We claim this borough in the name of Columbia!

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>Columbia seemed to be a place that cares about the community it's in, Morningside Heights, Harlem, and the greater New York City area - but I'm concerned about what's happening with Columbia's expansion North. </p>

<p>It rings of conquest. And I'm not convinced by arguments that "Columbia will help better the community, Columbia can offer a lot to the community...etc." I'm looking for insight from anyone who has an opinion. </p>

<p>How are students reacting to this?
Does Columbia, students, faculty, administration -everyone- actually care about the community?
Or is the University just looking for some fresh dirt to plant a flagpole in?</p>

2

<p>Manhattanville is a very divisive subject on campus. Well...I'd say 10% highly disapprove, 10% support, and 80% dont really care.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm between not caring and supporting on principle. It's Manhattan, it's an island, therefore land is scarce and valuable. It should go to the people that can develop it to its potential, simple economics. The people living there have been bought out at market price or higher, I dont really see the problem. Columbia gives a lot back to the community (tutoring, development, etc) as it is. I honestly believe expanding will help upper Manhattan more than leaving Manhattanville as it is.</p>

<p>But that's just my opinion. You have people on both sides of the spectrum like I said (hunger strikers anyone?).</p>

<p>Look at bwog.net, the spec, etc for the full range of reactions.</p>

3

<p>i support it. I think if you are affiliated with columbia in any way you want it to continue to prosper and the only way that'll happen is if they have more space...otherwise they'll no longer be competitive in the academic world. As manhattan keeps getting more and more expensive people are moving north so if columbia doesn't buy out these neighborhoods first others will. </p>

<p>oh and the hunger strikers are morons...i think this has already been discussed on this board.</p>

<p>EDIT: also, i think that the minority of students who don't support it have really drowned out or intimidated the students who do support it....i wouldnt be surprised if the split between non-supporters and supporters is more like 10/30 rather than 10/10.</p>

4

<p>Columbia's expansion is both justified and beneficial to the community. The only part of the plan I do not agree with is the use of eminent domain, but I think that Columbia should be free to buy up all of the land it wants to directly from the owners(without eminent domain).</p>

<p>The expansion is greatly needed. Columbia's campus is extremely small compared to other large research universities, as it is in the middle of NYC. As it is, Columbia's campus is extremely cramped(just look at the amount of greenery on Columbia's campus compared to, say, Harvard). If Columbia wants to stay competitive in research, it needs space. Badly. If Columbia did not absolutely need the space, do you think Bollinger would be proposing a $7 billion expansion? That's practically the size of Columbia's endowment! This isn't a casual "Oh we could probably use more space, so let's buy up some land north of us" move; it's a "we desperately need more space for research right now" move. The expansion is not optional; it is required for Columbia's continued success.</p>

<p>The expansion is also beneficial to Manhattanville because it will bring with it improved economic vitality for the neighborhood. Yes, in the process it will displace many of the current poor residents, but that is the cost of making a neighborhood better. </p>

<p>Quite frankly, I am disturbed by how generous the university is being. It's quite simple: Columbia buys property up, the value of the surrounding property goes up, the poor residents are displaced, and the area around Columbia's property gets much nicer. Free market economics at its best! Why should Columbia feel any obligation to give charity to the residents by allowing them to stay in a neighborhood they won't be able to afford? If a Starbucks moves into Manhattanville, is it obligated to pay for affordable housing? Of course not. Columbia has much better things to spend $20 million on than allowing residents too poor for the new area to stay in their homes.</p>

<p>I am opposed to forcing anyone out of their homes via eminent domain, but if people agree to sell their homes/businesses, Columbia should buy up all the land it can, and make Manhattanville a better neighborhood in the process!</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
Free market economics at its best!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am opposed to forcing anyone out of their homes via eminent domain

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well said, and this is the basic principle. I would just add that I am also apposed to Columbia being able to use the threat of eminent domain to force people into selling their homes/businesses to Columbia.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Manhattanville is a very divisive subject on campus. Well...I'd say 10% highly disapprove, 10% support, and 80% dont really care.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This misses the point. It's more like 10% highly disapprove, and 90% are fine with it. The "don't care" crowd clearly do not disapprove of it.</p>

<p>The only people who oppose the expansion are socialist / social engineering types.</p>

6

<p>primary displacement effects of the university expansion is (eminent domain or not ) is relatively small compared to what'll happen to 125 after the event. I'd say columbia moving pass 125th is going to have an effect on the commercial activities there, and while thats not eminent domain, it'll force out more people than the actual expansion itself.</p>

