The university I went to has existed since 1388, one of the first universities in the Holy Roman Empire if I remember correctly, and yet it still answers to public authority when it comes to land use. That seems pretty normal to me, no such thing as academiocracy
Open a race track in the middle of nowhere. 20 years later you have a group of neighbors asking you to cease your activity because it’s too loud.
Same with airports.
Lots of things have existed for a long time, in the context of a society where they have always had to coexist and interact with others. Why would existing for some time give them license to affect the community and people around them in any way?
This isn't like someone moving next to a pub and demand they stop playing music, or next to a farm and complain about the smell of manure. The complaint is about the adverse changes.
Not saying that it is the right way to do things, but its hard to deny the presence.
It immediately reminds me of one of my all time memorable yet confusing quotes.
"Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same dilemma: either police rule or insanity." Albert Camus, The Rebel
If everything is determined by local control like this then every single college town will come to the same conclusion.
I can empathize with the homeowners there - but obviously bad for society as a whole if every single town acts selfishly.
Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods is a group of residents that organizing collective action and is bringing a legal challenge against a massively wealthy and powerful organization which they believe is impacting their quality of life. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
That is what I mean when I say it is coordination.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is really not good overall? I don't see what you mean.
But you can bet your bottom dollar those organizations would be the first to launch legal action against the little guy if they thought they were being impacted by their activity, so what's the problem with action in the other direction?
Don't you think it's a bit dystopian for an employer to be housing its employees? Not sure that's what we should be aiming for.
The military, for instance (and this is similar to what I've seen at some colleges), have housing for people at different grades. Dorms for younger enlisted troops, houses for families, and houses for specific ranks/positions like a base commander. There are a few reasons for this. One is historical (a lot of bases weren't near housing options), another is control (the dorms), another is community. By being on the same base with each other everyone is part of the same community. You can see a bit of disintegration (at least for USAF) with the decrease in state-side housing (or the use of it). They aren't around each other as much, their families aren't friends with each other in the same way as last century, they have no real sense of community (the troops may, but not the wider population of troops + family, this is also uneven, some subgroups haven't been impacted in the same way as others).
What I've seen at some colleges (more accurately, saw) was similar to the rank/position housing and also trying to help with creating a community at the college. The former can make a lot of sense, and is hardly dystopian. College president hosts a lot of events and gets a house suitable for it on the campus. With both them and other faculty members it keeps them on campus as part of the community, rather than turning college professor into a "job" (a thing you commute to and do your 9-5 and then go home from, again, see the disintegration of the military community in the US as an example of something you sometimes want to avoid).
Also, college campuses don't move very often. Since cities don't stop growing the housing around the campus can become very limited. Forcing people away, out into the suburbs. Whether you just want them to have easy access to the campus or want to try and create a real community, having campus housing can mitigate this issue.
It becomes dystopian when it's subpar housing, comes with pay cuts, or is mandatory (especially without at least a decent reason like: The president should live in the president's house).
obviously never visited a barracks.
Not so much an issue in Berkeley, of course, but makes a ton of sense for schools where heavy snowfall is a thing. School get canceled most often because professors [and employees] can't safely get to campus due to weather -- individual professors getting sick isn't enough to close the entire school.
Sure, if (1) Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood was responsible for some action requiring an EIR, and UC can make a colorable argument both that (2) SBN violated the requirements of CEQA with regard to the EIR, and that (3) this caused legally cognizable injury to UC such that the University has standing.
Of course, none of those are true.
Where I live there are "Farm Rights" laws which say if you are a newcomer, you can't file suit or complain about or interfere with normal farm operations.
Existing farmers have complete seniority over new folks!
So smells, sounds, big equipment on the roads, etc. MUST be tolerated. And especially the annual "shit straining" of fields with cow manure which smells up everything for the week or two when that's done.
I think it's great and the way it should be!
Texas A&M is a public university https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University
Not that I disagree, they added nearly 7x the students they planned to add due to reduced state funding so perhaps revisiting their plans is a good thing. Maybe they'll add more than just 150 faculty housing units.
I think overall this just shows the uncertainty in higher education. Top tier schools can attract a practically limitless supply of students yet we can only add so many spots due to space constrains. Meanwhile there are dozens to hundreds of schools throughout the country that are closing due to declining enrollment (many deserved it since many of these schools were simply former agricultural schools, etc. that re-branded as universities to attract more students). Maybe instead of trying to squeeze every ounce of space on existing locations, these schools should open satellite schools throughout the country?