Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...
(USC Thesis Other)
Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
URBAN UNIVERSITIES’ CAMPUS EXPANSION PROJECTS IN THE 21
ST
CENTURY: A CASE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA’S “VILLAGE AT USC” PROJECT AND ITS POTENTIAL
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ON ITS LOCAL COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE
A TEMPLATE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION PROJECTS
by
Jeffrey S. Wigintton
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Jeffrey S. Wigintton
ii
Epigraph
“I believe for a university to be truly world class it needs to do great, visible things in its
own backyard.”
Judith Rodin
iii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge my grandmother Agnes Roy who
instilled in me core values of fairness and justice for all. Her eternal spirit has kept my
moral compass pointed towards social and environmental justice for disadvantaged and
vulnerable groups. I also want to acknowledge my wife Phyllis and daughter Brittany for
their support throughout the years I have pursued and acquired several degrees.
I also want to acknowledge Los Angeles Police Department Captain and fellow
USC Doctor of Policy, Planning and Development graduate Edward Pape. Ed was
instrumental in assisting me in acquiring invaluable LAPD crime statistics for this paper.
I also want to acknowledge USC Department of Public Safety Chief Carey Drayton for
providing vital Clery Act data. Additionally, I acknowledge USC classmates Robert
Pittman, Gerard Hollins, Brent Morris, Richard Guerrero and Irma Becerra for their
unwavering encouragement and support. I also owe a special acknowledgement to USC’s
Dr. Debbie Natoli for reminding me there was light at the end of the tunnel, and for
helping me get there.
I would be remiss in not acknowledging all of the internal and external
stakeholders who graciously agreed to be interviewed for this paper. This paper would
have remained a mere concept without their honest, candid and insightful comments and
suggestions.
Finally, and certainly not least, I want to acknowledge my doctoral committee,
USC Professors James Moore, Manuel Pastor and David Suarez, and UCLA Professor
Dorothy Wiley. Their support, guidance and sage advice made this paper possible.
iv
Table of Contents
Epigraph .............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter 1 ..............................................................................................................................1
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Paper ............................................................................................................4
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................6
Methodology ........................................................................................................................6
Chapter 2 ..............................................................................................................................8
Literature Review.................................................................................................................8
Community Engagement ..............................................................................................8
University-Community Partnerships ..........................................................................12
Measuring Success of University-Community Partnerships and Engagements ........13
University of Southern California ....................................................................14
University of Pennsylvania ..............................................................................15
Conclusion .......................................................................................................16
Social Responsibility ..................................................................................................17
A Closer Look at the University of Southern California .................................20
In Comparison: University of Pennsylvania ....................................................25
Conclusion .......................................................................................................30
Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................32
University Park Demographics ..................................................................................33
In Comparison: USC v. UCLA Demographics ..........................................................36
University Park Crime Statistics ................................................................................42
In Comparison: USC v. UCLA Crime Statistics ........................................................42
Los Angeles Police Department Crime Data re: University Park and
Westwood ........................................................................................................43
Clery Act Reports Data re: PAC-12 and Urban Universities ..........................47
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................50
v
Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................52
USC’s 2030 Master Plan ....................................................................................................52
Overview ....................................................................................................................52
The “Village at USC” Project ....................................................................................54
Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................57
Research Questions ............................................................................................................57
Methodology/Case Study Selection and Rationale ............................................................57
Stakeholder Perspectives ...................................................................................................59
Overview ....................................................................................................................59
University of Southern California ..............................................................................60
Community Groups/Local Residents .........................................................................62
Government ................................................................................................................70
In Comparison: Other Urban University Expansion Projects ............................................74
Overview ....................................................................................................................74
Columbia University ..................................................................................................74
Harvard University .....................................................................................................76
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................79
Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................................83
Limitations of the Study/Future Research Required ..........................................................83
Chapter 7 ............................................................................................................................85
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................85
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................90
List of Appendices .............................................................................................................96
Appendix 1: USC Historical Photographs..................................................................99
Appendix 2: Current USC Photographs ...................................................................103
Appendix 3: USC Strategic Vision: Matching Deeds to Ambition ..........................107
Appendix 4: Transform LA’s Outcome/Objective and “Integrating President
Sample’s Five Community Initiatives” Graphics .....................................................109
Appendix 5: USC Civil Engagement, Investing in Our Communities brochure .....111
Appendix 6: Photographs of a few USC Community Engagement Buildings .........115
Appendix 7: Los Angeles Times Community Profile Data re: University Park ......118
Appendix 8: Los Angeles Times Community Profile Data re: Westwood ..............121
Appendix 9: Los Angeles Times Crime Mapping Data re: University Park ............124
vi
Appendix 10: Los Angeles Times Crime Mapping Data re: Westwood ..................128
Appendix 11: University of Southern California’s Cleary Act Statistics 2006-2011
..................................................................................................................................132
Appendix 12: Photographs of Existing University Village Shopping Center ..........140
Appendix 13: “Village at USC” Community Flyer – English .................................143
Appendix 14: “Village at USC” Community Flyer – Spanish .................................144
Appendix 15: Photograph of Existing Fire Station ..................................................145
Appendix 16: Photographs taken at Public Hearing on March 14, 2012 re: USC’s
Specific Plan .............................................................................................................146
Appendix 17: Video Clip of Public Hearing–USC’s Presentation ...........................150
Appendix 18: Video Clip of Public Hearing–SAJE’s Presentation .........................151
Appendix 19: Link to KCRW 4/6/12 Broadcast re: “Can USC Grow Without
Devouring the Neighborhood?” ...............................................................................152
Appendix 20: Development Agreement’s Legal Description of the University
Village project ..........................................................................................................153
Appendix 21: Exhibit B to Development Agreement, Description of the Property .154
Appendix 22: Web sites and photographs re: Private Residential Housing east of
USC ..........................................................................................................................155
Appendix 23: Web sites and photographs re: Private Residential Housing west of
USC ..........................................................................................................................161
Appendix 24: Memo to Los Angeles Planning and Land Use Management
Committee from USC Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry F. Miller, dated October 10,
2012 ..........................................................................................................................171
Appendix 25: Photograph of Notice Public Hearing to be held on December 11,
2012 ..........................................................................................................................175
Appendix 26: News excerpts about the Los Angeles City Council’s approval of the
“Village at USC” project ..........................................................................................176
Appendix 27: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles’ Joint Public Statement
regarding the public benefits provided by the USC plan and development agreement
..................................................................................................................................180
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Race Change in Zip Codes 90007 and 90062 ..................................................... 34
Table 2: Poverty Thresholds for 2012 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children
Under 18 Years ................................................................................................................. 35
Table 3: 2010 Income Demographics for Zip Codes 90007 and 90024 ...................... 38-39
Table 4: 2010 Sex and Age Demographics for Zip Codes 90007 and 90024 .............. 40-41
Table 5: Los Angeles Police Dept. Statistical Digests Data, 2006-2011 .......................... 44
Table 6: University Park Campus Crime Trends Analysis 2006-2011............................. 48
Table 7: 2011 PAC-12 Crime Comparisons ..................................................................... 49
Table 8: 2011 Urban Universities Crime Comparisons .................................................... 50
Table 9: Summary of University Village Development Agreement Provisions .............. 73
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Total USC Diverse Supplier Dollars Spent in Local Communities Fiscal Years
2009-12 ............................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 2: University Park section of Los Angeles ............................................................ 33
Figure 3: Southwest v. West LA Community Police Stations, Part 1 Crimes, 2006-11 .. 45
Figure 4: LAPD Crime Statistics, Southwest Community Police Station, 2006-11 ......... 45
Figure 5: LAPD Crime Statistics, West LA Community Police Station, 2006-11 ........... 46
Figure 6: Jobs Potential Impact on Quality-of-Life Cycle................................................ 51
Figure 7: Screenshot of Subarea 3 Graphic ...................................................................... 55
Figure 8: Screenshot of Specific Plan Graphic ................................................................. 56
Figure 9: Photograph of a Columbia University community engagement building in
Harlem, New York (July 2011) ........................................................................................ 58
ix
Abstract
This research paper serves as a template for urban universities when
contemplating expanding the physical footprint of their campus. Expansion projects may
benefit the university but also may have deleterious effects on the impacted communities
(includes neighborhoods) if not implemented in a pragmatic and respectful manner.
An examination of the influences associated with community demographics and
crime has on urban universities’ decisions to invest in surrounding neighborhoods.
Specifically, this paper uses the University of Southern California’s (USC) “Village at
USC” project as a case study that illustrates the university’s recruitment objectives that
have influenced its decision to improve the safety and security of the neighborhoods
surrounding its University Park campus.
Furthermore, the examination will delve into how institutions can significantly
mitigate the negative economic and social effects expansion projects can potentially have
on communities. To achieve a “win-win-win” solution for all invested stakeholders
(internal and external), institutions must not rely solely on well-sharpened pencils,
financial calculators, and profit and loss statements in analyzing their expansion projects.
Their strategic planning toolbox must also contain a moral compass. Steadfast reliance
on this essential tool will ensure they do not make decisions which will damage
permanently and irreparably surrounding communities.
As such, there are two goals of this paper: (1) to assist universities in charting
courses which will assist them in expeditiously completing their expansion projects, and
x
(2) suggesting a methodology that results in minimizing potential negative economic and
social impacts expansion projects may have on communities.
1
Chapter 1
______________________________________________________
Introduction
Many urban universities in the United States are located in densely populated and
often low socioeconomic areas of large metropolises. Indeed, more than half of the
nation’s colleges and universities are located in cities. They represent significant
contributors to the character of their cities and the definition of urban environments
(Rodin 2007).
Recently, quite a few universities have expanded or are contemplating expanding
the physical footprint of their campuses.
1
Institutions that have the obligatory expendable
economic, social and political capital to expand are asking themselves, “Is it worth it?”
However, there is no simple answer to this simple, seemingly benign four-sentence
question. As most questions posed in the juxtaposition of equally politically charged and
economically troubled environments, the simple but ambiguous answer is “It depends.”
Prestigious colleges and universities have obtained their prominent statuses by
accumulating enormous endowments through lucrative investments, named-donors and
well-heeled donors over the course of many years. Significant wealth has assisted them
in acquiring and retaining the best and brightest faculty and students from around the
globe.
Universities are in an arms race - they all want the best and brightest faculty and
students they can obtain. They must keep pace with other universities and stay
1
Columbia University, American University, Yale College, Harvard University, St. Louis University, New
York University, State University of New York, Buffalo, Fordham University and La Salle University, to
name a few.
2
competitive. Universities across the nation are aggressively competing against each other
for an extremely limited, elite group of academic scholars. Moreover, universities
recognize elite faculty recruits that are magnets and recruiters of other talented faculty.