<p>anyways, columbia's pretty much opposed to using eminent domain, but there's a need to maintain the threat there, or else the businesses there can just infinitely jack up the land prices since they know the university need to purchase it.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
anyways, columbia's pretty much opposed to using eminent domain, but there's a need to maintain the threat there, or else the businesses there can just infinitely jack up the land prices since they know the university need to purchase it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's a bad thing? If Columbia needs the land, they should pay a premium price for it.</p>

8

<p>right, it becomes a game of brinksmanship. That's called negotiations.</p>

<p>And C02 is right, it's pretty much, 10% vehemently oppose it, and 90% support it / don't care. And the 10% are generally socialists who aren't in favor of a free market anyway.</p>

<p>Personally, I can't wait until there's a moving sidewalk to take you up/down the hill between morningside and manhattanville.</p>

9

<p>The potential use of eminent domain is necessary in order to carry out a planned expansion of this magnitude in such a densely populated area so that a few real property owners cannot derail the entire project by holding out for what might be deemed "unreasonable compensation". Fair compensation for property often must be decided by the courts through the use of eminent domain. While this is not a perfect system, it is the best that is available. Without the "threat" of eminent domain--a costly and lenghty process--expansion for the public good would be almost impossible in such a densely populated & heavily developed area.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Without the "threat" of eminent domain--a costly and lenghty process--expansion for the public good would be almost impossible in such a densely populated & heavily developed area.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What's a public good? Eminent domain was originally intended for public USE -- building roads, natural resources, etc. Allowing private corporations (that's what Columbia is) to take peoples' land with government approval is not a public use. Saying something will be in the "public good" is speculative and hardly ever pans out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fair compensation for property often must be decided by the courts through the use of eminent domain. While this is not a perfect system, it is the best that is available.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's a terrible system. Eminent domain proceedings undercompensate people. They don't pay businesses for goodwill and don't reimburse the costs of moving somewhere else.</p>

<p>In addition, it gives the taker 100% of the "premium" and totally excludes the victim from the "pie."</p>

<p>
[quote]
The potential use of eminent domain is necessary in order to carry out a planned expansion of this magnitude in such a densely populated area so that a few real property owners cannot derail the entire project by holding out for what might be deemed "unreasonable compensation".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They should be able to hold out. If the taker is going to derive great profits from the expansion, they can afford to pay the hold-out price. Why should the hold-outs not be entitled to negotiate for part of the expansion premium? If it's not worth it for the taker to pay the hold-out price, then the project probably doesn't have the economic value that he thinks it has. And he shouldn't then use the government to alter those dynamics.</p>

11

<p>uh, C02, philosophically I agree with you, but the Supreme Court does not:</p>

<p>Kelo</a> v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

12

<p>Columbia2002: Many have shared your knee jerk, emotionally based reaction to actual and proposed uses of eminent domain. A much more reasoned and in depth analysis is necessary to fairly balance the interests of the public good versus individual property rights. It is a more complicated issue than one may think at first glance. The best way to appreciate and understand the subtle but complex issues inherent in many eminent domain issues is to read the case law analyses. On several occassions, I have espoused views similiar to yours prior to a more studied approach and in depth analysis. Eminent domain is certainly in conflict with a society that places a very high value on individual rights. An interesting result in Atlantic City, New Jersey involved a lone holdout property owner against a very generous casino development company's bid for a small home; eminent domain was not used as it was not then available for use by private developers for publicly sanctioned projects so the developers simply built the casino around the lone holdout's home. The property owner was not unwilling to sell, he or she just wanted something like 100 times fair market value when the developer was offering 50 or 60 times FMV. Essentially, the lone holdout was trying to extort the developer, and the economic good of the community, by the mistaken belief that a lone holdout would thwart the entire project. In a democracy, the lone holdout was without support, but balancing individual property rights even in the face of overwhelming odds of 99% vs. 1%,</p>

13

<p>...by comparison, miss Kelo was not interested in holding out for more money. She wanted to keep the property, damn the price and the developers' offer. And that was what made it a supreme court case.</p>

<p>Columbia's case is somewhere between the two. As a nonprofit established for the public good, Columbia can claim a little more high ground than a mall developer. It is my impression that many of the holdouts and complainers in the target area are of the "gimme more money" variety, rather than the "my grandparents were born and died in this house and you can kiss the rosiest part of my ass" variety.</p>

