Posts about Georgetown University

Escalator reliability reaches 100%: Metro has achieved a new milestone for escalator maintenance. They have now reached a reliability rate of 100%; all escalators are currently broken at the same time. (Examiner, Matt Johnson)

Hop on I-395 PE: With Virginia's new program to sell naming rights to roads, Sudafed has proposed sponsoring all of Northern Virginia's congestion. (WBJ, Steve Offutt)

LOV-0 coming to a road near you: Google is reportedly working on a new program to design "passengerless cars," which will transport no people at all. In anticipation of this breakthrough, VDOT announced a plan to implement "Low-Occupancy Vehicle" lanes for their exclusive use. (Wired, Neil Flanagan)

DC4D4Thomas: DC for Democracy has endorsed Harry Thomas, Jr. as a write-in candidate for the Ward 5 special election. Members cited Thomas' consistency in talking about revitalizing the ward's main streets without making anything happen, creatively moving around money dedicated to serve youth, and his plan to solve transportation problems by setting up a series of Audi dealerships. (Geoff Hatchard)

Norton targets Wyoming: After several unsuccessful efforts to lobby state legislatures to support DC statehood, Eleanor Holmes Norton announced a new strategy to try to remove statehood from Wyoming, as it is smaller than DC. (DCist, Nick Clark)

It seems clear at this point that there are probably no concessions the university could make that would satisfy the Citizens Association of Georgetown (CAG), the Burleith Citizens Association (BCA), or ANC leadership, short of building enough housing for 100% of undergraduate students. That would be an extremely difficult and expensive proposition for the university, and it's not clear where this housing could go.

The opponents' position suggests that the very presence of students in the neighborhood is an insurmountable problem. This ignores the many positives that students bring to the community, and the fact that many non-student residents choose to live in Georgetown because of its liveliness and urban density. My wife and I feel safe walking home at night knowing there are other people walking about. Without the presence of so many students in the neighborhood the streets would be emptier, and would feel darker and less safe.

Students in the neighborhood are not inherently a problem. The real issue is bad behavior from some students, and what steps the university should take to mitigate those specific negative impacts. That is the sort of conversation that could happen, and that the planning process should encourage. Unfortunately, it hasn't.

Instead, positions have become entrenched and opposing sides treat each other as enemies. For example, the university established the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) to respond to neighborhood issues, but residents have encouraged neighbors to avoid SNAP and call 911 for any student-related problem, then say that SNAP is ineffective and cite the rising number of 911 calls as evidence of worsening behavior.

As a Georgetown resident and a Hoya alum, I think we deserve a better dialogue. But how do we get to a more meaningful conversation?

Structural changes may be necessary.

Campus plans are reviewed every 10 years. The very nature this 10-year cycle leads to brinkmanship and negativity. Some people feel that they have no leverage with the university in the intervening 9 years, and that they must obtain a decade's worth of concessions all at once. Universities think the same way. They increase their focus on town-gown issues in the years leading up to a campus plan hearing, and sometimes don't treat intervening years as seriously.

Also, like in many local political issues, the loudest voices have the most impact. People with extra time, or who feel particularly aggrieved, become the main voices of the neighborhood, while the larger number of everyday people goes unheard. I have spoken personally to many neighbors, and while many have specific concerns about student behavior or Georgetown, none of them suggest the extreme position of the opposition groups (and the DC Office of Planning) of pushing 100% of students onto campus.

This is a difficult problem. It may take some experimentation on the part of the city to determine if a better process is possible. Here are a few ides.

Option #1: Abolish the 10-year campus plan process entirely.

With the rewrite of the city's zoning plan, DC could determine which development projects or campus issues should be subject to zoning review, and use the regular public hearing process for them. While doing this would remove some of the long-term planning conversations, it would also remove some of the once-a-decade brinkmanship, which would ensure more frequent conversations between universities and neighborhoods.

Option #2: Create a college and university category in the zoning code.

The current zoning code classifies colleges and universities as residential areas and requires a "special exception" for any non-residential use. This is despite the fact that many of these institutions were established decades or centuries before the zoning laws, and have never been primarily residential. Undergraduate students represent around 10% of the city's total population, but the zoning code treats them as abnormal, and frames discussions of university expansion as having an inherently adverse impact.

The creation of a specific zoning category for colleges and universities would allow a larger discussion of the positives these institutions bring to the city, what negative impacts they may create, and the proper roles and responsibilities of universities in 21st century Washington.

A new category would be particularly helpful given the number of universities that have been opening buildings in the District lately, whether for "semester-in-DC" or more comprehensive educational programs.

Option #3: Broaden the conversation about the campus plan.