New scholars become powerful draws for top colleagues, students and supporters.
2
Universities cannot rest on their laurels and accept the status quo. Universities
across the nation have determined that in order to maintain and further augment their
reputations it is imperative they continue to engage in basic strategic plans being
executed by all prominent institutions to obtain the absolute best faculty and students at
any cost. However, to attach such scholars huge financial and benefit packages may not
be sufficient. Elite faculty and student recruits want a safe and secure environment for
themselves and their families. They may require (or outright demand) a state-of-the-art
research facility, as well.
Since many urban universities have reached their maximum physical footprint
capacity, there may be no alternative but to expand beyond the institution’s current
borders and acquire property in surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Local
residents will be subject to involuntarily or voluntarily relocation to clear properties for
an expansion project
3
. If this is the only alternative, institutions must be prepared to
share these growing pains with their neighbors.
The stark reality is that many urban universities have simply run out of physical
space. They must decide whether to expand their campus and encroach upon their
2
University of Southern California. 2012. “New faculty recruits become the recruiters.” Accessed
December 26, 2012. http://news.usc.edu.
3
Local residents can be involuntarily relocated by eminent domain, or offered cash payments and other
incentives to voluntarily relocate.
3
neighboring communities, or suffer the consequences of existing as a lower-tier
institution. If the university does decide to expand, it invariably involves acquiring
portions of the neighborhoods and communities surrounding them.
Acquisition of surrounding properties can lead to gentrification and higher
residential and commercial real estate prices. This in turn can result in displacement of
local residents and families who no longer can afford to live in the area. Communities can
sustain irreparable collateral damage. This paper argues it is imperative that urban
universities strongly consider the potential ramifications resulting from expansion.
Expansion projects may benefit the university but also may have deleterious effects on
the impacted communities.
The term “gentrification” is often used negatively, suggesting the displacement of
poor communities by rich outsiders (Grant 2003). “Gentrification is almost always a
displacement of poor residents to remote and less economically favored areas with
similar substandard housing, and a theft of public and private resources from other poorer
neighborhoods which deserve to be improved for the people who already live there, and
should be understood and resisted as such” (Dixon 1998). There are differences in
opinion as to whether gentrification in urban neighborhoods is a “savior” or whether it is
a “destroyer of central city vitality” (Atkinson 2003). Often the debate is reduced to the
side that wants to increase city economy and those who want to sustain city
4
neighborhoods and not cause displacement (Atkinson 2003).
4
However, gentrification
does not always lead to displacement (Freeman 2006; Sternbergh 2009).
Gentrification and resulting displacement can fray beyond repair the delicate
fabrics that bind a community. Community residents may vehemently oppose the
expansion project as the project may adversely affect them, e.g., higher rental prices and
property taxes. The community may be a tenacious opponent with powerful allies willing
to assist them in preserving their way of life. Therefore, the answer to the question, “Is it
worth it?” not only depends on whether the university has the financial and political
fortitude to weather the storm resulting from its expansion project. It also depends on
whether the university possesses core values, which will ensure the community’s
positions are not ignored and marginalized and the project does not irreparably harm the
community.
Purpose of the Paper
The objective of this research paper is to provide another strategic planning tool
(i.e., template) for institutions of higher education to use when contemplating expansion
projects. The analysis can be used as a template to gauge the political, social and
economic environments affecting the project. Universities can then determine if
proceeding with the expansion project is in the institution’s best interests.
The first step is for universities to make the fundamental but significant decision
whether to expand beyond their existing borders and venture across the physical and
often socioeconomic chasms separating their campus from neighbors. There is much to
4
For an example of recent results from gentrification can be found in the Echo Park section of Los
Angeles, California. Gentrification of the area has led to conflict, discontent and displacement of local
residents. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-outthere27-2008jun27,0,2697514,full.story
5
consider when making this decision. There are tangible rewards such as prestige,
heightened media exposure and becoming a powerful magnet that attracts the best and
brightest faculty and students to the institution. However, there are perils, as well.
Expansion projects can foster animosity and loathing on the parts of local
residents who believe gentrification of their neighborhood will lead to inevitable
disruptive displacement. Their fears are justified since many local residents are forced to
move to more affordable but often less desirable neighborhoods (Freeman 2006).
Universities must bear in mind their massive projects can shake communities to
their very cores and significantly affect the economic and social characteristics of these
communities. Such expansion projects can negatively affect current residents and
countless future generations if not handled in a reasonable and respectful manner.
The analysis of this paper includes the influences community demographics and
crime has on institutions’ decisions to invest in surrounding neighborhoods. This paper
uses the USC’s “Village at USC” project as a case study to illustrate how the
neighborhood outside its doors has influenced its decision to engage the community and
to invest heavily within it.
Additionally, this research paper shows how institutions can significantly mitigate
the negative economic and social effects expansion projects can potentially have on
communities. However, success of the project is contingent on all stakeholders being
active participants in the discussion and willing to engage in open and good faith
negotiations. Their collective sights must be on what is best for all concerned and not
focused on individual self-interests or hidden-agendas. It can take years for university
6
projects to get beyond the planning stage if key stakeholders are not prepared to engage
in open and sincere dialogue for a common goal.
Expansion projects can result in lucrative winners and decimated losers. To
achieve a “win-win-win” solution for all invested stakeholders, institutions must not rely
solely on well-sharpened pencils, financial calculators, and profit and loss statements in
analyzing their expansion projects. Their strategic planning toolbox must contain a moral
compass. Steadfast reliance on this essential tool will ensure they do not make decisions,
which will permanently and irreparably damage surrounding communities. As such,
there are two goals of this paper—(1) to assist universities in charting courses which will
assist them in expeditiously completing their expansion projects, and (2) suggesting a
methodology which results in minimizing potential negative economic and social impacts
expansion projects may have on communities.
Research Questions
How can universities expand and expeditiously complete projects without
destroying surrounding communities in the process? Posed alternatively, how can
universities expand and expeditiously complete projects while mitigating the potential
negative economic and social impacts their expansion projects may have on local
communities?
Methodology
This case study was developed using interviews, observations and document and
record analyses. I attended public hearings, interviewed internal (university
administrators) and external (community activists, community residents, government
7
officials) constituents, and troves of public documents and records (demographic and
crime statistics, newspaper articles, university publications and websites) pertaining to
the University of Southern California’s communities and the “Village at USC” project. I
also toured and documented expansion sites and the neighborhoods surrounding USC’s
University Park Campus.
In addition, I performed extensive research and analyses of documents
(newspaper articles, community newsletters, university publications and websites)
addressing the potential economic and social impacts of Harvard and Columbia
Universities’ expansion projects on their respective surrounding neighborhoods,
community and governmental reactions to expansion projects and resulting community
benefits agreements.
8
Chapter 2
______________________________________________________
Literature Review
Community Engagement
Since the first universities and colleges were founded in the United States –
Harvard University, 1636; College of William and Mary, 1779; University of
Pennsylvania, 1791; University of Southern California, 1880; University of Chicago,
1892; and others, they have been an integral part of their surrounding communities.
However, over the course of time the once bucolic, idyllic areas around many universities
have transitioned into dense, high-crime urban environments. Unfortunately, the
problems of big cities also became problems of urban universities. As former University
of Pennsylvania President Judith Rodin stated: “In the past few decades, it has become
increasingly difficult for urban colleges and universities to turn their backs on the
problems of their cities, because these institutions cannot deny that the cities’ troubles
have become their own as well” (Rodin 2007).
The literature strongly argues that universities should embrace their surrounding
communities. The literature supports the proposition that it makes prudent business sense
to collaborate with groups and individuals that reside in the neighborhoods that surround
their campuses. The articles opine that nothing can be gained from ignoring the
communities and pretending their neighbors does not exist. In fact, the literature strongly
suggests that ignoring community residents only promotes resentment and mistrust, thus
9
leading to negative publicity for the universities and adversarial relationships with its
neighbors.
What are the roles of universities in local communities? Are they saviors and
benevolent protectors of local communities? Are they land barons that intimidate and
ignore their neighbors? Why do some universities enter into intimate partnerships with
their communities and some take every opportunity to avoid having anything to do with
them? More specifically, why are some universities a gracious neighbor, which
enthusiastically extends olive branches to the less fortunate residing in their shadows?
And why do some institutions totally disregard their local residents and without a second
thought gentrify neighborhoods and make neighborhoods so prohibitively expensive that
locals have no choice but to relocate to less expensive, and conversely, less desirable
regions of the city? There are no easy answers to these many intriguing questions.
Many prestigious universities such as Yale, Columbia, University of Southern
California, University of St. Louis, University of Chicago, and the University of
Pennsylvania, to name a few, are encircled and embedded in poor urban neighborhoods
(Rodin 2007). These institutions typically have wealthy student and faculty populations
that are significantly better off than the local residents. Moreover, university resources
typically greatly outweigh those of its local residents (Maurrasse 2001).
Most scholars, however, argue that university-community partnerships are
motivated by necessity - universities must strive to be community partners or perish
because of their lack or unwillingness to collaborate. With universities playing an
increasingly significant role in the overall economic health of urban communities, the
10
need for greater engagement among universities in their surrounding communities is
critical and paramount (Maurrasse 2001).
The “proper” purpose of colleges and universities in the United States has caused
considerable debate (Benson and Harkavy 1997); (Bok 1982) (E. Boyer 1994); (Boyer
and Hechinger 1981); (Cisneros 1996); (Hackney 1986); (Harkavy 1994); (Kerr 1995);
(Lynton and Elman 1987). Some social scientists have argued that the traditional
functions of colleges and universities were to maintain an aloof position in society and
place a premium on value-free, scientifically objective scholarly research. As Cortes
noted, “They contend that the temptation to make a difference in the communities that
surround universities debases the role of the professor from scholar to partisan advocate”.
Proponents of university engagement counter and argue that the “stand-off”
position is no longer adequate or concordant with society’s needs. They view universities
as societal instruments uniquely capable of addressing urgent community problems.
Institutions of higher learning, advocates argue, must realize that higher education is an
investment in the nation’s future and that investment transcends the production of
knowledge to include the servicing of troubled communities (Cortes 2004).
Much has been written about communities that want to improve the quality-of-life
of their residents through partnerships with universities (Hackney 1986; Zlotkowski
1999; Holland and Gelmon 1998; Walshok 1985). Local colleges and universities can
provide expertise, volunteer resources, clout with certain constituencies and amenities
that are not readily available from other institutions in the community. For example,
colleges and universities often have access to the most current research on many of the
11
issues that affect community well being. In addition, universities can serve as powerful
allies and advocates on important community issues, and they can be “bridge” institutions
to help sustain long-term community building efforts past inevitable changes in, for
example, political leadership or foundation support. In turn, communities offer university
students opportunities to apply what they have learned in classrooms in “real world”
situations (i.e., community laboratories) (Marcus and King 1993). What develops is a
symbiotic relationship and understanding - the university gains a better understanding of
the community and the community evolves to reflect the university’s culture, mores and
attitudes (Marcus and King 1993).