<p>If it is the former, then this is all simply posturing over money, and the threatened use of eminent domain in order to protect some measure of Public Interest (given Columbia's status within NYC, the jobs at stake, etc) may be appropriate. If it's the latter, then neither I nor Sandra Day O'Connor support the use of eminent domain in this case.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
uh, C02, philosophically I agree with you, but the Supreme Court does not:</p>

<p>Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And on the subject of individual rights, the Supreme Court also thinks this:</p>

<p>Korematsu</a> v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>
[quote]
Many have shared your knee jerk, emotionally based reaction to actual and proposed uses of eminent domain.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My reaction is based on: 1) a plain reading of the Constitution ("nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC USE, without just compensation"), 2) an economic analysis of the efficiency of takings and the hold-out problem, and 3) the consistent failures in practice of public purpose takings. Nice try diminishing my views to "emotionally based."</p>

<p>
[quote]
A much more reasoned and in depth analysis is necessary to fairly balance the interests of the public good versus individual property rights. It is a more complicated issue than one may think at first glance. The best way to appreciate and understand the subtle but complex issues inherent in many eminent domain issues is to read the case law analyses. On several occassions, I have espoused views similiar to yours prior to a more studied approach and in depth analysis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? You're confusing the constitutional issue with the economic issue.</p>

<p>
[quote]
An interesting result in Atlantic City, New Jersey involved a lone holdout property owner against a very generous casino development company's bid for a small home; eminent domain was not used as it was not then available for use by private developers for publicly sanctioned projects so the developers simply built the casino around the lone holdout's home. The property owner was not unwilling to sell, he or she just wanted something like 100 times fair market value when the developer was offering 50 or 60 times FMV. Essentially, the lone holdout was trying to extort the developer, and the economic good of the community, by the mistaken belief that a lone holdout would thwart the entire project.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you talking about the Trump project in Atlantic City? THE ECONOMIC GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY????? A BILLIONAIRE WANTED TO MAKE THE WOMAN'S PROPERTY INTO A LIMOUSINE DRIVEWAY SO HE COULD GET EVEN RICHER!!</p>

<p>Public purpose takings never pan out. A private company always promises that its new use of the land will bring in higher tax revenues, more jobs to the area, yada yada. And almost always, these benefits are never realized. Example #1 is the landmark Poletown case, which turned out to be an economic disaster. Public purpose takings are a charade.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Columbia's case is somewhere between the two. As a nonprofit established for the public good, Columbia can claim a little more high ground than a mall developer. It is my impression that many of the holdouts and complainers in the target area are of the "gimme more money" variety, rather than the "my grandparents were born and died in this house and you can kiss the rosiest part of my ass" variety.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not sure if I buy the "nonprofit established for the public good." Eminent domain for roads is one thing, but why should an exclusive private school be on much higher ground than the mall developer? </p>

<p>Why is a "gimmie more money" holdout entitled to less sympathy? What about business owners who have owned a business somewhere for their entire lives and established a ton of goodwill?</p>

15

<p>"Not sure if I buy the "nonprofit established for the public good." Eminent domain for roads is one thing, but why should an exclusive private school be on much higher ground than the mall developer?"</p>

<p>ok columbia and educational institutes definitely do lead to more public welfare than a mall, columbia does a ton of community service which serves the public wellbeing. but yes columbia university is not precisely a public good. Although in many ways it's used as one, like residents bringing their children to the lawns and using it as a park in the evenings, or the free internet access on terminals at the entrances of buildings. your refusal to see a spectrum, of what leads to the betterment of the area, isn't taking this thread anywhere.</p>

<p>"Why is a "gimmie more money" holdout entitled to less sympathy? What about business owners who have owned a business somewhere for their entire lives and established a ton of goodwill?"</p>

<p>um the goodwill is being overestimated here, the major business obstinately staying there, is a storage warehouse, yes there is established goodwill but how much. Moreover columbia is already paying well above market price to all they are displacing. it is absolutely in the land owners interest to inflate his business's value, and he will continue to do so unless there's an ultimatum, basics of game theory C02, you should be very familiar with this. the government can step in when the overwhelming ultilitarian interests are blocked. That being said, columbia is committed to negotiation and eminent domain is not on the horizon.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Why is a "gimmie more money" holdout entitled to less sympathy?