Several meetings were held in the run-up to the zoning commission hearings, but a small number of people have controlled the debate. Ideally more people should be brought into the conversation. Rather than allowing public opinion to be filtered through the parties directly in support or opposition, perhaps a citywide body such as the Office of Planning should be holding town halls to get more broad public input.

Option #4: Broaden the involved parties.

Universities are integral parts of their communities in many ways. They may offer library or gym memberships, allow for auditing of classes, or open some lectures to the general public. More such efforts by the university to directly connect students with non-student neighbors would begin to build the relationships and trust that are necessary for more positive outcomes. Rather than thinking of universities as an "other" to be opposed, neighbors might be more inclined to look for mutually beneficial solutions.

I have lived in Georgetown for the better part of the past 15 years. I hold undergraduate and graduate degrees from Georgetown University. We can do better. We deserve better. Let's make it happen.

ANC 2E first became publicly involved in the campus plan discussion in January, when it hosted a town hall at the Duke Ellington School. Representatives from the ANC, the local neighborhood associations, and the university were present to discuss the plan and to solicit feedback and comments from community members.

Following this town hall, select members of ANC 2E drafted a 16-page resolution on the campus plan. After discussion at the ANC's March meeting, the resolution passed. It has subsequently had significant impact on the Office of Planning's review of the campus plan, which surprised many by recommending cuts in Georgetown enrollment if it doesn't house 100% of students on campus by 2016.

As an elected representative to ANC 2E I opposed that resolution, but nonetheless felt satisfied with the process. All voices on the matter were heard, and I was able to make the views of my constituents clear via my vote in opposition.

The same cannot be said of the supplementary report that was released last week, and which goes before the Zoning Commission today.

The supplementary report never appeared on a public agenda nor was it ever put to a vote. Despite being very engaged with the campus plan, and despite being a member of ANC 2E's town-gown committee, I only became aware of the existence of this report when it appeared on The Georgetown Metropolitan.

I asked ANC 2E chair Ron Lewis how it was that this report carried the full letterhead and endorsement of ANC 2E despite not having been voted upon. He referred me to a resolution passed in October 2010 (before my election) that reads:

Be it resolved by Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E, that whenever a resolution or recommendation is adopted by the Commission that relates to a particular matter that is or will be before an agency, entity or instrumentality of the District of Columbia Government or of the United States Government, any Commissioner, or any one or more of them, or any successor thereto, who in each case has voted in favor of the resolution or recommendation so adopted, may represent the Commission before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter. Further, any such Commissioner, with the approval of the Chair or in the Chair's absence, the Vice Chair, of the Commission, may authorize any other person to represent, assist in representing, or temporarily represent the Commission, in each case on a pro bono basis without fee, before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter.

This resolution as usually applied has many positive and practical applications. The ability to have commissioners present before other government bodies on the thinking of the commission ensures that those bodies understand the ANC's position. It allows for clarifying questions that might otherwise be missed.

However, Lewis has clearly gone beyond the the intent of the resolution by creating a supplemental report over twice the size of the resolution it is augmenting, and which covers several new issues.

The report primarily attempts to discredit new initiatives Georgetown University instituted in response to community concerns. These programs include a late-night shuttle between campus and M Street, a daily trash collection service, and a significant increase in the number of reimbursable police details in the community. The report also addresses several of the points that GU made in its rebuttal statement, filed in July.

The original ANC 2E resolution does not address these programs or the the rebuttal statement because they did not exist at the time it was drafted. It is clear that the November 8th report is not in fact supplementary to anything, but is rather its own, original report. It does not clarify established positions, but rather establishes new positions about new issues.

Considering this fact, it is disappointing that the leadership of ANC 2E did not feel as though a public vote was justified. One of the best aspects of the ANC system is that it supports direct connection to the community. Constituents should always feel as though they have viewpoints heard. In the case of this supplementary report, that clearly isn't what happened. Instead, this report has been created in a completely non-transparent manner that undermines its authority.

It is my hope that Zoning Commission will consider the non-democratic drafting process behind the supplementary report as it reviews this case. Going forward, it is also my hope that ANC 2E will uphold the promise of the ANC system, and be more transparent and open in its proceedings.

This job migration is almost certain to continue given Georgetown neighbors' recent success in blocking GU's plans to expand the main campus. Mayor Vincent Gray seems very aware of the problem this creates for the District, given that the Education and Health Care job sector is the District's, and the nation's, fastest-growing.

That's why he voiced concerns at a Jobs Summit about the limitations sometimes placed on employees and students to address town-gown conflicts. "I need to understand more about what these [university] jobs would be and reasons for those caps," Gray said. "Historically, there have been tensions between the universities and the neighborhoods in which they reside."

