Retired Faculty Housing at SDSU or Access to Higher Education for Local Students?

In case you missed Dr. Weber's discussion of SDSU's Master Plan on KPBS radio this morning, March 13, here is the link to the audio: http://kpbs.org/Radio/DynPage.php?id=10. To hear the show, click on "SDSU Stephen Weber reflects on first decade" and then click on "Listen now".

SDSU is now attempting to do some "damage control" after the publication of the blockbuster Daily Aztec article regarding his undermining of the Paseo project and the SDSU Research Foundation.

The most interesting part of the show was when Dr. Weber actually admitted the Adobe Falls project will have a NEGATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT to the surrounding neighborhood in Del Cerro! Here's the quote:

"In our judgment there are legitimate grounds to be concerned about traffic. If you go up to Del Cerro and if you look at that neighborhood -- that -- that neighborhood will have a good deal of additional traffic put on its roads because of this project. The -- the disagreement with the neighbors is not whether or not there are negative impacts to this development -- with, and particularly with regard to traffic -- there -- there are. The question is only about whose responsibility it is to address those . . . . problems."

These statements are directly contrary to SDSU's EIR, which states there will be no significant impacts to Del Cerro as a result of the Adobe Falls development. Indeed, up to this point, SDSU has stubbornly and consistently taken the position that this development will have no adverse traffic impacts on our neighborhood and thus, they have no responsibility for mitigating any impacts.

It is unclear whether Dr. Weber's admission was a Freudian slip or a change in SDSU's position. In any event, I was personally on hold waiting to speak to Dr. Weber about this apparent inconsistency for literally the entire show but he never took my call. He was gracious enough, however, to take calls from Ralph Pesqueira and Murray Galinson.

Another interesting portion of the show is Weber's discussion of the need for faculty housing. First of all, he would not admit, on air, that SDSU proposes to build 540 units on less than 30 acres of buildable land. Further, he predictably neglects to mention that 250 units of the proposed Adobe Falls project are intended for retired senior staff and faculty. SDSU has never dared to mention the actual composition of the proposed project to the media, or what the alleged justification is for wanting to build what is primarily a senior center for retired staff and faculty in Adobe Falls. This occasion was no exception.

On another note, with regard to the 10News editorial which recently aired regarding the Adobe Falls project, Ralph Pesqueira did a reply to the editorial, which can be seen here: http://www.10news.com/editorials/7614298/detail.html. In his reply, Pesqueira states SDSU should be "commended" for its plan to build in Adobe Falls. Here again, there is no mention of the fact this development will primarily be a retirement home for senior retired faculty and staff and that this has nothing to do with accomodating SDSU's enrollment growth! I encourage you to respond to Pesqueira's reply by following the links provided on the Channel 10 website.

I also encourage all of you to attend our demonstration on March 25 -- protesting the fact that Dr. Weber is receiving a Monty award when he has done so much to undermine surrounding communities. We meet at 5:30 at the Temple Emmanu-el parking lot. More information to come.

Thank you for your continued support,

Anne Brunkow

Del Cerro Action Council

Letter to San Diego Union Tribune from Pat Washington, PhD regarding SDSU expansion plans:

Dear Editor,

One of the supposedly "undisputed" justifications for SDSU’s proposed expansion north of I-8 and elsewhere is an increase in student applications. However, student demand should not be measured by numbers of applications received, but by numbers of students enrolling. To clarify, in 2003, SDSU had 38,665 applicants, admitted 20,522, and enrolled only 7,128. In 2004, SDSU couldn’t even meet its enrollment targets, and money had to be returned to the legislature. In other words, current student demand is far less than SDSU portrays.

Moreover, while SDSU’s proposed expansion will have a devastating impact on local neighborhoods, the university is willfully turning away qualified local students. In 1999, 43.9 percent of the entering class came from San Diego or Imperial Counties. By 2002, this percentage had declined to 35.8. As already revealed in this paper (“The SDSU of the Future,” Union Tribune, March 24, 2004), the drop in local students is strategic—part of the university’s design to "shed its regional standing and recruit more students from other parts of the state, the nation, and the world." In its drive to achieve "world-class status," SDSU uses a “dual-admit” program to avoid the CSU mandate that qualified local students be given priority in admissions. Under this program, students who are “merely” CSU-eligible are diverted to already stretched community colleges until they show they are "good enough" to meet SDSU’s elite standards. Needless to say, this sends a chilling message to “mere” CSU-eligible locals, who either abandon their dreams of higher education or go elsewhere.

Clearly, SDSU has shifted its mission from being an accessible and affordable alternative for local residents who are unable to afford or gain access to the UCs or private colleges. This factor, along with full disclosure regarding enrollment trends (versus hype about applications) must be taken into consideration by those determining SDSU's actual growth needs vis-a-vis its overweening desire for "world-class status."

Sincerely,

Pat Washington, Ph.D.

College Area Resident