News

The increasing development by UC Berkeley beyond its traditional boundaries and its resulting encroachment on the city’s central business district and adjacent neighborhoods has been accelerating at an alarming rate. New and proposed construction will require untold additional city services, including fire and police protection as well as public works expenditures. 

The total impacts, which can’t even be calculated at this time, will place an ever-growing burden on an already diminished city tax base. 

UC’s Long Range Development Plan, adopted with much fanfare over a decade ago, was to be a roadmap for UC development, but also assurance to the city that growth would not go unchecked. This has proved to be illusory. The plan is constantly being revised to reflect UC’s latest priority. “Our goal,” writes the chancellor in a recent newsletter, “is to promote social interaction and intellectual collaboration, preserve open space, protect our architectural treasures, and help enrich the communities around u s.” UC, however, has taken the position that as a state institution it can expand wherever and whenever it wants to, and that it is exempt from city zoning regulations. 

The latest project to implement its plan is a UC hotel and conference center in the heart of downtown, with up to 200 rooms and 20,000 square feet of development. In this proposal, unlike others, UC would agree to be subject to the city’s review process—but only because it needs the city to contribute substantial public works to make the project feasible. 

We believe that, in the light of relentless UC expansion, and the severe fiscal problems facing the city over the long term, the best solution would be for the city to declare bankruptcy and for the university to take over the city, acting as agent for the State of California. This would benefit the city and UC in a number of ways: 

• UC could end its piecemeal dismemberment of the city—they could have it all at once, without delays or acrimonious meetings with city commissions. 

• Berkeley homeowners and businesses would no longer have to pay onerous local property taxes, since university ownership of the city would mean city properties would be tax exempt. 

• Substantial savings would be achieved by eliminating overlapping staff s, services and facilities. Also, there would be no need for costly municipal elections, or the expense of maintaining our City Council and its paid staff. 

• Since the city’s bond rating is higher than the state’s, the latter would be able to borrow more cheaply and pass these savings on to UC for land development, even beyond city boundaries. Conceivably, when it runs out of space locally, the university could acquire arch-rival Stanford. 

We propose that the Regents, together with the governor, appoint a committee to further explore these recommendations and to lay the groundwork for a strategic implementation plan.  

Finally, we recommend that any newly created entity have a name which reflects the reality of the present situation. No, it would not b e “UC-Berkeley.” It would be “U-Saw Berkeley.” 

Alan Goldfarb and Frank Trinkl are concerned Berkeley citizens.  

?c