Some growth advocates criticize neighbors for opposing growth on campus without equivalent on-campus housing, and will undoubtedly do so in the comments to this article. The reality is that town-gown disputes are not new and are not going away, so we must learn how to address the concerns of neighbors without losing education jobs. Mayor Gray and other city leaders can and must do just that.

Earlier this year, in response to community opposition to its Campus Plan, GU committed to relocate "1,000 School of Continuing Students students to an off-campus location by Dec. 31, 2013." While one would assume that those SCS students will also go to the Clarendon campus, GU says it is "exploring potential transit-oriented locations elsewhere in the District." What can the District do to compete for those jobs?

To entice GU to build a satellite campus in DC, the District should offer to extend the H Street/Benning Road streetcar line onto GU's campus by a certain date. Specifically, the line would proceed without overhead wires on dedicated transit lanes along Pennsylvania Avenue and M Street, past Wisconsin Avenue and the Car Barn, joining mixed traffic at the Key Bridge intersection where it would reconnect to overhead wires and enter campus on the Canal Road entrance. The route would terminate in the parking lot outside McDonough Arena at the current Georgetown University Transportation Shuttle (GUTS) bus stops.

The streetcar line was initially anticipated to run along K Street in Georgetown. Recently departed DDOT Deputy Director Scott Kubly told the Georgetown BID, however, that he would prefer M Street in order to increase ridership. The M Street route, terminating on campus, would be a real win-win-win for every part of the city.

Improving DC residents' access to District jobs: 72% of DC jobs go to non-DC residents, and given the location of GU and GUH (DC's 6th largest employer) near the Key Bridge the percentage on campus is likely that or higher. A Streetcar onto campus would economically integrate the city, connecting residents around the city and particularly in Northeast with nearly 10,000 jobs on GU and GUH's campus. The much-expected future site of the GU Hospital on North Kehoe field would be a brief walk to a streetcar station in the McDonough Arena parking lot.

Creating GU jobs in DC: A streetcar terminating on GU's campus would provide door-to-door service to and from any satellite campus on the eastern half of the route. This will stem the flow of jobs from DC's top employer to Virginia. Furthermore, GU would face fewer constraints in the growth of its main campus because the congestion created by employees of and visitors to GU and GUH would be addressed. This route would eliminate the need for the controversial GUTS Shuttle to Dupont Circle, as it would include stops at Metro stations on several lines including Farragut North.

Improving Georgetown retail: Georgetown business leaders have experienced much angst lately about losing status to retail districts on 14th Street, U Street and H Street. Bringing streetcars along M Street on dedicated lanes would be a bold move to raise the strip's profile and cachet.

Historic preservation of Georgetown: Streetcars historically ran along M Street to the Car Barn. Any argument that a wireless streetcar on M Street somehow detracts from Georgetown's historic character would clearly be impossible to make. Furthermore, there would be no need for overhead wires as long as there are dedicated lanes.

Kubly explained to the Georgetown BID that the limits of current wireless technology are not in terms of distance, but in terms of time. Thus, a dedicated streetcar lane, meaning that streetcars won't waste valuable time (and thus electricity) sitting in traffic, significantly adds to the distance that a wireless streetcar can travel.

Reducing traffic and parking congestion in Georgetown: A couple years ago DDOT paid for a consultant to do a Transportation Study in Georgetown. One of the interesting findings was that congestion on M Street is at the intersections, and not in between them. Traffic analysis showed that the outside lanes were not used to capacity during rush hour, so the creation of transit only lanes should be able to shift traffic over one lane with minimal increase in congestion.

Even assuming no mode shift as a result of streetcars, then, dedicated transit lanes on M Street would likely result in little to no increase in congestion. Of course, there would be an expected mode shift not only to streetcars, but also to the bus lines that traverse M Street (which are the most-used Metrobus lines in the entire region).

The current fiscal environment makes it difficult to justify an investment in streetcar technology if it is merely viewed as a toy for the new, wealthier urbanites. But design it instead to improve access to jobs for DC residents, and sell it as such, and the project makes sense in just about any budget environment. In fact, few investments would result in as reliable and measurable an increase in jobs for DC residents as dramatically improving access to the largest employer in the city in return for that employer's expansion within the city.

Does the political will exist to do what makes so much sense?

The plan won't move on to Councilmember Evans without Commissioner Birch's consent. I urge Commissioner Birch ask the ANC 2E working group to produce a new plan, which conforms to DC's redistricting code and which better addresses the needs of every resident of ANC 2E.

Since my previous article, ANC 2E held its August 29th meeting. As DC Students Speak and a number of others covered, students came out in large numbers to this meeting to voice their opposition to the current proposal.