The literature also reveals the United States government recognizes the benefits of
university-community partnerships. In 1994, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development established the Office of University Partnerships (OUP). According to the
agency’s web site, its purpose is “an effort to encourage and expand the growing number
of partnerships formed between colleges and universities and their communities by
supporting and increasing these collaborative efforts through grants, interactive
conferences, and research which helps achieve three primary goals:”
Provide funding opportunities to colleges and universities to implement
community activities, revitalize neighborhoods, address economic
development and housing issues, and encourage partnerships
Create a dialogue between colleges and universities and communities to
gain knowledge and support of partnership activities and opportunities as
well as connect them to other potential partners and resources
Assist in producing the next generation of urban scholars and
professionals who are focused on housing and community development
issues”
12
More importantly, universities are often potent economic engines (“anchors”) for
local communities. Universities can pump millions of dollars into local economies since
faculty, students and staff members patronize businesses in the local communities. If
there is mutual trust and respect, a university-community partnership can offer great
benefits to both groups. When a university channels its intellectual power and creativity,
it has the potential to create a valuable dynamic that is mutually beneficial to the
university and the community (Rodin 2007).
University-Community Partnerships
There are many benefits of university-community partnerships. The most obvious
is the economic benefits to local communities. Universities offer local residents
employment and education opportunities to improve the quality of their lives and those of
their families. Universities benefit from having communities that may be used as training
sites for its students. Communities benefit as well as the university since a university may
provide services that may not otherwise exist - music and sports lessons, health and
dental programs, reading programs, etc. (Maurrasse 2001).
Another major benefit to a university is its improved image. Universities that
engage in partnerships with its communities increase their chances of obtaining
government and private funding. The fostering of these partnerships aids in fostering
safer environments for both the university’s faculty, staff and students and also the
community’s residents. Since community residents feel a connection to the university,
they feel as though they have a stake in the success of the university.
13
Measuring Success of University-Community Partnerships and Engagements
There are effective measurements of progress in higher education-community
partnerships (Maurrasse 2002). Dr. Evan Dobelle, President of Westfield State
University, in his work Savoir of Our Cities: 2009 Survey of Colleges and University
Civil Partnerships measured the success of universities who invested in and developed
strong relationships with their local communities.
In Dr. Dobelle’s publication he ranked the top 25 institutions that engage in
selfless, altruistic efforts that aggressively and enthusiastically partner with their
communities. The 2009 survey benchmarking U.S. universities’ investments in local
neighborhoods included:
• Length of involvement with the community
• Real dollars invested
• Catalyst effect on others
• Presence felt through payroll, research and purchasing power
• Faculty and student involvement in community service
• Continued sustainability of neighborhood initiatives
• Effect on local student access and affordability to attend college through K–12
partnerships
• Qualitative esprit of the institution in its engagement
• Quantifiable increase in positive recognition of the institution
• Increase in student applications and resources raised through renewed alumni
giving
14
• Recognition of the impact of these institutions within their community
The apparent query: Why are some colleges and universities better community
partners than others? Dr. Dobelle’s research found that university-community
partnerships, which are based on a university’s genuine commitment to the community,
forged the most fortified relationships. The University of Southern California (USC) and
the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) tied for first place in this survey.
University of Southern California
Dr. Dobelle and his team noted that USC: “Led by its visionary President Stephen
Sample, USC implements a remarkably far-reaching engagement program with a number
of components: University Assisted Public Schools, Service Learning, Community
Partnering with regards to economic, social, and political empowerment. USC is a major
employer in the Southern California area but it also helps to create an economic
environment that attracts creative entrepreneurs outside of education and health care.
The university accomplishes this through the implementation of a successful “Business
Expansion Network” mentoring program, which provides start up and continual support
to local businesses endemic to the community. The USC Medical Center coordinates a
myriad of community health programs to needy Los Angeles residents.”
The Dobelle survey did not mention, however, there are many other USC
programs that directly benefit the local communities surrounding its University Park
Campus and Health Science Campus. Other programs include USC’s Good Neighbors
Program, various education, health and sports and recreation Programs, the Local Vendor
15
Program, Small Business Clinic, Marshall Consulting Program, Neighborhood
Ownership Program, and the Business Expansion Network.
University of Pennsylvania
The University of Pennsylvania (Penn) is often cited as the model for illustrating
how university-community relations can strive (Maurrasse 2001). Numerous newspaper
and journal articles have been written about its efforts in its local communities.
Moreover, Professor Dobelle states “Through the Barbara and Edward Netter Center for
Community Partnerships, Penn has transformed the neighborhood schools of West
Philadelphia into ‘environment changing institutions.’ Directed by Ira Harkavy, the
nation’s foremost expert in higher education community engagement, the Center
conducts a project through which its university-assisted school model has been replicated
on a national level. These efforts, combined with an exemplary service learning
curriculum and an historic, extensive and neighborhood friendly campus expansion
program places Penn at the top of this list, tied with USC”.
Like USC, Penn is the most significant employer in the local community. In
addition, since the city of Philadelphia has lost many industries, the university’s role in
the community has increased since residents rely on it for employment. Penn has
embraced that role and its commitment to its communities by including in its mission
statement:
“Penn will:
Strengthen and appreciate the diversity of its communities
16
Pursue positive connections with the city, state, and region and a mission
of service to its neighbors in West Philadelphia”
These statements are more than mere words to Penn, it professes to the world that
its indisputable objective is to support its local communities.
Conclusion
The observations of Dr. Dobelle’s team found common denominators among the
top ranked institutions - they all initiated and committed to sustaining their community
engagement activities. These universities understand and appreciate the fact that to
survive, they must embrace and cultivate their surrounding communities. They must be
active participants, engage in meaningful dialogue with their neighbors, and understand
their concerns. The reality is that for relationships between universities and the local
communities to flourish, all relevant stakeholders must work together. The benefits of
university-community partnerships are obvious, most notably a safer environment for
everyone due to a reduction in crime.
Universities can either improve communities or lead to their downfall. The clear
message from the literature is universities should be good neighbors and facilitate
positive change rather than be perceived as a Goliath that is attempting to annihilate
Samson (the often low-income community literally across the street).
17
Social Responsibility
Social Responsibility can be viewed in four forms:
1. The purist form is when it is practiced for its own sake—purely altruistic. The
institution wants nothing in return and engages in a socially responsible
manner because it is the “noble way to behave”.
2. Secondly, is when it is undertaken for “enlightened self-interest” - there is
some sort of pay-off or benefit. The benefit can be tangible or intangible.
3. Thirdly, is when it relates to acts being a “sound investment.” An example is
a company’s stock price increases when its socially responsible activities are
viewed favorably by the public.
4. Lastly, the fourth type of social responsibility is practiced as a means to avoid
being forced to do something by governmental agencies, i.e., cleaning up a
hazardous waste dumpsite before being ordered by the government to take
such action
(Mintzberg 1983).
Like corporations, universities acts can fall under any one of these forms of social
responsibility. The literature suggests, however, that colleges and universities typically
fall under the first two forms of social responsibility - altruistic or self-interest
(Mintzberg 1983).
But why should universities be socially responsible towards their surrounding
communities? This is a perplexing question since it would be very easy for universities
to simply ignore their neighbors and literally save millions of dollars. The simple answer
18
is they should consider it the morally correct thing to do and understand it makes great
business sense to invest in improving their surrounding communities.
The literature asserts colleges and universities primarily engage in socially
responsible activities to improve the quality-of-life of community residents. When
universities intervene and invest not only money but significant time in their surrounding
communities, neighborhoods and universities benefit (Rodin 2007).
The literature and supporting data found when a university or college engages in
the above-described first two forms of socially responsible acts are genuine and
profound. This act of being genuine, which are bona fide strategic steps to improve
communities by taking actions to improve the neighborhood’s quality-of-life (e.g.,
teaching and mentoring at local elementary schools, providing increased security,
employment opportunities, encouraging good eating habits, and promoting healthy
behaviors). These actions have a reciprocal beneficial effect on the universities. The
universities have become safer and secure environments for the faculty, students and
staff.
However, in order for neighborhood “improvement” or “betterment”
transformation projects to occur (e.g., community development or revitalization projects),
it is imperative the university or college is committed to doing so and the community is a
willing participant.
According to Bartelt 1995:
It is important that universities not lose sight of an important, persistent reality. In
each of the efforts noted, from urban renewal to community partnerships, the
essential power and asset relationships have been asymmetrical: communities are
largely viewed as being ‘in need’; in turn, they are provided for by an asset-rich
19
(comparatively) college or university. This creates a relationship that, in times of
institutional largesse, can be seen as charity, and in times of fiscal crisis,
unimportant to the institution. It is not surprising to see communities approach
such a relationship with suspicion, or to see institutions of higher education
questioning the imposition of yet another set of performance guidelines.
It is vital for both universities and communities to grasp the nature of community
development, on the one hand, and of the social context of institutions of higher
education, on the other. Communities develop self-sufficiency, as they are
successful in amassing a resource base [. . .]. In this context, higher education is a
potential resource for community development. It is not an abstract form of the
“general good” that we should be addressing, but the specific needs of
neighborhoods and communities that form the location and context of colleges
and universities.
Young 1975 offered five specific reasons why universities intervene in
communities and form partnerships:
1. To overcome our own ignorance. University faculties do not have the
solutions for the problems of rejuvenating urban areas. But they can offer
suggestions and a rigorous method of testing their efficacy. By working
together, new ideas will emerge, be tried out, fail or succeed, and generate a
forum for continuing to look for new ideas.
2. To focus additional minds on urban problems, even if some of those minds
lack formal academic training. Where [. . .] collective engagement occurs,
groups have been able to transcend the temptation toward quick fixes and
search for new integrated solutions [. . .].
3. To provide a reality check for our ideas.
4. To diminish our deserved reputation as exploiters. Events that occurred in the
past remain alive and fuel the skepticism [. . .]. [The University of Illinois at
Chicago’s] neighbors also remember that much of an immigrant community [.
20
. .] was bulldozed to make room for part of our campus. These are difficult
images to erase.
5. To ensure the long-term vitality of the university. We are not going to get
many future students from an impoverished, illiterate, crime-ridden,
unemployed, homeless community. Nor can the funds to operate a university
be generated from failing communities (Young 1995, p. 72).
