Outside Topic OT: development on Stanford's land - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic OT: development on Stanford's land (/thread-24885.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic OT: development on Stanford's land (/thread-24885.html)
OT: development on Stanford's land - TrumpCard - 04-05-2024
I have read, over the years, that Stanford has had a complicated relationship with local governments in the surrounding area, and that there have been agreements specifying the amount of development Stanford has been allowed to pursue. This topic comes up in the context of housing for grad students and faculty. I'm posting here because I saw an article today about a new CA law that allows non-profit institutions of higher education to bypass local regulations if they develop affordable housing. I wonder whether Stanford would be inclined to use a portion of its enormous campus to contribute to the local affordable housing stock, and if so, whether this new law also would help Stanford bypass the agreements it has in place that limit development on Stanford's campus. Here's a link:
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/newsom-signs-laws-to-fast-track-housing-on-churches-lands-streamline-housing-permitting-process/
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - gocard14 - 04-05-2024
Interesting. I wonder if grad student housing qualifies as low-income housing. Certainly many grad students qualify as low income, but making the housing Stanford exclusive may nullify that? Devil will be in the details as with most laws.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - jacket3ree - 04-05-2024
Looks like they are still working from the 2000 General Use Permit.
Santa Clara County Stanford Policies
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - TrumpCard - 04-05-2024
(04-05-2024, 04:36 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Interesting. I wonder if grad student housing qualifies as low-income housing. Certainly many grad students qualify as low income, but making the housing Stanford exclusive may nullify that? Devil will be in the details as with most laws.
I don't think Stanford could build housing exclusively for grad students that would qualify as "affordable housing" for purposes of any statute. Stanford grad students might well qualify based on their income, but good luck to them getting a slot. Section 8 housing is in high demand, Section 8 residents typically stay for a long time, and waiting lists for such housing tend to be long. Grad students would be unlikely to get many/any slots because they don't tend to stay in one place for a long enough period of time.
I was talking about Stanford making an investment in building affordable housing on undeveloped land to rent to low income residents without regard to their affiliation with Stanford. The university would have to be motivated primarily either by altruism or by economics (since Section 8 housing can produce solid and reliable revenue streams). Without the new statute, Stanford couldn't really consider such an investment because the university needed to use all its available square footage to provide housing for its own. If this statute effectively exempts statutorily compliant "affordable housing," then it might change Stanford's decision calculus.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - chrisk - 04-05-2024
(04-05-2024, 05:15 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Looks like they are still working from the 2000 General Use Permit.
Santa Clara County Stanford Policies
Stanford has pretty much exhausted possible development under the previous GUP. A few years ago Stanford pulled its proposed new GUP because of conditions the county (led by Simitian)and affected parties wanted to impose. With Simitian out of the way next year, Levin may have an opening to take another approach.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - 82lsju - 04-05-2024
(04-05-2024, 06:30 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(04-05-2024, 04:36 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Interesting. I wonder if grad student housing qualifies as low-income housing. Certainly many grad students qualify as low income, but making the housing Stanford exclusive may nullify that? Devil will be in the details as with most laws.
I don't think Stanford could build housing exclusively for grad students that would qualify as "affordable housing" for purposes of any statute. Stanford grad students might well qualify based on their income, but good luck to them getting a slot. Section 8 housing is in high demand, Section 8 residents typically stay for a long time, and waiting lists for such housing tend to be long. Grad students would be unlikely to get many/any slots because they don't tend to stay in one place for a long enough period of time.
I was talking about Stanford making an investment in building affordable housing on undeveloped land to rent to low income residents without regard to their affiliation with Stanford. The university would have to be motivated primarily either by altruism or by economics (since Section 8 housing can produce solid and reliable revenue streams). Without the new statute, Stanford couldn't really consider such an investment because the university needed to use all its available square footage to provide housing for its own. If this statute effectively exempts statutorily compliant "affordable housing," then it might change Stanford's decision calculus.
Stanford has been buying off campus housing for affiliates to rent for some time and it has been controversial
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/10/17/county-looks-to-steer-housing-toward-stanford-campus/
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - McKenwood - 04-06-2024
(04-05-2024, 08:17 PM)82lsju Wrote:(04-05-2024, 06:30 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(04-05-2024, 04:36 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Interesting. I wonder if grad student housing qualifies as low-income housing. Certainly many grad students qualify as low income, but making the housing Stanford exclusive may nullify that? Devil will be in the details as with most laws.