After that, Councilmember Phil Mendelson told the Georgetown Current that the current plan is "grossly discriminatory." He said the co-chairs "can't just turn a blind eye to the principle of one man, one vote. If there's a proposal to create single-member districts of vastly different sizes, lumping students into one or two and then having non-students ... in the remaining undersized SMDs, that would be a violation of the law."

Considering these comments and those of students at ANC 2E's public meeting, I made a motion for reconsideration within our working group. All I called for was further dialogue. We had only had two meetings and considered two plans total, far fewer than the 13 plans that ANC 2A, a comparably-sized ANC, considered. The six who had originally voted against the co-chairs' plan, including ANC 2E Commissioner Charlie Eason, supported the motion.

On September 6th, one day before the reconsideration vote was set to end, ANC 2E Chair and redistricting task force co-chair Ron Lewis approached me about what specific elements about the co-chairs' plan I would like to see changed. I responded with the following map, which I believe represents a fair compromise between the co-chairs' plan and the Flanagan plan described in my earlier piece.

SMDs 02, 06 and 07 remain exactly the same in this plan as they are in the co-chairs' plan. SMD 05's outline remains very similar to its shape in the co-chairs' plan, with several blocks west of Wisconsin added to bring its population from a too-low 1,710 to a more acceptable 2,107. These blocks also fit with the commercial character of SMD 05.

The primary changes from the co-chairs' plan to this plan resolve around how it deals with Georgetown University's campus and the blocks immediately nearby. Instead of the nearly 2,600-person SMD monstrosities found in the co-chairs' plan, this compromise plan instead brings them within code, with total populations of 1,889 and 2,013.

Here are the populations in this plan and the co-chairs' plan:

The recommended SMD size, according to the DC Code, is 1,900 to 2,100.

In the co-chairs' plan, the relative deviance in SMD size is nearly 40%. In the compromise plan I am proposing, it is approximately 24%. I feel as though this is still on the high side, but it is a number I would be far more comfortable with.

I also did not present this compromise plan as a finalized plan. I do not believe it is perfect and am open to making revisions to it. For instance, I think that if the Burlieth residents were amendable to it, moving the block bounded by 34th, 35th, R, and Wisconsin from SMD01 to SMD02 would be sensible, for several reasons.

Unfortunately, discussing such ideas has been impossible. After sending Chairman Lewis my idea of a compromise, I did not hear back about it until September 9th. At this time, Commissioner Lewis sent the working group's finalized recommendations to Commissioner Birch, including this line: "To complete your file, you have previously received a proposal from working-group member John Flanagan, and an email earlier this week contained a proposal from working-group member Jake Sticka. Neither of these proposals has the support of a majority of the working group."

I was particularly disappointed by this line because at this time only Commissioner Lewis had been sent the compromise plan. A working group cannot reject a plan it has never seen.

Regardless, the co-chairs' plan is now in Commissioner Birch's hands. If you have thoughts on ways to improve my compromise plan, please leave a comment here. If you are concerned about the process and the plan that may come out of it, please contact Commissioner Tom Birch at bircht@earthlink.net.

Cross-posted at DC Students Speak.

The plan as proposed by ANC 2E chair Ron Lewis, Citizens Association of Georgetown President Jennifer Altemus, and Burleith Citizens Association President Lenore Rubino, would split ANC 2E into eight single-member districts (SMDs), and would pack all Georgetown University students living in university-owned properties (both those within the University's gates and those off-campus) into two huge SMDs.

This addition of an 8th SMD to an ANC which has historically had only 7 comes in response to a boom in Georgetown's population and the addition of 800 undergraduates to GU's campus. Most of the new GU residents live within the Southwest Quadrangle, a building that opened in 2003 and caused SMD 2E04, which I currently represent, to swell in size to become the city's third largest.

While an improvement over the current ANC 2E map, which blatantly gerrymanders the university campus into four separate SMDs, the co-chair's plan is still problematic.

Under §1-1332 of the DC Code,

(e) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall result in district populations with a deviation range greater than 10% or a relative deviation greater than plus-or-minus 5%, unless the deviation results from the limitations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including, but not limited to, respect for the political geography of the District, the natural geography of the District, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contiguous districts.

A memo released by DC Council members Michael Brown and Jack Evans on the 2010 redistricting process goes further, telling task force participants that "each single-member district shall have a population of approximately 2,000 people, and shall be as nearly equal as possible."

The co-chair's plan clearly does not adhere to this guidance. It packs unacceptably large numbers of students into a small number of SMDs, while spreading the non-student population around into several unacceptably small SMDs.

The two packed campus districts would each have exactly 2,581 individuals in them, while SMD 2E01 would have a population of 2,409. Meanwhile, SMD 2E02 (Commissioner Lewis') would have a population of only 1,660, SMD 2E03 a population of only 1,705, SMD 2E05 a population of 1,710 and SMD 2E06 a population of 1,836. Only SMD 2E07, at 1,983 individuals, would be within the size variance advised under code.

