Hacker News Reader

>A school has existed since 1868 yet people move near it and think they should have the final say on what the school does

The university I went to has existed since 1388, one of the first universities in the Holy Roman Empire if I remember correctly, and yet it still answers to public authority when it comes to land use. That seems pretty normal to me, no such thing as academiocracy

In America, we carve out special tax and land use districts for mouse-themed amusement facilities: https://www.rcid.org/about/

This happens all the time.

Open a race track in the middle of nowhere. 20 years later you have a group of neighbors asking you to cease your activity because it’s too loud.

Same with airports.

> A school has existed since 1868 yet people move near it and think they should have the final say on what the school does.

Lots of things have existed for a long time, in the context of a society where they have always had to coexist and interact with others. Why would existing for some time give them license to affect the community and people around them in any way?

This isn't like someone moving next to a pub and demand they stop playing music, or next to a farm and complain about the smell of manure. The complaint is about the adverse changes.

I can't quite put my finger on a concise answer to your first why, but it has something to do with the idea that some people have that seniority and longevity allow people more room to 'call the shots'. This can be seen in the workplace, in HOA communities, government, basically anywhere there is a power dynamic.

Not saying that it is the right way to do things, but its hard to deny the presence.

Rebellion against intrusion into ones perceived personal space.

It immediately reminds me of one of my all time memorable yet confusing quotes.

"Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same dilemma: either police rule or insanity." Albert Camus, The Rebel

The problem is one of coordination.

If everything is determined by local control like this then every single college town will come to the same conclusion.

I can empathize with the homeowners there - but obviously bad for society as a whole if every single town acts selfishly.

Everything is not determined by local control like this.

Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods is a group of residents that organizing collective action and is bringing a legal challenge against a massively wealthy and powerful organization which they believe is impacting their quality of life. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

I am saying that even if you think it is extremely reasonable for them to act this way - then you have to admit that in pretty much every college town/renter town in America it is reasonable to act this way. If every single town acts this way it is really not good overall - since even homeowners have family/friends/customers who must now spend a huge amount on rent in large stretches of their life.

That is what I mean when I say it is coordination.

I do think it's reasonable that anybody can access the court system for redress, and it's reasonable that the little guy can collectively organize to make that more feasible to have successful outcomes against large powerful individuals and organizations.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is really not good overall? I don't see what you mean.

But you can bet your bottom dollar those organizations would be the first to launch legal action against the little guy if they thought they were being impacted by their activity, so what's the problem with action in the other direction?

I feel like education inequality in this country is similar to income and wealth inequality in the US. Satellite schools are one thing but we already have hosts of universities that dot the landscape, yet most of the research funding (and thus, quality undergrad education) and thus most of the jobs go to the ivies and california ivies. We could change the tune federally but we won't.

Why don't these smaller schools just invest in getting better researchers and more grant funding?

> Maybe they'll add more than just 150 faculty housing units.

Don't you think it's a bit dystopian for an employer to be housing its employees? Not sure that's what we should be aiming for.

The housing units are less about housing of employees and more about parking of endowment coin in real estate investments. All the cool colleges do it to some degree.

If rural institutions didn't offer faculty housing real estate prices would be even more out of whack than they are now.

While I agree in principle, in practice it can be very helpful for short-term positions like postdocs. Of course, you might argue that the very position of a postdoc and the whole carrot-on-a-string tenure apparatus is exploitative and immoral and… well I wouldn’t disagree :)

Sure, a bit, but by doing this they also ensure that elderly professors can get to class without transit.

Not so much an issue in Berkeley, of course, but makes a ton of sense for schools where heavy snowfall is a thing. School get canceled most often because professors [and employees] can't safely get to campus due to weather -- individual professors getting sick isn't enough to close the entire school.

It depends but university housing is a godsend especially if you're a postdoc or another type of visiting academic.

Korean companies do this all the time.

Yes and no. It depends on why they're doing it.

The military, for instance (and this is similar to what I've seen at some colleges), have housing for people at different grades. Dorms for younger enlisted troops, houses for families, and houses for specific ranks/positions like a base commander. There are a few reasons for this. One is historical (a lot of bases weren't near housing options), another is control (the dorms), another is community. By being on the same base with each other everyone is part of the same community. You can see a bit of disintegration (at least for USAF) with the decrease in state-side housing (or the use of it). They aren't around each other as much, their families aren't friends with each other in the same way as last century, they have no real sense of community (the troops may, but not the wider population of troops + family, this is also uneven, some subgroups haven't been impacted in the same way as others).

What I've seen at some colleges (more accurately, saw) was similar to the rank/position housing and also trying to help with creating a community at the college. The former can make a lot of sense, and is hardly dystopian. College president hosts a lot of events and gets a house suitable for it on the campus. With both them and other faculty members it keeps them on campus as part of the community, rather than turning college professor into a "job" (a thing you commute to and do your 9-5 and then go home from, again, see the disintegration of the military community in the US as an example of something you sometimes want to avoid).

Also, college campuses don't move very often. Since cities don't stop growing the housing around the campus can become very limited. Forcing people away, out into the suburbs. Whether you just want them to have easy access to the campus or want to try and create a real community, having campus housing can mitigate this issue.

It becomes dystopian when it's subpar housing, comes with pay cuts, or is mandatory (especially without at least a decent reason like: The president should live in the president's house).

"Dorms" LMFAO

obviously never visited a barracks.

I could've listed barracks too, but there are also dorms. Maybe that's mostly USAF and officers in the other services though?

https://www.whiteman.af.mil/dorms/ (and even if other branches don't use that terminology, "dorm" is also a general word describing many shared living environments)

> Can the school counter sue Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood the using the CEQA since new residents have an impact on the environment, noise, housing and displacement?

Sure, if (1) Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood was responsible for some action requiring an EIR, and UC can make a colorable argument both that (2) SBN violated the requirements of CEQA with regard to the EIR, and that (3) this caused legally cognizable injury to UC such that the University has standing.

Of course, none of those are true.

That's the NIMBY way!! Especially in Blue California areas.

Where I live there are "Farm Rights" laws which say if you are a newcomer, you can't file suit or complain about or interfere with normal farm operations.

Existing farmers have complete seniority over new folks!

So smells, sounds, big equipment on the roads, etc. MUST be tolerated. And especially the annual "shit straining" of fields with cow manure which smells up everything for the week or two when that's done.

I think it's great and the way it should be!

Can a state university expand to other states?

It probably depends on the covenants of the particular institution, but there is precedence for this. Texas A&M, for example, has a campus in Qatar (not just another state, but another country!) and even confers Degrees there.

https://www.qatar.tamu.edu/

Texas A&M is a public university https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University

UC has facilities out of state, e.g., the UC Washington Center in D.C.