I don't think Stanford could build housing exclusively for grad students that would qualify as "affordable housing" for purposes of any statute. Stanford grad students might well qualify based on their income, but good luck to them getting a slot. Section 8 housing is in high demand, Section 8 residents typically stay for a long time, and waiting lists for such housing tend to be long. Grad students would be unlikely to get many/any slots because they don't tend to stay in one place for a long enough period of time.
I was talking about Stanford making an investment in building affordable housing on undeveloped land to rent to low income residents without regard to their affiliation with Stanford. The university would have to be motivated primarily either by altruism or by economics (since Section 8 housing can produce solid and reliable revenue streams). Without the new statute, Stanford couldn't really consider such an investment because the university needed to use all its available square footage to provide housing for its own. If this statute effectively exempts statutorily compliant "affordable housing," then it might change Stanford's decision calculus.
Stanford has been buying off campus housing for affiliates to rent for some time and it has been controversial
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/10/17/county-looks-to-steer-housing-toward-stanford-campus/
Thank you for sharing this article. The real estate decisions Stanford makes both for its land and land it now controls in nearby communities will have a tremendous impact on its future. This should be one of the top priorities for President Levin as his predecessor screwed up in this regard.
Specifically Stanford needs to change the nature of the relationship with Santa Clara County. Previously Santa Clara was a difficult entity to deal with but Stanford pretty much got what it needed. Then in 2019 Santa Clara refused to even discuss an update to Stanford's general plan unless Stanford agreed to limit car trips to what had previously been agreed in the prior general plan. Stanford decided it wasn't worth engaging with Santa Clara on that basis. In the meantime there has been a statewide shift in favor of producing new housing. Stanford should have used this sea change in thinking to get back to the table with Santa Clara with a housing element at the forefront of the discussions. Instead Stanford failed to take the intitiative and once again was dictated to by Santa Clara.
Stanford should have considerable interest in building more housing so this can be on the table. Stanford needs to decide what its other priorities are. Personally I want to see a big increase in the size of the undergraduate population. Not sure what else Stanford needs over the next 10-20 years. In retrospect it committed too much of its buildable square footage to the two hospitals so other priorities, like student housing and more academic buildings, got short changed.
Finally if Santa Clara and surrounding communities want Stanford to build more housing there is probably common ground for Stanford to make contributions for schools and public safety. This would undercut the arguments of Stanford not paying property taxes for housing on their land and in adjacent comminities. Unlocking the housing element would probably allow Stanford to undertake its non-housing development.
President Levin has many challenges on his plate. I hope he puts land use and political relationships at the top of his list.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - Mick - 04-07-2024
(04-06-2024, 03:18 PM)McKenwood Wrote:(04-05-2024, 08:17 PM)82lsju Wrote:(04-05-2024, 06:30 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(04-05-2024, 04:36 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Interesting. I wonder if grad student housing qualifies as low-income housing. Certainly many grad students qualify as low income, but making the housing Stanford exclusive may nullify that? Devil will be in the details as with most laws.
I don't think Stanford could build housing exclusively for grad students that would qualify as "affordable housing" for purposes of any statute. Stanford grad students might well qualify based on their income, but good luck to them getting a slot. Section 8 housing is in high demand, Section 8 residents typically stay for a long time, and waiting lists for such housing tend to be long. Grad students would be unlikely to get many/any slots because they don't tend to stay in one place for a long enough period of time.
I was talking about Stanford making an investment in building affordable housing on undeveloped land to rent to low income residents without regard to their affiliation with Stanford. The university would have to be motivated primarily either by altruism or by economics (since Section 8 housing can produce solid and reliable revenue streams). Without the new statute, Stanford couldn't really consider such an investment because the university needed to use all its available square footage to provide housing for its own. If this statute effectively exempts statutorily compliant "affordable housing," then it might change Stanford's decision calculus.
Stanford has been buying off campus housing for affiliates to rent for some time and it has been controversial
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/10/17/county-looks-to-steer-housing-toward-stanford-campus/
Thank you for sharing this article. The real estate decisions Stanford makes both for its land and land it now controls in nearby communities will have a tremendous impact on its future. This should be one of the top priorities for President Levin as his predecessor screwed up in this regard.