[/quote]

because stands based on negotiating tactics are less sincere than stands made on principle. Kelo didn't want to move, she was fine where she was, and she wasn't being told to sell for a public good (i.e. a power plant), but New London's definition of the "public interest". You can't tell me these aren't qualitatively different situations than someone offered $500k for a $300k property and demanding $600k.</p>

<p>and as CColl points out, Columbia has not threatened the use of eminent domain anywhere. The only people bringing it up are the protesters - because Columbia "refused to rule out" its use (or presumably asking NYC to use it). Why would it "rule something out" even if it had no right to take that action in the first place? Negotiating 101, the side perceived to be crazy or relentless has an edge.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
ok columbia and educational institutes definitely do lead to more public welfare than a mall, columbia does a ton of community service which serves the public wellbeing. but yes columbia university is not precisely a public good. Although in many ways it's used as one, like residents bringing their children to the lawns and using it as a park in the evenings, or the free internet access on terminals at the entrances of buildings. your refusal to see a spectrum, of what leads to the betterment of the area, isn't taking this thread anywhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I refuse to see a spectrum, for one, because the whole "public purpose" concept is BS.</p>

<p>And perhaps a mall provides more a public benefit than a university expansion? Malls bring jobs to the area. Malls generate tax revenues. Malls bring conveniences to people. Malls bring competition that allows people to get things cheaper. Malls can rejuvenate a blighted area.</p>

<p>
[quote]
um the goodwill is being overestimated here, the major business obstinately staying there, is a storage warehouse, yes there is established goodwill but how much. Moreover columbia is already paying well above market price to all they are displacing. it is absolutely in the land owners interest to inflate his business's value, and he will continue to do so unless there's an ultimatum, basics of game theory C02, you should be very familiar with this. the government can step in when the overwhelming ultilitarian interests are blocked. That being said, columbia is committed to negotiation and eminent domain is not on the horizon.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In your opinion, why is it the government's place to step in and force an unwilling seller to convey his property to a private buyer? What's the source of your belief that this should happen? Do you believe in natural rights? Or do you believe that the government has a duty to interfere with a private transaction when it deems such interference to be efficient to society as whole?</p>

<p>The existence of eminent domain as an option -- whether or not Columbia denies that it's thinking about using it -- affects the negotiation dynamics.</p>

18

<p>"Malls bring jobs to the area. Malls generate tax revenues. Malls bring conveniences to people. Malls bring competition that allows people to get things cheaper. Malls can rejuvenate a blighted area."</p>

<p>columbia will do all this, and more, plus the community service, and green area. And who said eminent domain is categorically wrong for a mall, if a mall can rejuvenate an area, of course weigh the pros and cons and force people to leave if it must be done.</p>

<p>"Do you believe in natural rights? Or do you believe that the government has a duty to interfere with a private transaction when it deems such interference to be efficient to society as whole?"</p>

<p>I don't believe in infallible rights, and especially not the absolute and unending right to hold on to property when there is a serious public benefit at stake. there has to be an overwhelming benefit to society relative to the private cost for the gov to step in. And this too cannot be evaluated in black and white, it requires a spectrum of though, and an ability to quantify the public good relative to the private cost, there isn't an answer of absolute truth to when eminent domain is acceptable.</p>

<p>"The existence of eminent domain as an option -- whether or not Columbia denies that it's thinking about using it -- affects the negotiation dynamics."</p>

<p>absolutely it does, hopefully it'll the send the message to the land owner that he cannot demand a ridculous amount for the land. It's an enforcement mechanism, otherwise columbia is hostage to his demands however ridiculous they might be.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]

How are students reacting to this?
Does Columbia, students, faculty, administration -everyone- actually care about the community?
Or is the University just looking for some fresh dirt to plant a flagpole in?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To get back to addressing the OP</p>

<p>1) Most students are fine with it. There's a vocal activist element at Columbia that's not. I like to call these students "activists in search of a cause". There's nothing they love more than protesting, bless their hearts. They usually find something to decry on a yearly basis. </p>

<p>2) Columbia does respond to the community often. Columbia also often shoots itself in the foot in order to appease the community. Back in 2002 Columbia opened a K-8 private school as a faculty recruitment tool. They reserved half the seats for neighborhood children and offer financial aid. Now there isn't enough room for faculty children, the original purpose of the school. As part of the Manhattanville expansion Columbia will be creating a Science Magnet high school for the NYC Public school system.</p>

<p>3) Of course the University is looking to plant its flag in new dirt. Columbia is far and away the most space starved ivy league school by a measurement of sq ft per student. Harvard, which is the second most space starved school in the ivies by that same metric, has double the sq ft per student as Columbia. Yeah, we kinda need the space. Bad.</p>

<p>You can read more about Manhattanville here: Manhattanville</a> in West Harlem</p>

<p>and </p>

<p>How</a> will the local community benefit from this expansion?</p>