A Closer Look at the University of Southern California
The neighborhoods around USC were severely impacted by the 1992 Los Angeles
riots. Stores were burned to the ground and many businesses closed forever. The city of
Los Angeles was in a state of despair. USC was at a crossroad - should it work to
improve its neighboring community or ignore it and allow it to further deteriorate?
Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros and noted
scholar Ira Harkavy in The University and the Urban Challenge pointed out the necessity
for institutions of higher education (i.e., colleges and universities) to contribute to their
cities. They urged urban institutions to help rebuild their communities, not just for moral
reasons but also for reasons of “enlightened self-interest” (mutually beneficial).
According to Harkavy, “universities cannot afford to be islands of affluence, self
importance, and horticultural beauty in seas of squalor, violence and despair” (Harkavy
1995).
Prior to Dr. Steven Sample becoming USC’s President, there existed an elitist
attitude at the university. The university did not focus on local communities. Dr. Sample
21
embraced the community and made commitments to local residents (Jackie Dupont-
Walker interview, 12/3/12).
Dr. Sample made the bold decision to invest heavily in the community. He
proposed five audacious initiatives for improving the neighborhoods surrounding the
university’s two campuses. He created USC’s “University-Community Initiatives”,
whose purpose was to:
1. Provide educational, cultural and developmental opportunities for every
child living in the immediate neighborhoods.
2. Work with our neighbors, city and county officials, and the police to
ensure safer streets in the areas surrounding USC’s two campuses.
3. Encourage more entrepreneurs, and especially minority entrepreneurs, to
establish businesses in the immediate vicinity of the campuses.
4. Encourage more USC employees, and especially lower-paid long-term
employees, to own and occupy housing in the immediate vicinity of the
campuses.
5. Preferentially employ at USC more persons who have lived in the
immediate neighborhoods for all of the past five years (see Appendix 4)
5
.
5
In 2009, USC created “Transform LA,” a program specifically designed to recruit and train local residents
for jobs at USC. Transform LA’s ultimate objective was full implementation of Dr. Sample’s five
community-based initiatives; as depicted in Appendix 4.
22
President Sample stressed USC's responsibility as an anchor institution in
Southern California. He contended: “That is an important role for us, particularly as
other anchor institutions leave the area or die off. USC is here for the long term”
6
.
USC represents on its Web site:
“For more than a century, USC has been a major contributor to the
region’s quality of life and financial well-being by producing a steady
stream of leaders and professionals, and by generating new knowledge,
economic innovation and growth in fields ranging from health care to
biomedical engineering, from the entertainment industry to digital
information technology.
Today, USC is the largest private-sector employer in the city of
Los Angeles, providing jobs for nearly 27,000 Angelenos and creating
non-university job opportunities for thousands of additional residents each
year. The university also generates $4.9 billion annually in economic
activity in the Los Angeles region and beyond.
USC leverages this economic clout to promote the vitality of the
communities surrounding our two campuses through efforts such as
Supplier Diversity Services’ Local Vendor Program, which ensures that
neighborhood merchants have the opportunity to compete for university
projects. Additionally, the university reaches out to local entrepreneurs
and companies through the USC Gould School of Law’s Small Business
Clinic, the USC Marshall School of Business’s Marshall Consulting
Program and many other initiatives sponsored by units across the
university, offering expertise and services designed to help local
businesses grow and succeed.
As evidenced from USC’s innovative programs, like Penn, USC is very active in
its local communities. The university recognizes the importance of embracing its
surrounding neighborhoods and making a difference in the lives of its residents.
USC has placed an emphasis on intervening in its community by contributing
both financially and through significant time commitments. A prime example is USC’s
Department of Supplier Diversity Services. The department’s Local Vendor Program
6
For example, in 1972, Pepperdine University moved from Los Angeles to Malibu, California.
23
provides procurement and services opportunities for minorities, women, veterans,
physically challenged, and local businesses. As shown in Figure 1, USC has invested
heavily in these groups. Most notably over the last four fiscal years (FY), the university
invested over $218 million in these businesses:
Figure 1: Total USC Diverse Supplier Dollars Spent in Local Communities Fiscal Years 2009-12
Source: USC Dept of Supplier Diversity
In addition, the university’s Good Neighbors Campaign Program (Program) is a
major component of its community engagement efforts. The annual Program asks
university faculty and staff to contribute money to the Program to support local activities.
The Program collected $762,209 in 2007, $1.1 million in 2008, over $1.28 million in
2009, $1.3 million in 2010, and $1.5 million in 2011. The goal for the 2012 campaign
was $1.6 million, which was exceeded on March 1, 2013.
7
All of these funds go directly to the community. For example, the FY 2009-10
funded programs included: After ’Cool Theatre Program ($26,100); Art in the Village
7
http://dailytrojan.com/2013/03/06/campaign-surpasses-funding-goals/.
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$49,484,882
$48,557,127
$57,777,494
$62,242,755
Total USC Diverse Supplier $ Spent in Local
Communities FYs 2009-12
24
($25,991); Peace Games ($30,291); USC Health & Science Expo 2010 ($14,167); USC
Thornton Outreach Program ($34,880); USC Troy Camp ($22,000); Dance Included
Final Showcase ($5,304); USC Thornton JazzReach ($35,578); Expanding STARS
($23,850); Family Science Project ($22,500); Mission Science ($32,481); Mission
Science2 ($18,842); Science for Life Outreach Program ($11,590); Team Robotics
($5,300); USC Sea Grant Parent-Child Education Program ($12,095); and USC
Neighborhood Debate League ($16,645), to name a few.
Also, according to USC’s Good Neighbors Campaign website:
To date, 501 grants totaling $12.7 million have been given to support
community organizations affiliated with the university and located within
the surrounding neighborhoods of both university campuses.
The 2012-13 grant recipients include the HSC Community Health and
Wellness Fair, which provides preventive health services and screenings;
the STAR Program, which provides high school students with a mentored,
hands-on science experience in a USC laboratory; the After ’Cool Theatre
Program, which provides professional-caliber, after-school arts instruction
to community youth; and USC ReadersPlus, which provides one-on-one
tutoring in reading and math to thousands of children in classrooms at five
neighborhood schools.
8
Institutions of higher learning could turn their collective backs on their
neighborhood residents, but such an act most likely would result in animosity and distrust
towards the institution. Furthermore, as the “anchors” of the community many
communities rely on universities for their financial survival.
Communities also have become reliant on additional security offered by
universities. Urban universities typically have their own law enforcement departments to
protect its buildings and occupants - faculty, students and staff. Surrounding
8
http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/41852/good-neighbors-campaign-sets-1-6-million-fundraising-goal/
25
communities benefit as well since the university’s law enforcement officers also patrol
local neighborhoods where faculty, students and staff reside. This results in a win-win
situation for the university and local community. It would be totally illogical and
irrational for universities not to interne and invest in their local communities.
Apparently, Dr. Sample’s efforts paid off. In 2000, the Time/Princeton Review
College Guide selected USC as the “College of the Year.” Editors of the annual
publication said they chose USC because of the remarkable bonds the university has
forged with local schools and its community through local outreach programs.
9
In Comparison: University of Pennsylvania
Penn is located in the “University City” section of West Philadelphia in the city of
Philadelphia.
10
Ironically, in 1996, soon after USC started its Five Initiatives Program,
Penn began investing heavily in its local community. After a series of killings and violent
crimes against Penn students, Penn President Judith Rodin had to act (Rodin 2007). As
such, a comparison of USC’s intervention in its University Park community and Penn’s
involvement in West Philadelphia is warranted.
In Common Cause: Investing in the Community (2001), the University of
Pennsylvania’s then president Dr. Judith Rodin
11
, wrote:
“Penn’s investments over the past several years have produced a
safer, more vibrant neighborhood and a flourishing academic
environment on campus. . . I can recall some well-reasoning
friends and colleagues strongly advising me not to get caught up in
West Philadelphia’s problems, which, they declared, were too great
to fix or solve. Discouraged by the hostility and distrust that had
9
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/4769.html
10
University of Pennsylvania is located in zip code 19104.
11
University of Pennsylvania president from 1994 to 2004; currently president of the Rockefeller
Foundation.
26
poisoned our relationship with our neighbors, some members of the
Penn community went further: They recommended building a wall
around campus on the theory that good fences make good
neighbors.
But others who had lived in the community for years strongly
argued that the university had contributed to the neighborhood’s
decline and thus shouldered a responsibility to help turn things
around.
Persuaded by this argument and my own optimism, I rejected the
isolationist view and charted a course toward renewed civil
engagement. If Penn could make discoveries that saved lives and
drove the global economy, then surely we had the capacity to help
revitalize our distressed neighborhood.”
In 2004, Penn’s new president Dr. Amy Gutmann crafted the “Amy Gutmann-
Penn Compact”. One of the tenets of this agreement pledged the university’s
commitment to “engaging locally”, meaning “serving as a major employer, a leader in
health services and education, and a hand’s on leader in civic actions.” As declared on
the university’s Web site:
To fulfill Penn's commitment to local engagement—an important
part of President Amy Gutmann's Penn Compact—Penn is collaborating
with local communities on many bold initiatives. Penn seeks to promote
safe neighborhoods, attract and support area businesses, encourage
homeownership, and improve public education. The Center for Community
Partnerships oversees a powerful array of projects and programs, with
multiple initiatives to improve West Philadelphia education, including
developing early-childhood reading and math skills, raising interest in
science, and bridging the digital divide. Other programs include
the Community Arts Partnership, which places an artist-in-residence in the
West Philadelphia schools, supports after-school programs, and funds a
Penn-West Philadelphia arts exchange called the Foundation.
In the spirit of Penn's commitment to putting knowledge to use,
many students, faculty, staff and alumni contribute time to these initiatives.
A broad range of undergraduate and graduate academically based
community service courses combine intellectual learning with active
community involvement.
27
In furtherance of Penn’s commitment to West Philadelphia, it created the Barbara
and Edward Netter Center for Community Partnerships. According to Penn: “This is
Penn’s primary vehicle for bringing to bear the broad range of human knowledge needed
to solve the complex, comprehensive, and interconnected problems of the American city
so that West Philadelphia (i.e., Penn’s local geographic community), Philadelphia, the
University itself, and society benefit.”
Most impressive is the University of Pennsylvania’s “Anchor Institutions Toolkit:
A Guide for Neighborhood Revitalization”. The “toolkit” is a guide to assisting
institutions in formulating strategic plans for effectively revitalizing neighborhoods. It
assists institutions in asking the “right questions” that will hopefully lead to effective
collaborative actions that benefit both the institution and the community (The toolkit can
be downloaded at http://www.upenn.edu/ccp/anchortoolkit/).