The SMD divisions proposed appear to be a blatant attempt to restrict the political power of students, and enhance the power of non-students.

The co-chairs and their supporters have argued that the "neighborhood cohesiveness" exception within the code makes their plan admissible. Such an interruption is without precedent. According to information provided by the Office of Planning, following the 2001 redistricting process only eight SMDs were outside the 1,800-2,200 population range at that time, with the largest being SMD 6B11 at 2,362 people. For ANC 2E to have six such "exceptional districts," and two districts far larger than the largest from 2001 is extraordinary.

More to the point, the purpose of this size variance seems clear: to ensure that students continue to be under-represented on ANC 2E. This is troublesome considering that section §1-1332 on the DC Code continues:

(f) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall be considered if the plan or amendment has the purpose and effect of diluting the voting strength of minority citizens.

What exactly constitutes "minority citizens" is not made clear, but students certainly are a statistical minority in the District of Columbia, and the DC Human Rights Act includes students as a protected class. Regardless of legal status, though, it is unfortunate that the redistricting task force would move to pack students.

Students live in DC for a majority of the year, pay sales and income tax here, and are greatly affected by the actions of DC government. The fact that some students, for fairly obvious reasons, choose not to register to vote in DC is ignoratio elenchi. Voting status simply has no relevance to ANC districting. For example, DC's Central Detention Facility famously has its own SMD.

A far better option for ANC 2E redistricting was put forward by student John Flanagan. The Flanagan proposal would, like the co-chair's proposal, create two on-campus districts. Unlike the co-chair's proposal, it would create a third, mixed district that would be potentially winnable for both students and non-students. Flanagan's plan drew support from both students and non-students on the task force.

The existence of a mixed district such as that proposed by Flanagan would add motivation for students to be actively involved in local politics. It would also create incentive for whoever held the seat to balance the concerns of students and non-students alike. This would promote cooperation and encourage students to take increased responsibility for their actions in the community.

Additionally, the Flanagan proposal has the advantage of adhering to the DC Code. No district in his plan falls outside the 1,800-2,200 range, and the difference between the largest and smallest district is only 214 people. Compared to the 921 person difference in the co-chair's plan, Flanagan's is much more even.

The co-chairs, in their official report (PDF), dismissed the Flanagan proposal, writing that it is "a mechanical approach driven by a faulty premise—that there should be three student SMDs—and flawed by insufficient ground-level research and inquiry."

It is disappointing that the co-chairs would imply that a third student commissioner would be objectionable. ANC 2E passed a Student Bill of Rights in 2002 affirming the the right of students to "full participation in community and civic affairs." The ANC is bound by its own rules to give student votes as much weight as non-student ones.

Disappointment in this process extends beyond the co-chairs to include Jack Evans, for the manner in which he chose to conduct ANC 2E's redistricting. The selection process for task force co-chairs was done without public input. That led to the task force having no student co-chair, despite the fact that Georgetown students represent nearly 45% of ANC 2E's population.

Moreover, Mr. Evans decided to separate the Ward 2 redistricting task force into ANC sub-groups, while other wards have met as a whole. That has allowed the Ward 2 process to be bogged down in hyper-local concerns, absent the moderating voice of more faraway median voters.

Residents of ANC 2E should consider speaking out against the co-chairs' proposal, and in favor of Flanagan's. ANC 2E will present the co-chair's plan at its next meeting, on August 29th at 6:30 pm in Georgetown Visitation's Heritage Room. Ron Lewis can be contacted at Ron.Lewis@anc.dc.gov.

Freshmen should not be forced to live in 170-square-feet triples while paying for some of the most expensive University housing in the country. Reducing enrollment by nearly 25 percent would represent a huge blow to the University's already constrained financial resources. These losses could lead to layoffs at the District's largest private employer.

Additionally, requiring all students to live on-campus would reduce the vibrancy and diversity of the already fairly staid surrounding community. Students live off-campus so that they can assert their independence and learn what it is like to live on their own. This arrangement, which furthers student ties to their community, should be encouraged, especially by a city hoping to expand its tax base.

Fortunately, the OP seems to recognize that their recommendations are not the only way forward. At the May 12 Zoning Commission hearing, OP representative Jennifer Steingasser repeatedly said that she was open to other solutions, so long as they brought students back on-campus and mitigated objectionable impacts in the community.

These solutions are possible. Today, Georgetown students spend time off-campus because they are frustrated by a lack of on-campus space that meets their needs. There's no real reason to live close to the center of student life, because there isn't one.