Specifically Stanford needs to change the nature of the relationship with Santa Clara County. Previously Santa Clara was a difficult entity to deal with but Stanford pretty much got what it needed. Then in 2019 Santa Clara refused to even discuss an update to Stanford's general plan unless Stanford agreed to limit car trips to what had previously been agreed in the prior general plan. Stanford decided it wasn't worth engaging with Santa Clara on that basis. In the meantime there has been a statewide shift in favor of producing new housing. Stanford should have used this sea change in thinking to get back to the table with Santa Clara with a housing element at the forefront of the discussions. Instead Stanford failed to take the intitiative and once again was dictated to by Santa Clara.
Stanford should have considerable interest in building more housing so this can be on the table. Stanford needs to decide what its other priorities are. Personally I want to see a big increase in the size of the undergraduate population. Not sure what else Stanford needs over the next 10-20 years. In retrospect it committed too much of its buildable square footage to the two hospitals so other priorities, like student housing and more academic buildings, got short changed.
Finally if Santa Clara and surrounding communities want Stanford to build more housing there is probably common ground for Stanford to make contributions for schools and public safety. This would undercut the arguments of Stanford not paying property taxes for housing on their land and in adjacent comminities. Unlocking the housing element would probably allow Stanford to undertake its non-housing development.
President Levin has many challenges on his plate. I hope he puts land use and political relationships at the top of his list.
Great post. 100% agree.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - chrisk - 04-07-2024
With Simitian off the Board of Supervisors next year, Stanford will have a new opportunity to negotiate a workable deal. It’s not clear if his replacement will take a more reasonable stance, but they will have less political clout. I think Stanford felt it would be better off waiting until Simitian was gone.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - Goose - 04-07-2024
(04-07-2024, 01:37 PM)chrisk Wrote: With Simitian off the Board of Supervisors next year, Stanford will have a new opportunity to negotiate a workable deal. It’s not clear if his replacement will take a more reasonable stance, but they will have less political clout. I think Stanford felt it would be better off waiting until Simitian was gone.You may be correct that Stanford felt it would be better off with Simitian gone, but IMO Stanford is still in real trouble with the surrounding jurisdictions. COVID-19 greatly reduced the local traffic problems, but as those who live in the area can tell you, they are coming back with a vengeance. Stanford has greatly increased the size of its non-academic staff. This has been discussed repeatedly on this board. Much of that staff is associated with the hospital. All of that staff commutes and at least some of that staff puts significant pressure on local housing prices and local services. This generates no sympathy from the nearby communities.
During the Hennessy administration Stanford basically did whatever it wanted without regard to the PR aspects of these operations. They had a GUP and it was interpreted by Stanford as carte blanche to build like mad. The basic vibe was "We don't care what you think. We believe the GUP allows us to do this, so we will. If you want to argue about traffic effects, that is covered in the plan and we can litigate that if you want". It was not a "good neighbor" relationship and it won't quickly return to one. FWIW this situation is exacerbated by Stanford Medicine's ever-growing presence in the local community. While one might believe making available more good medical care is a "good thing", it creates the impression that Stanford is "taking over" even more from local jurisdictions. Stanford buying Notre Dame in Belmont is another example of the "Stanford is everywhere and all-powerful" concern that the public and their representatives feel.
It may well be true that Stanford buying Notre Dame was the best possible outcome for the school, but that doesn't mean everybody is happy about that outcome. Gown and town is always a fraught relationship. It is political, and Stanford needs to realize that and act accordingly. It is even more fraught when the actions are not clearly and obviously related to academic pursuits. IMO Stanford needs to spend a lot more effort on it's image in the community. It may have to forgo some actions that are arguably "legal" in order to work cooperatively with local governments. That is part of the "cost of doing business". Things will not always be amicable between the parties, but allowing things to degenerate as far as the have is IMO a big problem.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - Mick - 11-11-2024
(04-05-2024, 04:36 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Interesting. I wonder if grad student housing qualifies as low-income housing. Certainly many grad students qualify as low income, but making the housing Stanford exclusive may nullify that? Devil will be in the details as with most laws.
That might change shortly. The grad students look to go on strike. Based on a cursory read of the metrics, I think they have a strong argument.