According to Penn, a university is an “anchor institution” if:
It has a large stake and an important presence in the city and community
It has economic impacts on employment, revenue gathering, and spending
patterns
It consumes sizeable amounts of land
It has crucial relatively fixed assets and not likely to relocate
It’s among the largest purchasers of goods and services in the region
It’s a job generator. It attracts businesses and highly skilled individuals
It’s one of the largest employers and provides multilevel employment
possibilities. It’s a center of culture, learning and innovation with
enormous human resources
12
The Toolkit asserts that universities are “anchors” since they are economic
engines and driving forces in communities. Universities must first “pick the right tools”
to guide its intervention and revitalization efforts. Penn suggests:
12
https://www.nettercenter.upenn.edu/anchortoolkit/what-anchor-institution
28
Anchors need to pick appropriate tools to address the needs
of their neighborhoods. To determine the tools needed, it is best to
first identify the goals of any engagement efforts. Penn identified a
number of goals which then informed the choice of tools needed to
meet the goals. Each of the tools in this kit represents a mechanism
to achieve a desired goal that Penn hoped for in a successful
transformation of West Philadelphia. These goals were selected
after consultation with stakeholders and with the support of the
University of Pennsylvania Board of Trustees. Not all of these tools
may be available to all anchors and some anchors may put other
tools in their kit that Penn did not utilize. Penn identified five goals:
1. Improve neighborhood safety, services and capacities
2. Provide high quality, diverse housing choices
3. Revive commercial activity
4. Accelerate economic development
5. Enhance local public school option.
Penn’s Web site further states:
The information in its tool kit is distilled from Penn's efforts and
experiences. The implementation of these initiatives as tools was catalyzed
by tragedy which compelled Penn to act and to do so decisively. A spike
in crime in West Philadelphia in the early 1990s that culminated in the
murder of a Penn staff member in the fall of 1996 forced the University to
sit up, take notice and take action. Penn's decision to act was also
influenced by demands from the campus and the community to do so.
Hence, Penn embarked on a strategy with the community, the city, public
and private stakeholders to effect broad, systemic change by undertaking
multiple domains of redevelopment and revitalization simultaneously. One
advantage Penn had was the vast amount of research and groundwork that
had taken place prior to the murder, which allowed Penn to respond from a
position of enlightened self-interest.
Maurrasse (2001) highlights Penn’s commitment to its communities, including
West Philadelphia, and wonders how in reality the university’s engagement activities will
work. He writes:
In writing, Penn is committed to working with the local community.
It is rooted in the university’s history. But how does the
commitment play out in practice? . . . Penn’s ongoing challenge is
29
to justify its community partnerships in relation to its mission
whether it is related to students’ future prospects, faculty research,
or the university’s economic standing.
A number of interrelated factors impact Penn’s ability to make
community partnerships a central part of its mission over the long
haul, such as:
Penn’s public image
The presence of committed university faculty, administrators
and students
Multiple departmental involvements in community partnerships
The commitment of the central administration to community
partnerships
The adaptability of the institutional structure and culture to a
supportive environment for community partnerships
The presence of a central unit to encourage and coordinate
outreach activities
An externally supportive environment among government and
funders
Avenues for residents to influence the direction of Penn’s
outreach initiatives
Demographics in the community and the university
Penn’s historical tradition of public service
All of these factors will help constitute Penn’s institutional
commitment. These are the factors that ultimately will determine
whether Penn’s commitment partnerships go beyond the efforts of a
few committed individuals or rhetorical references to social
responsibility.
Moreover, in Penn’s strategic plan it writes:
Consistent with the University’s basic mission of teaching and
research, work with the community to promote economic
development and increase the quality of life of West Philadelphia.
Continue efforts to increase University purchases from local
businesses
Promote business partnerships, public safety, and
transportation initiatives
Continue efforts to improve local elementary and secondary
schools
30
Encourage the development of service-learning programs at
the University, in furtherance of Penn’s long-standing
commitment to the integration of theory and practice
Encourage innovative opportunities for voluntary
participation by Penn students, faculty, administrators, and
staff in appropriate public service activities
In addition, Penn’s economic development plan to revitalize West
Philadelphia includes income generating opportunities for residents,
the development of new businesses and improved housing. Penn
has committed approximately $200 million toward these efforts.
As former University of Pennsylvania President Judith Rodin noted, “Ultimately,
urban universities cannot change their addresses. Most have too much invested in
physical facilities and too much history in their communities to want to do so. However,
by forming strategic partnerships with their neighbors and making significant and
sustained investments in the community’s future, universities will truly be investing in
their own.”
Many at Penn suggested the university isolate itself from its West Philadelphia
neighborhood by building a wall around its campus. Dr. Rodin rejected that idea. She
understood that a university must embrace its neighborhoods by investing in them. This
enables a mutually supportive relationship between universities and communities to grow
and prosper.
Conclusion
Neither Penn nor the USC has taken the oppressive step of building towering
walls (nor moats) around their respective campuses. Both have remained an “open
campus.” USC’s President Sample mandated the university remain open and welcoming
31
environments to all visitors. USC’s current president, Dr. C.L. “Max” Nikias, has
pledged to continue Dr. Sample’s work and commitment.
13
Both institutions initiated specific action plans to embrace and engage their local
communities. Moreover, they have invested considerable amounts of capital—financial
and human - in their relationships with those communities. These declarations of
university community support are clear exemplars of social responsibility in action.
13
It must be noted, however, as a result of a shooting on campus, on January 14, 2013, USC implemented a
new campus access policy. Individuals visiting the campus between 9:00pm and 6:00am must be
accompanied by a USC faculty, staff or student and signed in by the Department of Public Safety.
32
Chapter 3
________________________________________________________________________
The University of Southern California
An Anchor Institution
As defined above, the University of Southern California is considered an “Anchor
Institution” based on its participation and position in the city of Los Angeles and
surrounding community. However, to understand USC’s economic and social impacts on
its communities, a brief history about the university is essential. As long time community
resident and advocate Ms. Jackie Dupont-Walker told me, “You cannot understand the
future without first understanding the past” (Dupont-Walker interview, 12/3/12).
When USC was established in 1880, it lacked paved streets, electric lights,
telephones and even a reliable fire alarm system
14
. Situated just two miles south of
downtown Los Angeles, the city eventually grew outward and around the North
University Park campus. As shown in the photographs attached as Appendices 1 and 2,
UPC has changed dramatically over the last 133 years.
The university has two campuses, the University Park Campus (UPC) and the
Health Sciences Campus (HSC). The focus of this paper is on UPC since the “Village at
USC” project will be located adjacent to this campus.
14
http://about.usc.edu/history/
33
As shown in Figure 2, University Park’s borders are the Santa Monica freeway
(north), Exposition Boulevard (south),
Vermont Avenue (west) and the Harbor
freeway (east).
Most notably, USC is the largest
private sector employer in the City of Los
Angeles in that it employs almost 23,000
workers.
15
USC’s most recent economic
impact report, released in May 2009, found that the university generated over $4.9 billion
annually in economic activity in the Los Angeles region.
16
University Park Demographics
The zip codes for UPC neighborhoods are 90007 and 90062. According to the
2010 U.S. Census Bureau, the race, family and income demographics of these two
communities were:
17
Total population – 88,015
41,540 Hispanics (47%)
22,804 Whites (26%)
16,969 Blacks (19%)
15
http://about.usc.edu/facts/
16
http://communities.usc.edu/economic/impact.html
17
2010 U.S. Census Data, www.census.gov/; the most current data available; illustrated in Table 1
Figure 2: University Park section of Los Angeles
Source: University of Southern California
34
6,704 Asians (8%)
Median Family Income – $28,050
Average Family Size – 3.9
National Poverty Line Threshold for a Family of 4 – $23,283 (Figure 3)
There has been a significant change in race demographics between 2000
and 2010 (Table 1)
Table 1: Race Change in Zip Codes 90007 and 90062
90007 2000 2010 % Change
Hispanic 26,199 22,167 -18%
White 14,447 15,849 9%
Black 5,765 4,547 -27%
Asian 4,797 6,317 24%
Subtotal: 51,208 48,880
90062 2000 2010 % Change
Hispanic 12,885 19,373 33%
White 4,257 6,955 39%
Black 15,223 12,420 -23%
Asian 456 387 -18%
Subtotal: 32,821 39,135
Total: 84,029 88,015 5%
90007 and
90062
2000 2010 % Change
Hispanic 39,084 41,540 6%
White 18,704 22,804 18%
Black 20,988 16,967 -24%
Asian 5,253 6,704 22%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
35
36
In Comparison: USC v. UCLA Demographics
University Park is one of the poorest areas in Los Angeles.
18
USC’s “Village at
USC” project will be located in zip code 90007. The project is expected to bring much
needed jobs and prosperity to this economically depressed area.
To appreciate the breadth of poverty which exists in the University Park region,
one need only look west to a university comparable in prestige and student enrollment as
USC. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is located in affluent West Los
Angeles.
19
It is about 14 miles west of USC and located in zip code 90024. USC and
UCLA were both ranked 24
th
in U.S. News & World Report’s 2013 National University
Rankings.
20
Tables 3 and 4 blaringly depict the vast disparities between the residents living on
the north side of USC (zip code 90007) and those residing adjacent to UCLA (zip code
90024).
Although USC and UCLA are comparable in student body size and equal in
national ranking, the 2010 U.S. Census data (Tables 3 and 4 below) shows how much the
disparity in their respective residents’ socioeconomic levels and longevity is so
drastically different.
For example:
USC area families median income was $29,078; UCLA area families
$125,828
18
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/university-park/
19
Los Angeles Times demographic profiles of the University Park and Westwood regions of Los Angeles
are attached as Appendices 7 and 8, respectively.
