4 ms·

I doubt very many professors at Santa Cruz would want to move unless they could work at a more prestigious university, and all of those are located in areas wit

I doubt very many professors at Santa Cruz would want to move unless they could work at a more prestigious university, and all of those are located in areas with high housing costs like Berkeley and Los Angeles. Actually, a lot of professors at UC Davis commute from the East Bay because they don't want to live in the Central Valley. It's a pretty tall order to convince successful tenured professors living in a beachfront community, most of whom are homeowners and contribute to the NIMBYism of the area, to move somewhere else.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
It's a pretty tall order to ask taxpayers to subsidize the cost of a college beachfront community. We could just close up UC Santa Cruz and call it a day, no relo offer on the table. If you can't terminate tenured professors because you've closed the facility down, buy them out with revenue from selling the campus. Tax dollars for education should not subsidize expensive real estate markets. You can still have your job, we're not under any obligation to keep it within walking distance of your beach front property.
- noobermin 8y ago
  To be fair, I don't think the bulk of the cost of the university goes to the real estate of professors. That said, of course there should be incentives to get professors to move.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    The problem is the need to subsidize student housing due to high real estate costs, not professors. If professors don't want to move, we're subsidizing them through student housing subsidization. Apologies if I didn't make that thought clear.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > Tax dollars for education should not subsidize expensive real estate markets. How can that be avoided? Should we build every university in the middle of nowhere, and then move them around every 30 years because the university drew in enough people to cause housing to become expensive?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    It can't be avoided. You should always be willing to evaluate the ongoing viability of a campus, regardless of location, and not consider any a sunk cost you could not possibly dispose of. Where does the requirement come from that a campus remain in the same location in perpetuity? There is no such requirement, just as a company might close a satellite office if the business requirements change.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Well, the way to avoid this is to build enough properties such that a location is both attractive an inexpensive to live in.
  - prostoalex 8y ago
    Is popularity correlated with high costs? Looking at this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_univer... do College Station, Orlando, Columbus, Miami, Gainesville and Minneapolis carry significant premium as far as cost of living? Miami might, but it seems like it’s more due to the beach proximity and tourism industry than FIU.
- true_tuna 8y ago
  What? Who’s asking tax payers to pay for anything? The issue is “are we allowed to build new housing for all the people who want to come here” so far the answer inexplicably has been. “Nope, not allowed”

toomuchtodo 8y ago

It's a pretty tall order to ask taxpayers to subsidize the cost of a college beachfront community. We could just close up UC Santa Cruz and call it a day, no relo offer on the table. If you can't terminate tenured professors because you've closed the facility down, buy them out with revenue from selling the campus. Tax dollars for education should not subsidize expensive real estate markets. You can still have your job, we're not under any obligation to keep it within walking distance of your beach front property.

noobermin 8y ago
To be fair, I don't think the bulk of the cost of the university goes to the real estate of professors. That said, of course there should be incentives to get professors to move.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  The problem is the need to subsidize student housing due to high real estate costs, not professors. If professors don't want to move, we're subsidizing them through student housing subsidization. Apologies if I didn't make that thought clear.
twblalock 8y ago
> Tax dollars for education should not subsidize expensive real estate markets. How can that be avoided? Should we build every university in the middle of nowhere, and then move them around every 30 years because the university drew in enough people to cause housing to become expensive?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  It can't be avoided. You should always be willing to evaluate the ongoing viability of a campus, regardless of location, and not consider any a sunk cost you could not possibly dispose of. Where does the requirement come from that a campus remain in the same location in perpetuity? There is no such requirement, just as a company might close a satellite office if the business requirements change.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Well, the way to avoid this is to build enough properties such that a location is both attractive an inexpensive to live in.
- prostoalex 8y ago
  Is popularity correlated with high costs? Looking at this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_univer... do College Station, Orlando, Columbus, Miami, Gainesville and Minneapolis carry significant premium as far as cost of living? Miami might, but it seems like it’s more due to the beach proximity and tourism industry than FIU.
true_tuna 8y ago
What? Who’s asking tax payers to pay for anything? The issue is “are we allowed to build new housing for all the people who want to come here” so far the answer inexplicably has been. “Nope, not allowed”