Thousands set to strike at Stanford, hobbling research and grading ahead of finals
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - 82lsju - 02-26-2025
Quote:After careful consideration, Stanford University has decided not to exercise its option to purchase the Notre Dame de Namur University (NDNU) campus property in Belmont. The university arrived at this decision after evaluating many factors, some of which could not be anticipated when Stanford first entered into an option purchase agreement with NDNU almost four years ago.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/02/stanford-will-not-pursue-belmont-campus?utm_content=httpsnewsstanfordedustories202502stanfordwillnotpursuebelmontcampus
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - Mick - 02-26-2025
(02-26-2025, 08:28 AM)82lsju Wrote:Quote:After careful consideration, Stanford University has decided not to exercise its option to purchase the Notre Dame de Namur University (NDNU) campus property in Belmont. The university arrived at this decision after evaluating many factors, some of which could not be anticipated when Stanford first entered into an option purchase agreement with NDNU almost four years ago.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/02/stanford-will-not-pursue-belmont-campus?utm_content=httpsnewsstanfordedustories202502stanfordwillnotpursuebelmontcampus
I think this paragraph may shed some additional light on the decision:
Quote:In addition, the landscape for research universities has changed considerably since Stanford entered into the option purchase agreement with NDNU. These changes are resulting in greater uncertainties and a different set of institutional and financial challenges for Stanford.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - M T - 02-26-2025
I read that as the uncertainty for the duration of the current US administration because of concerns that the current Federal Government is altering its business practices regarding NIH and NSF funding. Is that how it seems to others?
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - BostonCard - 02-26-2025
I may be bringing my biases into this, but that’s how I read it too. The University of Pittsburgh paused enrollment in its PhD programs because of the “uncertainty” and this article suggests other schools are adjusting their expenditures.
https://www.wesa.fm/health-science-tech/2025-02-21/university-pittsburgh-phd-pause-research-funding-uncertainty
let me know if the post strikes people as political, since whether that was a contributing factor to Stanford is pure speculation. But as the article makes clear, the uncertainty is having effects elsewhere so it is at least plausible that it played a role in Stanfords decision.
BC
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - chrisk - 02-26-2025
Federal scholarship funding and a possible new tax on endowments are among other financial considerations
This is the Stanford Report story on the Levin/Martinez update on finances to the Faculty Senate last week:
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/02/senate-hears-update-on-federal-policy-matters-approves-research-policy-changes
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - 82lsju - 02-27-2025
Quote:Stanford will implement a freeze on staff hiring in the University, according to an email from University president Jonathan Levin ’94 and Vice Provost Jenny Martinez Wednesday morning.
“[The freeze] will affect hiring for staff employee positions for an undetermined duration,” wrote University spokesperson Dee Mostofi in an email to The Daily.
https://stanforddaily.com/2025/02/26/university-freezes-staff-hiring/
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/02/staff-hiring
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - chrisk - 02-27-2025
(02-27-2025, 08:51 AM)82lsju Wrote:Quote:Stanford will implement a freeze on staff hiring in the University, according to an email from University president Jonathan Levin ’94 and Vice Provost Jenny Martinez Wednesday morning.
“[The freeze] will affect hiring for staff employee positions for an undetermined duration,” wrote University spokesperson Dee Mostofi in an email to The Daily.
https://stanforddaily.com/2025/02/26/university-freezes-staff-hiring/
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/02/staff-hiring
This is a reasonable cover for not funding the House settlement to the full $20.5. The fully self-funded big-time programs may be OK but there are schools even in the Big 10 and SEC that will have to go slower than they would have liked because of the hole in their research budgets.
Some thawing in the NIH grant approval process reported by NPR yesterday.
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/26/g-s1-50920/trump-nih-funding-freeze-medical-research
The thaw applies only to the first stage of review. Later review stages are still on hold.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - TrumpCard - 03-08-2025
After the administration cancelled 400mm in payments to Columbia University, the NYT published a list of 9 other schools reportedly on the short list to lose funding as well. Stanford is not on the list, but several cross-state rivals are. Cal, UCLA, and U$C all on the list.
RE: OT: development on Stanford's land - Canalejas - 03-10-2025
(03-08-2025, 10:37 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: After the administration cancelled 400mm in payments to Columbia University, the NYT published a list of 9 other schools reportedly on the short list to lose funding as well. Stanford is not on the list, but several cross-state rivals are. Cal, UCLA, and U$C all on the list.
It appears that cutting funding isn't the only prong of attack that a targeted school might expect. A Columbia affiliate has been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite being a permanent resident.
https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8#