As long that is true, students will continue to socialize in the community and frequent bars on M Street, even if they are barred from living off-campus. A more holistic plan to remedying the objectionable impacts that OP sees is needed. Such a plan, which both recognizes the need to draw students back on-campus and their right to live off-campus, is laid out below.

Increase student space

For years, students have been advocating for more student space on campus. In 1999, a group of student leaders compiled the Report on Student Life, which recommended that the University reorganize Leavey Center and invest in a real student union. Plans for a New South Student Center were included in the 2000 Campus Plan but never came to fruition, and the proposal is again part of the 2010 Campus Plan.

Last year, the Student Space Working Group released a report that found that the same problems still exist a decade later. When surveyed, 64 percent of students said they desired more study space, 56 percent desired more social space, 49 percent desired more space for eating, 41 percent desired more meeting space, and 32 percent desired more student club space. The longer the students had been at Georgetown, and the more involved they were in extracurricular activities, the more frustrated they were with the space available.

What's more, when asked to identify the center of student life on campus, a plurality of students (33 percent) said it was Lauinger Library. This perception demonstrates a core problem. The spaces available do not meet the full variety of student needs, which means students need to use space in a way that conflicts with its intended purpose—for example, we socialize in an area where other people are trying to study—which renders the space ineffective.

As a result, a full 17 percent of those surveyed answered that there was no center of student life at all.

The closest thing we have to a student union—Sellinger Lounge in the Leavey Center—has not become the student-centered space it was envisioned as because of the presence of hotel guests and Georgetown Hospital staff.

If the campus were the real center of student life, more students would choose to live on-campus. The University can and should create spaces and opportunities for a healthy social scene to thrive.

Bring back Healy Pub

Many alumni still wistfully remember Healy Pub, the bar located in the basement of Georgetown's signature building. In 1987, responding to the higher drinking age, the University ordered the pub to shut down. Town-gown struggles began in full-force in the early 1990s, as student social life began to shift to private parties in Burleith and West Georgetown.

Now, a group of students are trying to bring the pub back. Since 2001, the student body has been paying into a Georgetown University Student Association Endowment Fund. The interest from the fund was supposed to finance student activities once the fund reached $10 million by 2011, but the University reneged on its promised $3 million contribution, so the fund has only reached $3.4 million. The student association leaders now consider the endowment a failure and plan to re-appropriate the money. We have $3.4 million to spend, and the Endowment Commission, identifying the same lack of student space we have, voted last month to put $3.23 million towards the pub.

The proposal is to model the pub after Queen's Head Pub at Harvard. On weekend nights, the area would function as a bar. Those under 21 would be allowed to enter, but they would not be allowed to drink. The rest of the time, the space would function as a lounge, where students could meet, socialize, work, eat snacks and reserve private rooms for meetings.

There are obvious obstacles. Once running, the pub will need an alcohol license, which obviously requires support from the Georgetown Advisory Neighborhood Commission.

Also, the Financial Aid Office and other administrators currently occupy Healy basement, so students need the University's assistance—and blessing—in relocating the people already there to space that will be opened up with the completion of the new science center.

Although the New South Student Center is a necessity and a part of the plan that students welcome, it is not enough. A student-designed, student-run, student-financed space in the heart of Georgetown's historic campus would go a very long way to creating a stronger sense of on-campus community and toward bringing socialization back on-campus.

Reduce on-campus party restrictions

During finals week in 2007, Vice President of Student Affairs Todd Olson surprised students with the announcement of a new alcohol policy. Administrators had decided to institute a one-keg limit, require host training for parties, require students to register parties by Thursday morning, limit the number of students, and increase sanctions for violations, with a third violation leading to suspension. At the time, the Georgetown Voice termed the changes "draconian."

The following September, the student association president led administrators on a tour through campus on a Saturday night. To their surprise, "There were about eight people standing around [on the rooftops] … and when they moved on to Henle, they could hear crickets in the courtyards." Before, it had been one of the biggest party weekends of the year.

Neighbors complained that they noticed an increase in off-campus parties and student noise. Students expressed fear of throwing parties on-campus, citing the new increased sanctions and party registration requirements.

Now, the dynamic has shifted somewhat. Many students express similar fears of 61-Ds for noise violations or Office of Off-Campus Student Life sanctions for off-campus parties.

Students know that despite their best efforts, parties often take on a life of their own, especially at the beginning of the year when groups of freshmen search high and low for a party to crash. Therefore, students decide to throw their parties on- or off- campus depending on where they perceive they'll attract the least trouble.

If we want students to socialize on-campus, we should consider this constant calculus. To an extent, we can shift the party culture by simply shifting the incentives. As we have seen in the last few years, it's not enough to increase the punishments for out-of-control off-campus parties. We need to also loosen the restrictions on on-campus parties.

