Balance

I realize there are both deeply held environmental beliefs and possibly some good reasons to oppose the creation of a new university in our region. What strikes me about both the vote of the one supervisor who opposed this measure and of the environmentalists who opposed it, is their lack of balance. Their cause, regardless of the consequences should take pre-eminence. Ultimately true environmentalists make a place for human behavior. The position against the university here lacks balance of competing long term goals. I know something about vernal pools because I live next to one of the most spectacular versions of them in the area - and amazingly enough my tax dollars, based on a parcel tax, help to protect those pools in perpetuity. Yesterday, the Sacramento Board of Supervisors took an action to open the possibility of opening a piece of land for development south of the city of Rancho Cordova and to create a new private university in the tract. The discussion pitted the Sacramento Environmental Council against supporters of the creation of the university (which is called the University of Sacramento and is a part of a network of universities originally founded in Mexico by the Legionnaires of Christ, a Mexican Catholic order). The Board made the right decision.

Opponents of the plan suggested, according to the Bee, "The land for which Cordova Hills has been proposed is at the heart of the remaining irreplaceable vernal pools and grasslands within Sac County," the Environmental Council of Sacramento wrote to supporters. "This area contains numerous threatened and endangered species." The issue of vernal pools is an interesting one - vernal pools are a quite interesting thing in nature. They are caused when underlying hard pan prevents the proper drainage of water. Because of forces in the spring, as the collected rain or snow water evaporates they show off some magnificent flowers. (as in the picture above) But the definition of what constitutes a vernal pool is mushy (unlike the hard pan). Some extremists claim that almost all of the Sacramento region, because of the soil formations of hardpan is a giant vernal pool. The question should be then what is it of significance that the land in Cordova Hills represents? On a 4-1 vote the Supervisors wisely rejected that "logic" (of preventing development of a university merely to protect a piece of land which looks remarkably like any other piece of land in the area). One wonders whether the environmental community uses mimeographed talking points on things like this. (Oh, wait, mimeograph chemicals are not environmentally friendly, perhaps they use vellum manuscripts. Oh, wait, that uses animal skins. I guess they use recycled paper, carried on foot.)

California's economy is dependent on a highly educated workforce. As the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy suggested a few years ago our five leading sectors include computers, biotechnology, trade, entertainment and professional services. Each require a workforce with strong educational backgrounds. And for a number of years the state prospered as a result of the investments it made in public and private higher education. But as the Public Policy Institute of California argued recently, that trend changed and for the last decade or more we have imported college educated workers either from within the US or from outside it. The PPIC projected that by 2020 we will have a 6% deficit in the numbers of workers with BAs and advanced degrees. So building more capacity is critical to the state's economic health. If we do not build more universities, those five sectors, which are very mobile, are likely to move to more educationally friendly climates.

But the enviros don't see it that way. What is troubling is that they use the same logic on each case. A similar proposal was held up in Placer County - again where a university site was part of a larger undeveloped tract of land. In that case the developers did not even tie the university to their own economic interests but still the greenies wanted nothing to do with the project.

The logic of allowing universities to grow outside of current limits is incontrovertible. In California, starting with Stanford (1891), University of the Pacific (1921 - in Stockton),Saint Mary's, UC Davis, Sacramento State, Pepperdine and a host of others - built campuses in relatively undeveloped areas and then gradually the urban areas grew out to the university. That is a pattern that works best for universities. It allows a university to develop its own culture and identity. It is also a pattern that dates back to the first millennium when some universities that are still around began to develop. The project that will move the University of Sacramento out to Cordova Hills will be there for a very long time.

The second gambit that the enviros have taken has been to suggest that the university relocate to another site. As if land grew on trees. If the premise about universities needing open space to develop properly is correct- and there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction, then the balance here should fall toward the project in relatively open space. In the University of Sacramento's situation that meant an abandoned Air Force base (Mather) or to keep it downtown (it currently offers classes in downtown Sacramento). Neither Mather or downtown make long term sense for a learning community that will eventually grow to 7000 students. In the case of the Placer project even the Sacramento Bee has proposed to move the project downtown. The problems with the approach of substitution is that it is unrealistic for at least two reasons. First, is the notion that there are not large enough tracts of land in urban areas to accommodate a full blown university. A good part of the allure of universities is their open space. In numerous cities around the country university campuses are situated in parklike atmospheres. In both cases (University of Sacramento and the Placer project) the developers have offered a portion of their land to a university. The environmentalists claim this is somehow sinister - but in reality both developers see a much larger public purpose. The opportunity for development of a long lasting resource should be seized not quibbled with. The second problem is that idea that universities need space to develop their cultures. (Discussed above)

The Placer project was first proposed several years ago and is likely to be approved in concept in the next few months (one of its biggest supporters on the Placer board was Bill Santucci, who died recently). To develop a university to its full capacity takes decades. The shortsightedness of the environmentalists is predictable but disappointing. Thankfully, yesterday, the Sacramento board left the door open to capture this resource for the region. Let's hope it moves forward.