Comments on: Dissolve the City-University Partnership? http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/ Helping imagine a great college town for a great university Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:30:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kevin Fallon U Md '93 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/comment-page-1/#comment-11885 Kevin Fallon U Md '93 Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:03:44 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/#comment-11885 I see nothing wrong with some good old fashioned accountability. Why not a simple "report out" of topics discussed and future initiatives? Simple posts to a web site, nothing hugely elaborate. I also understand the need to keep the group small, focused, and strategic. This partnership could really be something positive and truly innovative when it comes to redevelopment issues. A highly effective partnership could take on strategic initiatives like leveraging the University's Bond rating to obtain cheaper redevelopment financing. Wall Street would salivate at the opportunity to back the redevelopment a town like CP because the risk-reward trade-off is so favorable. (We have alums in key positions with some of Wall Street's top I-banks for Community Development and Public Finance.) If you study birth rates you will see that 1991 was the highest peak since the 1957 peak of the baby boom. Now add 18 years to 1991 and you see that those kids enter college in 2009. Um - hello - can we say "SURGE IN ENROLLMENT" and "MAJOR STUDENT HOUSING CRUNCH"?!?!?!?!?! Shame of it all is - we cant get East Campus and the Knox Boxes redeveloped into hip, cool, urban spaces in 2 years. Ahhhh sweet home CP and here we sit bumper to bumper staring through the auto emissions to the tatoo parlors, waterbed and dinette shops, "take me down to the paradise city where the grass is green and .........." I see nothing wrong with some good old fashioned accountability. Why not a simple “report out” of topics discussed and future initiatives? Simple posts to a web site, nothing hugely elaborate. I also understand the need to keep the group small, focused, and strategic.

This partnership could really be something positive and truly innovative when it comes to redevelopment issues. A highly effective partnership could take on strategic initiatives like leveraging the University’s Bond rating to obtain cheaper redevelopment financing. Wall Street would salivate at the opportunity to back the redevelopment a town like CP because the risk-reward trade-off is so favorable. (We have alums in key positions with some of Wall Street’s top I-banks for Community Development and Public Finance.)

If you study birth rates you will see that 1991 was the highest peak since the 1957 peak of the baby boom. Now add 18 years to 1991 and you see that those kids enter college in 2009. Um – hello – can we say “SURGE IN ENROLLMENT” and “MAJOR STUDENT HOUSING CRUNCH”?!?!?!?!?!

Shame of it all is – we cant get East Campus and the Knox Boxes redeveloped into hip, cool, urban spaces in 2 years.

Ahhhh sweet home CP and here we sit bumper to bumper staring through the auto emissions to the tatoo parlors, waterbed and dinette shops, “take me down to the paradise city where the grass is green and ……….”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Daddio http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/comment-page-1/#comment-11761 David Daddio Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:17:40 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/#comment-11761 I agree that the partnership needs to be more "results-oriented". Had we taken all the money spent on the partnership in the last 8 years ($700,000?) and put it toward the Northgate Park perhaps we would already have it finished today (the only tangible accomplishment of the partnership thus far from what I can tell). That being said, there is a certain intangible to the partnership and perhaps if it was given a more clear mission, more funding, and acted as other such entities do all over the county, both the permanent residents and the student residents would get some much needed results. Otherwise maybe it should transition into a non-funded and non-staffed entity strictly to maintain a face-to-face relationship. I probably shouldn't have tried to squeeze in my city budget analysis in this post, but I felt the implication was clearly there that the city budget is wholly funded by and the city council is wholly representative of homeowners. The former couldn't be further from the truth. The latter seems to be fairly consistent with reality. I agree that the partnership needs to be more “results-oriented”. Had we taken all the money spent on the partnership in the last 8 years ($700,000?) and put it toward the Northgate Park perhaps we would already have it finished today (the only tangible accomplishment of the partnership thus far from what I can tell). That being said, there is a certain intangible to the partnership and perhaps if it was given a more clear mission, more funding, and acted as other such entities do all over the county, both the permanent residents and the student residents would get some much needed results. Otherwise maybe it should transition into a non-funded and non-staffed entity strictly to maintain a face-to-face relationship.

I probably shouldn’t have tried to squeeze in my city budget analysis in this post, but I felt the implication was clearly there that the city budget is wholly funded by and the city council is wholly representative of homeowners. The former couldn’t be further from the truth. The latter seems to be fairly consistent with reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: John Krouse http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/comment-page-1/#comment-11753 John Krouse Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:20:41 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/#comment-11753 When I said [the partnership is] "...providing little or nothing tangible for residents." that's exactly what I meant. To construct an argument based upon the presumption that I meant "permanent residents" a bit disingenuous, isn't it? Is it posturing to want to save $50,000? Show me what what the Partnership has accomplished, and I will be satisfied. When I said [the partnership is] “…providing little or nothing tangible for residents.” that’s exactly what I meant.

To construct an argument based upon the presumption that I meant “permanent residents” a bit disingenuous, isn’t it?

Is it posturing to want to save $50,000? Show me what what the Partnership has accomplished, and I will be satisfied.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Robert Catlin http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/comment-page-1/#comment-11527 Robert Catlin Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:12:06 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/#comment-11527 I am not sure you can say the partnership failed. It had a very modest budget and was given multiple tasks. Many such partnerships across the country have multimillion dollar budgets and actually are a financial partner in projects. The University made it clear pretty early in the partnership that this partnership would not be an active player in development but the Partnership staff would work behind the scenes to promote appropriate development in College Park. The Partnership currently has a significant amount of money in the bank and a very modest level of expenses. An appropriate budget for the Partnership and how it will proceed will be topics for the City and the Partnership in the coming months. Since there has been no "souring" of town gown relations during the tenure of this partnership your statement makes no sense. Town-gown relations in the early years of the partnership were definitely worse than they are currently. I am not sure you can say the partnership failed. It had a very modest budget and was given multiple tasks. Many such partnerships across the country have multimillion dollar budgets and actually are a financial partner in projects. The University made it clear pretty early in the partnership that this partnership would not be an active player in development but the Partnership staff would work behind the scenes to promote appropriate development in College Park.

The Partnership currently has a significant amount of money in the bank and a very modest level of expenses. An appropriate budget for the Partnership and how it will proceed will be topics for the City and the Partnership in the coming months.

Since there has been no “souring” of town gown relations during the tenure of this partnership your statement makes no sense. Town-gown relations in the early years of the partnership were definitely worse than they are currently.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Joe Dexter http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/comment-page-1/#comment-11518 Joe Dexter Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:09:30 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/332/#comment-11518 The failure of this partnership parallels the souring of town gown relations. Certainly a partnership with no evident projects is a questionable investment of public money. The failure of this partnership parallels the souring of town gown relations. Certainly a partnership with no evident projects is a questionable investment of public money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>