Meet all undergrad demand for on-campus housing, starting with hotel and 1789 Block

The University maintains that it has provided housing for all undergraduates who have requested it. However, should the above measures be implemented, more upperclassmen will want to live on-campus so that they can be closer to the center to student activity. This is especially true if the expansion locations are well-integrated with existing student patterns.

Considering the existing campus, the two sites for additional housing that seem most sensible are the Leavey Center hotel and the block bounded by Prospect, N, 36^th, and 37^th, known informally as the "1789 block."

Although the Leavey Center has many flaws as a student center and should ultimately be replaced, it has recently become more student-friendly with the opening of the Hariri Business Building, which connects to Leavey. This trend will continue when the new science center opens in fall 2012 (plans call for the science center to connect to Leavey via open lounge spaces). The addition of student housing to Leavey will help ensure that foot traffic in the building returns to being predominantly student-driven, as opposed to hotel guest- or hospital staff-driven.

The "1789 block" which was once a part of the 2010 Campus Plan, would add up to 250 beds and 8,500 square feet of neighborhood servicing retail in the middle of a university-owned block right outside the university's gates. This project would be within a block of three other university dormitories and two university academic buildings. The "1789 block" would be closer to the front gates than the preexisting Nevils apartment complex and LXR dorm. This space is already a center of student activity, and additional commercial areas so close to campus would entice more students to the area.

The University estimates that these two projects could house approximately 500 undergraduates. This would bring the total number housed on-campus to 5,553, which represents about 92 percent of Georgetown's traditional undergraduate enrollment. This figure compares favorably to every university in Washington and is in line with schools like Harvard, Princeton and MIT, which OP praises in their report as models.

Rate My Landlord

Even if these measures are successful, approximately 8 percent of undergraduates will still have the ability to live off-campus.

However, those students who choose to move out of University housing often pay high rents for low-quality neighborhood housing. Slum landlords regularly fail to maintain their property or respect tenant rights. Students are blamed for the unsightly rental houses, when it is the landlord's responsibility to pay for upkeep.

Theoretically, the Georgetown Office of Off-Campus Life is there to "address the needs and concerns of off campus students." In practice, the office spends as least as much time serving its secondary function: acting "as a liaison between the university and our neighbors, encouraging dialogue about issues of mutual concern."

Lost in the shuffle are the students, who need a stronger advocate in their negotiations with landlords.

One service that would make a big impact would be a "rate my landlord"-type website, where students and other subletters could share information about rental rates, housing quality, upkeep and landlord responsiveness.

Students don't want to live under poor conditions. With more transparent information, students can demand better treatment and drive the slumlords out of business.

The takeaway

In the long run, holistic solutions that aim to improve campus and community life will be far more effective than draconian mandates, which will mire us in legal battles for years to come. We ask that the Zoning Commission, University, and community rethink their approach. The only solutions that can truly address persistent town-gown tensions will be the ones that also take student interests into account.

There are three changes in direction that GU should take if it is serious about managing transportation demands to enable smart growth.

Charge market rates for on-campus parking. Georgetown University should not be subsidizing parking for its employees and visitors and should not be overbuilding parking spaces.

GU and its hospital offer massive subsidies to employees, patients and visitors to park on-site. Even with those subsidies, typical parking demand during peak periods is 88% of available spaces. If parking were not subsidized, it would be clear that the campus has too much of it.

The university and hospital only charge $135 and $68 per month, respectively, for employee parking (p. 14 of TDM report). That is significantly below market rates in Georgetown, where others who work there pay between $200 and $300 per month for parking. The lowest monthly rate for a Georgetown parking garage is $215.

GUH charges $6 per day for patients and their visitors. The least expensive daily parking for visitors to Georgetown, by comparison, is $25. Washington Hospital Center charges $12/day, and GWU Hospital charges $7 for the first hour, $6 for the second hour, and up to $17 per day.

Even with these heavy subsidies, Georgetown experiences "typical demand for 3591 spaces during peak times" out of a total of 4080 spaces (p. 17 of TDM report). That's 88% usage during typical peak times.

The city's largest employer should create more jobs, which can only happen by shifting commuters to transit. That's why DDOT also recommends that developers charge market rates for employee parking as part of their transportation demand management plans.

Oddly, GU thinks its prices disincentivize driving. The Campus Plan states that "the University will continue to manage its parking permits and rates to disincentivize driving to campus" and GU will "continue use of price to discourage single occupancy vehicles."

Subsidized parking rates induce driving, and nothing would increase transit use by employees, patients and visitors more than charging the same rates that employees and visitors in the rest of Georgetown have to pay. 46% of GU and GUH's 8,302 employees drive alone to work, and only 396 of them participate in SmartBenefits. Those numbers may be better than they were in 2000, but they are nowhere near what they could be if GU stopped massively subsidizing parking.

