more intensively developing the existing neighborhoods
would be thoroughly investigated, accounting for the
consequences for all those who would be affected."
The report concludes that,
despite a 1993 agreement by the administration to
"consult" with SCRL on housing issues, the
group has had "little or no voice in housing
decisions that could affect their neighborhoods and
quality of life." If everything were right,
according to the report, this would take place alongside
more open university planning: "Those who are
affected by an action [would] be informed and consulted
in advance of that action . . . . Schedules for planning
and implementation would be made public. Decision-makers
at various levels would be identified. Campus citizens
would trust the process."
The report is available
from Kathy Sharp at SCRL at 725-8963. SR
|