20
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/page+3
37
34.2% of the families near USC were below the poverty line, compared to
only 6.6% of the families near UCLA
27.1% of the USC area families with children under 5 years old were below
the poverty level; only 10.8% of the UCLA area families
The USC area residents population over age 55 steadily declined, and
dramatically decreased after age 70; only minor, gradual decline for UCLA
area residents in these age groups; USC area residents may have died or
moved away
Significantly more UCLA area residents are living beyond age 85; however
USC residents in this age group may have relocated
38
Table 3: 2010 Income Demographics for Zip Codes 90007 and 90024
Subject
ZCTA5 90007 ZCTA5 90024
Estimate Percent Estimate Percent
OCCUPATION
Civilian employed population 16 years and
over
17,019 17,019 23,219 23,219
Management, business, science, and arts
occupations
4,420 26.0% 14,144 60.9%
Service occupations 4,213 24.8% 2,212 9.5%
Sales and office occupations 4,448 26.1% 6,120 26.4%
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations
1,448 8.5% 257 1.1%
Production, transportation, and material
moving occupations
2,490 14.6% 486 2.1%
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2011 INFLATION-
ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
Total households 11,273 11,273 17,322 17,322
Less than $10,000 2,799 24.8% 2,771 16.0%
$10,000 to $14,999 1,390 12.3% 684 3.9%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,955 17.3% 1,337 7.7%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,305 11.6% 1,148 6.6%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,363 12.1% 1,267 7.3%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,163 10.3% 2,083 12.0%
$75,000 to $99,999 718 6.4% 1,482 8.6%
$100,000 to $149,999 355 3.1% 2,460 14.2%
$150,000 to $199,999 140 1.2% 1,253 7.2%
$200,000 or more 85 0.8% 2,837 16.4%
Median household income (dollars) 22,049 (X) 67,151 (X)
Mean household income (dollars) 34,709 (X) 127,457 (X)
With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the past 12
months
1,337 11.9% 38 0.2%
Families 5,494 5,494 5,769 5,769
Less than $10,000 609 11.1% 245 4.2%
$10,000 to $14,999 597 10.9% 118 2.0%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,246 22.7% 324 5.6%
$25,000 to $34,999 743 13.5% 254 4.4%
$35,000 to $49,999 732 13.3% 250 4.3%
$50,000 to $74,999 732 13.3% 518 9.0%
$75,000 to $99,999 467 8.5% 512 8.9%
$100,000 to $149,999 285 5.2% 1,110 19.2%
$150,000 to $199,999 38 0.7% 704 12.2%
$200,000 or more 45 0.8% 1,734 30.1%
Median family income (dollars) 29,078 (X) 125,828 (X)
Mean family income (dollars) 43,023 (X) 214,845 (X)
Per capita income (dollars) 10,690 (X) 46,142 (X)
39
Table 3: 2010 Income Demographics for Zip Codes 90007 and 90024 , Continued
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE
WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL
All families (X) 34.2% (X) 6.6%
With related children under 18 years (X) 42.3% (X) 8.4%
With related children under 5 years only (X) 45.1% (X) 11.5%
Married couple families (X) 22.3% (X) 3.8%
With related children under 18 years (X) 30.3% (X) 5.0%
With related children under 5 years only (X) 27.1% (X) 10.8%
Families with female householder, no husband
present
(X) 51.9% (X) 28.4%
With related children under 18 years (X) 59.6% (X) 36.4%
With related children under 5 years only (X) 62.0% (X) 40.6%
All people (X) 42.9% (X) 30.9%
Under 18 years (X) 44.2% (X) 6.8%
Related children under 18 years (X) 44.0% (X) 6.8%
Related children under 5 years (X) 47.2% (X) 7.7%
Related children 5 to 17 years (X) 42.5% (X) 6.3%
18 years and over (X) 42.6% (X) 32.8%
18 to 64 years (X) 44.0% (X) 37.0%
65 years and over (X) 26.9% (X) 8.6%
People in families (X) 32.0% (X) 6.5%
Unrelated individuals 15 years and over (X) 60.4% (X) 49.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
40
Table 4: 2010 Sex and Age Demographics for Zip Codes 90007 and 90024
Subject
Number Percent Number Percent
SEX AND AGE
Total population 40,920 100.0 47,452 100.0
Under 5 years 2,093 5.1 1,076 2.3
5 to 9 years 1,887 4.6 977 2.1
10 to 14 years 2,004 4.9 712 1.5
15 to 19 years 4,046 9.9 7,510 15.8
20 to 24 years 11,830 28.9 15,239 32.1
25 to 29 years 4,127 10.1 3,964 8.4
30 to 34 years 2,474 6.0 2,599 5.5
35 to 39 years 2,013 4.9 2,054 4.3
40 to 44 years 2,011 4.9 1,684 3.5
45 to 49 years 1,704 4.2 1,523 3.2
50 to 54 years 1,687 4.1 1,498 3.2
55 to 59 years 1,393 3.4 1,543 3.3
60 to 64 years 1,088 2.7 1,494 3.1
65 to 69 years 806 2.0 1,256 2.6
70 to 74 years 595 1.5 1,092 2.3
75 to 79 years 478 1.2 938 2.0
80 to 84 years 370 0.9 960 2.0
85 years and over 314 0.8 1,333 2.8
Median age (years) 24.0 ( X ) 23.6 ( X )
16 years and over 34,528 84.4 44,559 93.9
18 years and over 33,568 82.0 44,217 93.2
21 years and over 27,667 67.6 32,348 68.2
62 years and over 3,161 7.7 6,494 13.7
65 years and over 2,563 6.3 5,579 11.8
Male population 20,915 51.1 22,248 46.9
Under 5 years 1,082 2.6 552 1.2
5 to 9 years 907 2.2 512 1.1
10 to 14 years 1,002 2.4 356 0.8
15 to 19 years 1,912 4.7 3,155 6.6
20 to 24 years 6,492 15.9 7,132 15.0
25 to 29 years 2,304 5.6 2,085 4.4
30 to 34 years 1,387 3.4 1,319 2.8
35 to 39 years 1,038 2.5 1,112 2.3
40 to 44 years 1,004 2.5 856 1.8
45 to 49 years 863 2.1 768 1.6
50 to 54 years 797 1.9 703 1.5
55 to 59 years 639 1.6 688 1.4
60 to 64 years 475 1.2 636 1.3
65 to 69 years 356 0.9 538 1.1
70 to 74 years 248 0.6 498 1.0
75 to 79 years 193 0.5 422 0.9
41
Table 4: 2010 Sex and Age Demographics for Zip Codes 90007 and 90024, Continued
80 to 84 years 116 0.3 400 0.8
85 years and over 100 0.2 516 1.1
Median age (years) 23.9 ( X ) 24.1 ( X )
16 years and over 17,727 43.3 20,773 43.8
18 years and over 17,241 42.1 20,609 43.4
21 years and over 14,386 35.2 15,512 32.7
62 years and over 1,265 3.1 2,768 5.8
65 years and over 1,013 2.5 2,374 5.0
Female population 20,005 48.9 25,204 53.1
Under 5 years 1,011 2.5 524 1.1
5 to 9 years 980 2.4 465 1.0
10 to 14 years 1,002 2.4 356 0.8
15 to 19 years 2,134 5.2 4,355 9.2
20 to 24 years 5,338 13.0 8,107 17.1
25 to 29 years 1,823 4.5 1,879 4.0
30 to 34 years 1,087 2.7 1,280 2.7
35 to 39 years 975 2.4 942 2.0
40 to 44 years 1,007 2.5 828 1.7
45 to 49 years 841 2.1 755 1.6
50 to 54 years 890 2.2 795 1.7
55 to 59 years 754 1.8 855 1.8
60 to 64 years 613 1.5 858 1.8
65 to 69 years 450 1.1 718 1.5
70 to 74 years 347 0.8 594 1.3
75 to 79 years 285 0.7 516 1.1
80 to 84 years 254 0.6 560 1.2
85 years and over 214 0.5 817 1.7
Median age (years) 24.2 ( X ) 23.1 ( X )
16 years and over 16,801 41.1 23,786 50.1
18 years and over 16,327 39.9 23,608 49.8
21 years and over 13,281 32.5 16,836 35.5
62 years and over 1,896 4.6 3,726 7.9
65 years and over 1,550 3.8 3,205 6.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
42
University Park Crime Statistics
Recruitment and retention of “rock star” quality faculty and students occurs not
just through lucrative salary and financial aid packages, but also through enticements like
aesthetically beautiful, safe environments
21
. Indeed, faculty and students (primarily their
parents) demand environments in and around campuses be safe havens to work, learn,
live and socialize since USC’s primary duty is to its university community. Therefore a
review of the crime statistics for USC is in order since it will be a major factor for faculty
considering relocating to Los Angeles and working at USC. Prospective students and
their parents also may review the data when deciding whether the student should attend
USC.
In Comparison: USC v. UCLA Crime Statistics
USC and UCLA are both spacious and beautiful campuses. However, as
evidenced by official crime statistics, the level of security on and around the campuses is
quite different. To demonstrate the significance in safety around these campuses, an
analysis of crime statistics for a recent six-month period and calendar years 2006-2011
was conducted.
In the six-month period, May 14, 2012 to November 11, 2012, the Los Angeles
Times reports that there were 54 violent crimes (rape, 5.6%; aggravated assault, 35.2%;
robbery, 59.3%) and 506 property crimes (burglary, 14.5%; theft, 60%; grand theft auto,
5.1%; theft from vehicle, 20.5%). No homicides occurred over this time period. There
were 221.2 crimes per 10,000 people in the University Park area; relatively high for the
21
As of March 1, 2013, USC had 43 active capital projects, including new building construction,
renovation of existing structures and infrastructure upgrades. Source: USC Capital Construction
Development; http://www.usc.edu/fms/documents/UPC_SiteConstraints_Grayscale.pdf.
43
city of Los Angeles (75
th
on the Los Angeles Times’ Violent Crimes Ranking of 200
cities) (Appendix 9).
22
In comparison, the crime statistics for the area adjacent to UCLA called
“Westwood” for the same six month period are: 18 violent crimes (rape, 11.1%;
aggravated assault, 55.6%; robbery, 33.3%) and 308 property crimes (burglary, 14.3%;
theft, 47.7%; grand theft auto, 4.5%; theft from vehicle, 33.4%). No homicides occurred
over this six-month period. There were 62.6 crimes per 10,000 people; one of the lowest
in the city of Los Angeles (190
th
on the Los Angeles Times Violent Crimes Ranking of
200 cities) (Appendix 10).
23
Los Angeles Police Department Crime Data re: University Park and Westwood
USC is located in Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) Southwest Division.
UCLA is situated in the West Los Angeles Division. The crime statistics for these areas
are dramatically different. For example, although the Southwest Division is only about 12
miles (5.2% the size of the West Los Angeles Division), it had an average of 31.6
homicides over the last six years as opposed to an average of only four homicides in the
West Los Angeles area. The statistics indicate crime in both areas has gradually
decreased over the last six years. However violent crime such as homicides, rapes,
robberies and aggravated assaults has remained high near the USC campus (see Table 5
and Figures 4, 5 and 6).
22
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/violent-crime/neighborhood/list/
23
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/westwood/crime/; Attached as
Appendix 10.
44
45
Figure 3: Southwest v. West LA Community Police Stations, Part 1 Crimes, 2006-11
Source: LAPD Crime Digest
Figure 4: LAPD Crime Statistics, Southwest Community Police Station, 2006-11
Source: LAPD Crime Digest
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Southwest Total # of Part 1 Offences
West LA Total # of Part 1 Offences
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Homicides
Rapes
Aggravated Assaults
Robberies
Burglaries
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
LAPD Crimes Statistics - Southwest Community Police Station
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
46
Figure 5: LAPD Crime Statistics, West LA Community Police Station, 2006-11
Source: LAPD Crime Digest
Unfortunately crime is an external factor USC cannot control. However to recruit
top faculty and students to USC, the university must demonstrate it’s taking vital steps to
improve the local community by lowering area crime.
