This University exists, both as a physical campus and as an institution, by result of foresight and planning by past administrators. Formulating long-term strategies about how to expand this “land-locked” University must account for a multitude of interwoven factors, and we understand such planning is difficult.
Yet the administration’s current plan to sell Westmoreland Apartments does not appear to fit into a clear, practical long-range vision. Statements made by President Dave Frohnmayer during a hearing before the Oregon State Board of Higher Education on Friday failed to clearly disclose the University’s plans, if any, for the use of sale money. He emphasized the need to quickly put the property on the market to keep potential buyers interested but did not disclose how long the University has been plotting a sale or why administrators announced the sale so suddenly.
Frohnmayer told the board that money generated by the sale would allow the University to be more nimble in buying land when “once a century” opportunities arise. After the hearing, he said his dream is to build a land bank east of campus along Franklin Boulevard that be his legacy.
It is unclear when land will become available and how much it will cost. We must question what the land, purchased with housing money, will be used for, given the University’s history of using housing money to acquire land for other purposes. Even if it is used to renovate aging residence halls, we don’t seem to have an overarching plan for balancing residence hall needs with non-traditional student needs.
Meanwhile, residents at Westmoreland, including graduate teaching fellows, international students, students with children and others, oppose the sale. Without Westmoreland, they rightfully say there will be a lack of affordable housing and child care options for low-income students, especially those with families.
We are pleased the board asked administrators to study and implement ways to ease the effects of a Westmoreland sale on tenants. Part of the sale proceeds should certainly be used for this purpose. But dealing with the aftermath of a sale is not sufficient. The administration’s top priority should be to clearly state its plans for the money.
Effective long-term planning sometimes requires short-term sacrifice. But before people will sacrifice their homes, they need to see the long-term vision; they need to know what they give up will not be in vain. As leaders of this University, administrators surely understand that students and faculty members will not willingly sacrifice if this vision isn’t shared openly with the University community. So far, the vision is not clear.
If administrators wish to build a legacy, they should lay out their plans for spending sale money as clearly as possible. We understand that fluctuating property markets and many other factors will contribute to this decision, and many aspects of the sale are interrelated. These complications are exactly the types of details we need to know.
Only when the facts are clearly laid out will we be able to judge the merits of this move. After reviewing all the facts, students may continue to oppose the sale. Then, even if a controversial sale progresses, the administration will at least leave a legacy of openness.