|
|
|
Salting our economic wound
December 3, 2008 2:22 PM
|
||
|
Two things became official in November: SF State is impacted and the economy is in a recession. There are more people than available resources in the university and the country as a whole. We predict that the combination of these two factors will have major effects on the amount of students living on campus. The university will be implementing new admissions policies to admit fewer students. They will maintain previous admissions standards for some Bay Area locals (San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties) but will put up roadblocks for “outsiders.” The latter category includes the East Bay, far North Bay, far South Bay, NorCal, SoCal and the rest of the country. These applicants will face greater scrutiny with their high school GPA, SAT scores and/or number of transferrable units from a junior college. We feel that this policy will sabotage SF State’s newfound status as a destination school, rather than a commuter school. As we’ve seen this semester, the freshman dorms were packed to maximum capacity with an intimidating wait list for on-campus housing. In order to meet this demand, the university invested in additional housing such as University Park North next to Stonestown Galleria. It looks like there will be more room for the non-commuting population. However, with the economy in the crapper, incoming students from San Mateo and Marin counties who live within range of Bay Area public transportation will reconsider whether or not it’s worth it to pay rent in San Francisco or live cheap at home. If the future population of SF State will have more commuters, more rooms to fill, but less economic prosperity, then there will be fewer students living on-campus.
»
|
ADVERTISEMENT
COMMENTS
POST A COMMENT
| |
|
|
|
 |
||
 |
|
|
 | ||
| BACK TO TOP | Copyright © 2008 [X]press | Journalism Department - San Francisco State University |
Once again the Xpress, salves the wound, but does not investigate the real effect of "largess"... The SFSU change to a "destination" school is not what the area can support physically, or infrastructure wise. The extent that the university expenditures on UPS and UPN ignored the current state of the campus physically, and the need to provide basic educational systems and infrastructure through online, and satelite campus structures shows the negligence the Capital Planners have in terms of "sustainable" growth. Corrigan's salary, and the regent's costs, capital planners, and consultants, and land and construction costs, easily add up to over what the SFSU is being asked to cut. A simple "Value-Engineering" of the expansion plans, respecting the former right of way along holloway, and font, and not developing UPS would help tremendously in the overall balance. The purchase of the recreation area of parkmerced for the "creative arts center" when SFSU is jointly funding the CCSF creative arts center seems duplication. Students need dorms, and spaces to live, but so do the working citizens being displaced by the universities lack of on-site development along 19th ave. of housing. There are (2) transportation stops there and the need to build along the eastern edge, over the proposals to build on a possible national landmark site such as Parkmerced, far exceeds the planners initial review and regents quick approval. The university could easily build downtown, and convert existing buildings, or develop an alternative campus location. Parkmerced should not be developed as URBAN SPRAWL, by a university, that could not control, its eating habits of student tuition(s). Perhaps a rally, to emphasize fixing what they have over expansion is needed? Parkmerced is being shown as a place worth preserving www.tclf.org Marvels of Modernism 2008 which includes University Park South and the proposed lands designated for that creative arts center on our former open space and recreation area...
Sincerely
Aaron Goodman VP @ PRO
www.parkmercedresidents.org