Lobby DDOT to help manage demand and bring the streetcar to campus. Typically, very large employers provide lots of jobs, and they expect transit routes to go where those jobs are; for example, National Harbor in Maryland, which receives a subsidized shuttle bus from the Green line paid for by the state.

But Georgetown has not lobbied DDOT to bring transit to its doors. When DDOT rolled out its Capital Bikeshare initiative, the agency had to take the initiative to place a CaBi station on campus and push to secure a deal with GU. It should have been the other way around.

The biggest benefit for GU from DDOT would be for the agency to bring the planned streetcar line along K and M Streets past Wisconsin Avenue to campus, either to the Car Barn (where the city's original streetcars turned) or up the Canal Road entrance into campus.

Residents and students have disagreed on the route of the GUTS Shuttle from campus to Dupont Circle, but the planned streetcar route would connect to several Red and Orange Line stations, making the Dupont and Rosslyn GUTS routes less important. DDOT would rather run the streetcar down M than along K, but will accept K if that's what the community wants. The community wants the streetcar, but many oppose overhead wires on M Street.

GU knows none of this because it was communicated to a meeting of the Georgetown BID, ANC and Citizens Association that the University wasn't even invited to. DDOT doesn't know what GU wants, and that has to change.

Support performance parking. The University should also support performance parking. Currently the Georgetown ANC, as well as BID and Citizens Association, are working with DDOT to place meters in high-demand residential blocks that would charge market rates for parking. This will increase parking turnover and availability.

The Georgetown ANC has pressed DDOT for years on this initiative, with the help of CAG and the BID, and has grown frustrated at times with DDOT's pace. GU, on the other hand, has been fine to be placed on a need-to-know basis. This is simply unacceptable.

Prioritize pedestrians over cars with car-free promenades and woonerfs. Library Walk connects the majority of student housing with the library, quad and several academic buildings and is the primary route used by students. One would expect that such a route would be an attractive footpath with park amenities like benches and tables.

Instead, Library Walk is a street, with narrow sidewalks for students. It doesn't even connect to other streets; it's a dead end.

This is a missed opportunity for creating an engaging, attractive space where students want to be. Spontaneous interactions on Library Walk don't result in lingering, because no one wants to congregate on a narrow sidewalk next to a street.

Cars should be banned on Library Walk, the asphalt and curbs should be replaced with an attractive park and footpath (just like the path south of the SQ Quad) and benches and tables should be added to encourage socializing.

In addition, streets that are heavily used by students but also required for certain car trips should be converted into woonerfs. The key features of woonerfs are that pedestrians have priority over cars and the distinction between the sidewalk and the street is blurred (short curbs, same brick/stone patterns used on street as on sidewalk).

GU needs to make a greater commitment to transit than it is today. Such a commitment would demonstrate GU's lip service to environmental issues and its consideration of the community's concerns, and enable it to create more jobs without overburdening its transportation infrastructure.

The university previously agreed to build an additional 250 beds on campus by the fall of 2014. On top of that, by the fall of 2015, OP calls for GU to house 90% of its undergrads in GU housing. By the fall of 2016, the requirement is 100%.

If GU doesn't meet that requirement, OP wants GU's undergrad cap to be cut annually by 25% of the difference between the cap and the number of beds until it meets the 100% mark.

That additional GU housing also can't be built east of 37th Street. That's where the campus gate lies, though the campus boundary is farther east. No housing can be in the 20007 zip code, other than on the campus and behind the gates.

I believe there are about 1,500 GU undergraduates not living in GU housing. That means that after GU adds the 250 that it has already agreed to, it would need to build roughly an additional 1,250 beds by 2016.

GU would have a couple options to satisfy this. First, it could find space for more beds behind the gates. One idea I've heard was to build a dorm on top of Leo dining hall, but I don't know if that is feasible. Second, GU could buy housing for its students outside the 20007 zip code: in other words, in Rosslyn.

All in all, this is a pretty devastating report for GU and I am simply floored by it. But there are still a lot of "ifs." Most critically, while the Zoning Commission is often deferential to the Office of Planning, there's no guarantee they'd go along with this severe a proposal. One factor that is definitely not an "if" is the question of what happens if the Zoning Commission adopts OP's report: years of litigation.

GU appealed the last campus plan decision, and ultimately won. Further, while the courts have rejected various universities' claims that student caps violate the DC Human Rights Act, the court hemmed and hawed a bit before reaching that conclusion. The court might reach a different conclusion if presented with these more severe conditions.

Either way, this is a huge bombshell in this battle, and it fell squarely on GU.

Read the complete report.