Report a Comment

The hearing process is a public process, but that's not what I mean by public engagement, which is more comparable to what you would do in the process of normally creating a land use or transportation plan.

However, I admit that in part I am talking theoretically, because as pointed out by the different land use contexts, the most vocal residents aren't likely to participate with an open mind in the context of universities in the city, where they are cheek by jowl with the rest of the city and spill over into it.

But when you do the public process and the people are obstreprous, you've laid the ground to do what you want, with the recognition that the obstreprous people are what they are, because you had an open, robust process.

Actually, good point about enrollment management. I would argue the proposal to house 100% of the students on campus is unreasonable and probably could be challenged successfully by the U.

WRT off campus building ownership, a building isn't just a building sometimes depending on its owner. If you're having a problem with differences in matter of right entitlements, think of the concept of substance vs. form. In this case, the substance is that the decisions about the building are being made in the context of the university and therefore should be judged in that context. Another way to think of it would be as an overlay district in terms of extra requirements vis-a-vis university use.

Again, I have no problem with that. GWU proves that acquisition of off campus buildings are fundamental to their management of the university, and they do it in creative devious ways (the master lease stratagem) and it has fundamental impacts on the nonuniversity neighborhood in substantive, community changing ways.

WRT your general points--the last paragraph of Dizzy's last post--you're 100% correct. This is where the city needs to stand up and define the citywide goals and objectives in this planning context. The neighbors can and should define theirs. And the University defines too. But the goals and objectives of the U/Citywide aren't likely to always be congruent with the neighbors. Consensus shouldn't be expected. And the neighbors shouldn't expect to have a kind of veto power over everything.

So when I talk about a public planning process, this is in part what I mean, defining these separate sets of goals and objectives, and working to make them as congruent as possible, but to not expect consensus.

People live by universities just as they live under the flight path of National Airport and they shouldn't expect to be able dictate to those other institutions about everything they do--those residents made choices that you or I wouldn't have made, but they shouldn't expect their preferences to be "socialized", and their choices and risks made whole through the zoning-planning process.

by Richard Layman on Nov 18, 2011 7:34 am • link • report