USC can show it’s moving in the right direction. It has hired a number of
additional officers and installed security cameras throughout the neighborhoods
surrounding its University Park campus. It can also state its Department of Public Safety
(DPS) is one of the largest campus law enforcement agencies in the nation.
And through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles Police
Department, USC DPS officers have powers of arrest and patrol the campus and off-
campus areas in vehicles, on bicycles and on foot. Additionally USC officers’ augment
the areas patrolled by the Los Angeles Police Department (see Appendix 11—DPS Area
Response map).
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Homicides
Rapes
Aggravated Assaults
Robberies
Burglaries
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
LAPD Crimes Statistics - West LA Community Police Station
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
47
DPS also employs “Security Ambassadors” which stand watch in the community
around the clock. Their role is to report crimes or suspicious activities to DPS. DPS and
LAPD respond and investigate the call. These increased security measures have led to a
27% reduction in crime in the area over the last two years.
24
Clery Act Reports Data re: PAC-12 and Urban Universities
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act is a federal statute (20 USC § 1092(f)) requiring colleges and universities
participating in federal financial aid programs to maintain and disclose campus crime
statistics and security information.
25
As USC receives federal financial aid, it must
annually report campus crime statistics. USC’s “Clery Act” data for 2011 is provided
below in Tables 6, 7 and 8. More detailed 2011 data and for years 2006-2010 is attached
as Appendix 11.
The university also compares its statistics against six similarly-situated American
urban campuses (Penn, Harvard, NYU, Drexel, Columbia, and Chicago) and the 12
Pacific Conference (PAC-12) schools. Clery crime data is reported in two categories: (1)
crimes against persons, and (2) crimes against property. Among the PAC-12 universities,
the Clery Act data for 2011 indicates USC ranked fourth in total crimes (169). UCLA and
University of California, Berkeley (Cal) ranked first and second, respectively (221 and
220 total crimes). However, in 2011, with regard to similar urban campuses, USC ranked
24
http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/33160/answers-about-usc-security/
25
http://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/school/clery-act
48
first for the number of crimes against property and second for the number of crimes
against persons.
26
Table 6: UPC Clery Crime Trends Analysis 2006-2011
Source: USC Dept of Public Safety
26
Tragically, on April 11, 2012, two foreign students were shot and killed in a neighborhood a little more
than one-mile off campus.
49
Table 7: PAC-12 Crime Comparison 2011
Source: USC Dept of Public Safety
50
Table 8: Urban University Crime Comparison 2011
Source: USC Dept of Public Safety
Conclusion
With almost 40% of its residents living below the poverty line, the neighborhoods
around USC’s University Park Campus are among the poorest in the city of Los Angeles.
The “Village at USC” project will add 8,000 permanent jobs to the community. As per
the project’s development agreement, 30% of these jobs are slated for local residents
residing within a two-mile radius of the new University Village. These new jobs should
51
have a significant impact on reducing area poverty and spurring community quality-of-
life improvement.
As noted above, on a scale of the 200 most violent crimes areas in Los Angeles,
University Park ranked 75
th
. USC can demonstrate it has taken steps which have
significantly reduced crime in and around its University Park campus (27% decreased as
noted above). More importantly, reduction in area crime should drop even further due to
USC and LAPD’s planned significant increase in officers patrolling the community upon
completion of the new University Village.
Figure 6: Jobs Potential Impact on Quality-of-Life Cycle
Source: Jeffrey S. Wigintton
Poverty
Reduction
Quality of
Life
Improves
Crime
Reduction
Quality of
Life
Improves
Jobs
52
Chapter 4
______________________________________________________
USC’s 2030 Master Plan
Overview
USC’s 2030 Master Plan is an aggressive development of up to 5,020,140 of
additional square feet of academic, commercial and housing uses within the university’s
University Park Specific Plan area
27
. It is the largest and most expensive commercial
development ever to be constructed in the South Los Angeles section of the city of Los
Angeles. It will consist of: (a) high-density housing (up to 4,038 net new student beds in
Subarea 3; up to 250 net new faculty units in Subarea 3; and up to 200 net new student
beds in Subarea IA), (b) up to 350,000 square feet of floor area of commercial uses, such
as retail, restaurants, grocery store, a 2,000-seat movie theater complex and a university
fitness center, (c) a hotel and conference center, up to 165,000 square feet of floor area,
(d) a K-8 laboratory school and community educational academy, and (e) space for other
academic and university activities (see Appendix 20, legal description of the University
Village project; and Appendix 21, description of the property). Figure 3 illustrates the
area designated for USC’s 2030 Master Plan. The new University Village will be built on
land USC already owns.
USC’s web site for its “2030 Master Plan” development represents in part that:
The fundamental reason for creating a master plan is to provide a
visionary framework for campus development. The 2030 Master Plan is
intended as a guide for the physical development of the University Park
campus in the coming years according to ideals expressed in the Role and
27
http://www.usc.edu/specificplan/
53
Mission of the University of Southern California and in support of USC’s
Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence.
* * *
Established in 1880, USC is one of the most enduring institutions in the
city of Los Angeles. While others have forsaken the city, USC has
recommitted itself to Los Angeles, serving as an economic engine and
stirring civic pride with the success of its sports teams, its academic
accomplishments and the contributions of its alumni. When Time magazine
and The Princeton Review named USC ‘College of the Year 2000,’ they
cited the university as having ‘the most ambitious social-outreach program
of any private university in the nation.’ Working closely with its neighbors
in ‘respectful partnership,’ USC is helping create better schools, safer
streets and a greener, more beautiful environment. Since 1995, USC faculty
and staff have voluntarily contributed nearly $10 million of their own
money toward these goals through the USC Good Neighbors Campaign.
The following excerpts from USC’s Role and Mission leave no doubt that
USC is, and desires to remain, a preeminent institution of higher education
with a significant interest in the prosperity of its community, region and the
world beyond:
The central mission of the University of Southern California is the
development of human beings and society as a whole through the
cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit.
In our surrounding neighborhoods and around the globe, USC provides
public leadership and public service in such diverse fields as health care,
economic development, social welfare, scientific research, public policy
and the arts. We also serve the public interest by being the largest private
employer in the city of Los Angeles, as well as the city’s largest export
industry in the private sector.” (Emphasis added.)
28
28
http://www.usc.edu/community/upcmasterplan/background/
54
The “Village at USC” Project
The master plan involves six separate projects. The projects are designated
Districts 1 through 6. The “Village at USC” is part of the District 1 project and referred to
by the City of Los Angeles as “Subarea 3”. This is the first and most extensive phase of
the master plan. This phase involves complete demolition of the existing University
Village Shopping Center (see Appendix 12).
The project will be built on land already owned by the university. As explained
herein, this fact is important.
The new shopping center will include up to 350,000 square feet of community-
serving retail space, new student housing and academic space, and, according to the
university’s website, “will increase the quality of life for students and the community.”
29
The university’s website further represents:
“The Village will be a mixed-use urban revitalization project designed to
create a community environment for all. All of the land for the proposed
village is owned by the university, with the exception of the fire station site
(Los Angeles Fire Department Station No. 15) on Jefferson Boulevard that
is planned to be relocated nearby, as well as the Jessie L. Terry Manor
senior housing center, which is not a part of the project area.
The heart of The Village at USC will include a new plaza that offers retail
and entertainment uses such as a bookstore, restaurants, a neighborhood
market, park-like green space, and other activities that enhance life in the
surrounding community. The Village at USC will create a sense of place
for the entire community.
The Village at USC will …
Create 12,000 new jobs (4,000 construction-related, 8,000
permanent) throughout the development area
29
http://village.usc.edu/information/overview/
55
Increase the amount of academic space per student to a level that
better supports the academic excellence of the university
Substantially increase the amount of university-affiliated housing
available in the campus area, free up traditionally non-student
housing for local residents, decrease the commute time for
university students, faculty and staff, and reduce traffic congestion
in the area
Provide new services and offerings that meet the needs of students,
faculty, staff and the community
Figures 7 and 8 are graphics of the Specific Plan and top view of Subarea 3
(where the new University Village will be located) respectively:
Figure 7: Screenshot of Subarea 3 Graphic
Source: http://usc.edu/specificplan/
56
Figure 8: Screenshot of Specific Plan Graphic
Source: http://usc.edu/specificplan/
57
Chapter 5
______________________________________________________
Research Questions
How can universities expand and expeditiously complete projects without
destroying surrounding communities in the process? Posed alternatively, how can
universities expand and expeditiously complete projects while mitigating the potential
negative economic and social impacts their expansion projects may have on local
communities?
Methodology/Case Study Selection and Rationale
Case studies are a preferred research strategy when a researcher seeks to
understand a contemporary and complex social phenomenon within some real life
context. Moreover, case studies are valuable tools when researching urban planning,
neighborhood change, community organizations, etc. (Yin 2009). As such, a case study
method was selected to answer the research questions for this paper.
This case study was developed using qualitative data analyses through extensive
semi-structured interviews, personal observations and document and record reviews. I
attended public hearings, interviewed internal (university administrators) and external
(community activists, community residents, government officials) constituents, and
hundreds of public documents and records (demographic and crime statistics, newspaper
articles, university publications and websites) pertaining to the University of Southern
California’s surrounding communities and the “Village at USC” project. I also toured and
documented expansion sites and the neighborhoods surrounding USC’s University Park
58
Campus. Discussion and analysis of my interviews are set forth below in the following
“Stakeholder Perspective” section.
In addition, I performed extensive research and analyses of documents
(newspaper articles, community newsletters, university publications and websites)
addressing the potential economic and social impacts of Harvard and Columbia
Universities’ expansion projects on their respective surrounding neighborhoods,
community and governmental reactions to expansion projects and resulting community
benefits agreements.
Photographs taken by the author and many of the reviewed documents are
attached as Appendices 1 through 27. A version of this paper on a CD, which includes
full-length videos of Appendices 17 of 18 and the National Public Broadcast of Appendix
19, will be provided to the USC’s Libraries for its archives.
Figure 9: Photograph of a Columbia University community
engagement building in Harlem, New York (July 2011)
Source: Jeffrey S. Wigintton
59
Stakeholder Perspectives
Overview
To answer the research questions I needed to understand the positions of the key
stakeholders; thus a number of interviews were conducted for this paper. The questions
generally addressed: (1) the interviewees overall perceptions of USC as a community
neighbor; (2) their perception of safety in and around USC during the day, at night and
during weekdays and over weekends; (3) knowledge of USC’s community engagement
efforts in the community; (4) knowledge of area demographics over the last 10 years; and
(5) what economic and social impacts they believe the Village at USC project may have
on the University Park area. Not all interviewees could answer all five questions. For a
number of reasons some of the interviewees wanted to remain anonymous. Their requests
were honored.
