Columbia's Manhattanville Blunder

Columbia Spectator

Opinion


Columbia's Manhattanville Blunder
By Matt Carhart

April 18, 2005

It turns out that Columbia was less than forthcoming about its expansion plans. For a long time, administrators danced around the question of whether eminent domain, the process by which the government forces landowners to move out of their homes for some specific public interest, would be used. Eminent domain is entirely the responsibility of the government and private institutions cannot “exercise” that power, they said.

Even though they were technically correct, that did not tell the entire story. As we learned last week, through documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, three Columbia trustees contacted New York State officials and asked them to condemn several businesses in the area of the Columbia expansion. No, Columbia cannot exercise eminent domain, but it can warm up the process—with a promise of $300,000 to cover legal fees. Interesting little game of semantics, huh?

Now, it seems, Columbia is in trouble. Many do not believe that this is just a routine legal proceeding, one so normal that it isn’t worth talking about, as Columbia claims. To the average person, $300,000 put toward the funding of an inflammatory project is worth at least a mention.

This raises two separate issues. The first is the use of eminent domain. Last year, Community Board 9, the most localized form of city government, which encompasses both Columbia University and Manhattanville, passed a rare unanimous resolution demanding that eminent domain not be used in the area of Columbia’s expansion. Administrators, who frequently point out that the area is composed of people with many different opinions, should take this as a sign of clear sentiment against eminent domain.

Anybody who followed the story could have pieced together Columbia’s intentions. Lee Bollinger has said that unless Columbia can use the entire Manhattanville site, the school will take its expansion elsewhere. Columbia has bought a great deal of property in Manhattanville, but much of the area remains in the hands of others, and some owners have insisted that they will not sell. Why would Columbia abandon this whole project, then, when administrators could ask a pro-development administration to use eminent domain?

With it increasingly likely that Columbia will not obtain all the land it wants, the University has reasons to seek eminent domain. Owning all of the buildings gives urban planners freedom they would not otherwise have. In addition, Columbia’s space restraints mean that the school needs all the space it can get.

But it is wrong to suggest that Columbia must own all the land in the area to pursue this project. Renzo Piano, the famed architect working on the expansion project, told me in an interview last year that the idea of a walled-off campus is outdated. Maintaining vestiges of the old neighborhood might be a challenge for designers, but it also represents a new approach to how a campus should interact with its city.

The second issue is that administrators, who clearly thought nobody would ever know they had contacted the state, decided they did not need to be forthcoming about where they are in the process. This is obviously wrong.

Many in the surrounding areas do not see the University as the devil incarnate and agree that what is good for the University is good for the community. On the subject of Columbia’s openness, though, the community, whether rich or poor, landlord or tenant, should unite. We can all agree that a university that hides the truth is bad for everyone.

Will Columbia ever be trusted again on expansion? Some will probably say no. For a project that could benefit the neighborhood in innumerable ways, that’s just sad. Too sophisticated to lie and not principled enough to tell the truth, administrators have created a public relations mess for themselves. A vitally important project will suffer as a result.


Click here: Columbia Spectator - Columbia's Manhattanville Blunder
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/18/42632eee87d33