60
University of Southern California
University of Southern California’s current president, Dr. C.L. “Max” Nikias, has
made it clear his top priority is making USC the “best university in the world.”
30
To help
accomplish this bold, audacious goal he has pledged to improve the communities around
both of the universities’ campuses so they are safe, attractive magnets for the best and
brightest faculty and students.
The $1.1 billion “Village at USC” project potentially may significantly improve
the quality-of-life of the communities around the University Park Campus. As per the
development agreement, stakeholders consider a two-mile radius around the developed
site to be the spatial distance impacted by the project.
The Village project will create 12,000 jobs, 4,000 during construction and 8,000
permanent jobs (David Galaviz interview, 11/13/12; Craig Keys interview, 11/13/12),
and make the community safer (Carey Drayton interview, 11/7/12).
31
The land where the current University Village is situated is owned by USC. All
property the university intends to develop as part of its master plan is or will be owned by
USC (Brian League interview, 11/6/12).
32
In furtherance of the university’s mission of public service and society
enrichment it has created and maintained over a hundred community engagement
activities. The programs not only enrich the lives of the community members that
participate, but also the lives of faculty, students and staff that participate as well.
30
President Nikias Inauguration Speech, 10/15/10
31
David Galaviz, Executive Director, USC Local Government Relations; Craig Keys, Associate Senior
Vice President, USC Civic Engagement; Carey Drayton, Chief, USC Dept of Public Safety.
32
Brian League, Executive Director, USC Office of Real Estate Development.
61
Moreover, university programs can impact society at large. For example, USC’s National
Academic Initiative is a rigorous academic program for neighborhood children in grades
sixth through 12. If the children stick with the program they meet the requirements for
admission to USC and tuition is free if accepted. Many of these children continue to
reside in the community. Therefore they improve the community by increasing the
education and income levels of local residents (Craig Keys interview, 11/13/12).
The Village community development project will serve all levels of consumers.
The goal of the project is to be “economically diverse.” The development will contain
retail stores found at most malls. It will also have dine-in restaurants appropriately priced
for all income levels. The development will bring much needed retail businesses to the
area. Local community residents and students will no longer have to travel long distances
to shop or dine (Craig Keys interview, 11/13/12). It’s too early to determine what
retailers ultimately will be in the new University Village. However, as per the
development agreement, there will be a 25,000 square foot grocery store (Brian League
interview, 11/6/12).
In addition, even though the required Environmental Impact Report found the
project would not have a significant impact on housing, the project will create a number
of new affordable student housing units (Craig Keys interview, 11/13/12). However what
constitutes “affordable” has not been determined (Brian League interview, 11/6/12;
David Galaviz interview, 1/16/13).
A major challenge USC faced was convincing the community the Village project
would benefit everyone and not just USC. Community activists have accused USC of
62
lying about its development plans (Teresa Eilere interview, 11/12/12).
33
USC represents
that it did everything possible to overcome that perception. The university has stressed
transparency. It held numerous public information fairs, spoke at many community
events and has gone door-to-door to get the word out about the project. USC’s Office of
Community Engagement created English and Spanish language flyers outlining the
project (Appendices 13 and 14; David Galaviz interview, 11/13/12).
The new retail shops which opened within the last two years at the Gateway
development project across the street from USC at the corner of Figueroa Street and
Jefferson Boulevard have seen much higher than anticipated profits (Brian League
interview, 11/6/12). It is reasonable to believe the new Village at USC development will
provide an equal or better return on investment.
A USC representative has referred to the requests from community activists and
the city for significant amounts of funding from USC for numerous programs as
“extraction.” They see USC as having “very deep pockets.” SAJE pushed for a benefits
agreement similar to the one it achieved with AEG, the parent company for the L.A. Live
project (Staples Center, Nokia Theatre, etc.) in downtown Los Angeles. Pursuant to that
agreement, SAJE is responsible for administering the agreement’s proceeds. Under the
terms of the University Village development agreement, the city of Los Angeles will
administer disbursement of the funds (Anonymous interviewee, 10/18/12).
Community Groups/Local Residents
A group entitled “UNIDAD” claims it represents the community residents
impacted by USC’s Village at USC development project. UNIDAD is the acronym for
33
Teresa Eilere is the Economic Development Associate at SAJE.
63
United Neighbors in Defense Against Displacement coalition. The group is comprised of
a number of organizations including Community Development Technologies Center
(CDTech); Esperanza Community Housing Corporation; Tenemos que Eeclamar y
Unidos Salvar La Tierra-South LA (TRUST South LA); Playa Vista Job Opportunities
and Business Services (PV Jobs); Strategic Actions for Just Economy (SAJE); St. Francis
Center; United University Church; Blazers Youth Services Community Club; and St.
Agnes Church. UNIDAD’s legal representative is the Legal Aid Foundation of Los
Angeles (LAFLA) (Nona Randois interview, 1/3/13; Appendix 27).
34
It is estimated UNIDAD had over 200 community activists at the Los Angeles
Planning Department’s hearing at the Radisson Hotel on March 14, 2012. They were
chanting loudly and carrying signs in English and Spanish protesting the new University
Village project. They were yelling and their signs read: “Can’t afford to spend $1,200 for
an apartment” (see Appendix 16). However, USC had as many if not more community
supporters. Dozens of people stated at the hearing their appreciation for the much-needed
jobs coming to the community and praised USC for providing so many services for their
families (e.g., dental, medical, tutoring, etc.).
A profound statement at the March 14
th
hearing greatly impacted me. It was by a
Latina woman in support of the University Village project. In broken English, she said
nervously: “I just want a nice neighborhood place for my kids to go to the movies without
having to deal with semen on the seats.”
UNIDAD alleges the university’s project will lead to gentrification and
disproportionate displacement of area residents. The group also states it represents all
34
Nona Randois is Senior Legal Counsel at Legal Aid Foundation Los Angeles.
64
members of the community (e.g., Hispanic, African-American, Asian, the elderly, etc.)
directly impacted by the Village at USC development project (Teresa Eilere interview,
11/12/12; Nona Randois interview, 1/3/13). Due to the limitations of this paper these
representations could not be verified. However, legal counsel for UNIDAD conceded the
needs of the elderly and individual ethnic groups were not specifically addressed (Nona
Randois interview, 1/3/13).
UNIDAD’s major allegation is that USC does not provide enough affordable
housing for its students. It points to census data as supporting evidence (Teresa Eilere
interview, 11/12/12).
A simple drive around the neighborhoods bordering USC supports UNIDAD’s
claim. As can be seen in Appendices 22 (photographs and advertisements for apartments
on the east side of USC) and 23 (photographs and advertisements for apartments west
side of campus), there exists two very distinctly different socioeconomical classes of
students.
The apartments along Figueroa Street (along USC’s east border), are the epitome
of luxury living. Rents in shared apartments average about $2,000 per month per student
for a room. Rents for barred-window apartments in the high crime neighborhoods west of
Vermont Avenue are about $850 per month per student for a room.
As depicted in the photographs in Appendix 23, there are numerous
advertisements aggressively targeting USC students for apartments west of Vermont
Avenue. Apparently these apartments are “affordable” student housing but too expensive
for local low-income residents.
65
A limitation of this paper is whether landlords are discriminating against local
residents, i.e., apartments are intentionally being rented to USC students and not low-
income families. And according to SAJE President Paulina Gonzalez, unscrupulous
landlords are wrongly evicting families so they can rent to USC students (Paulina
Gonzalez statement, 2/30/13). This result may be due to many residential dwellings being
divided into separate rooms to facilitate renting of the rooms to students. Instead of
renting a five-bedroom house to a family for $1,200 per month, a landlord can rent each
bedroom for about $1,000 per room (grossing $5,000 per month). These issues require
further inquiry.
At the Los Angeles Planning Department public hearing on March 14, 2012, an
elderly African-American gentleman told the commission members he has lived in the
neighborhood west of USC for over 60 years. He said he has seen his neighborhood
overtaken by students since they are the only ones that can pay the high rents. All of his
neighbors have died or have moved away. (This is supported by the U.S. Census data
above.)
He says he owns his house and so he doesn’t have to worry about paying rent
since his house is paid off. He just wants the students to back to the USC campus and
have more families living in the neighborhood.
A long time African-American community resident stated he was “overjoyed”
USC was tearing down the old University Village and replacing it with modern facilities.
He welcomes the new retail stores and restaurants. He says now he won’t have to travel
long distances to buy quality clothes and food or to get a good meal at a “nice” restaurant.
66
He is not worried about being forced to move because he believes USC will
continue to be a good neighbor and ensure there is plenty of affordable housing for local
residents. However he believes USC should educate its students on being good neighbors.
Students are disrespectful by being very loud at night and throwing trash on sidewalks
and in the streets (Anonymous interviewee, 1/9/13).
An Asian-American resident bought a house in the community many years ago.
He has seen a dramatic decrease in crime due to LAPD and DPS increased patrols and
new surveillance cameras. He has also noticed a remarkable decrease in families in his
neighborhood. Families have moved away and their apartments and houses are now
occupied by USC students. He believes this is due to students’ willingness to pay higher
rents close to the USC campus (Anonymous interviewee, 12/11/13).
Community resident Saundra Bryant is an African-American woman who has
lived in the University Park area for over 50 years. Her family has been in the community
for over 70 years. As she was growing up she viewed USC as an “Ivory Tower” that
didn’t care for local residents. She felt USC had an “us” vs. “them” mentality. She cannot
pinpoint or explain why she felt that way.
She works at the All Peoples Community Center (APCC) as a licensed clinical
social worker. APCC is located at 20
th
and San Pedro streets, not far from USC. She
attended an early UNIDAD information meeting, but since APCC is beyond the
development plan’s boundaries and won’t derive any benefits from the project, she did
not attend any future meetings.
67
She has seen the community evolve over the years. As a result of the 1992 riots
many business did not want to open in the University Park area. The community fought
for a Wells Fargo Bank 24-hour ATM at the corner of Adams and Broadway. It is only
open Monday through Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm. The Wells Fargo ATM on the
corner of 30
th
Street and Figueroa Boulevard is open 24-hours, seven days a week. She
believes that is due to its proximity to USC and the LAPD and USC police presence in
the area. As such, there is a community benefit from the university’s presence.
Ms. Bryant also contends USC students are displacing local residents since
students must find affordable housing close to the USC campus. She referenced the
under-construction Lorenzo Luxury housing development near Adams and Figueroa
Boulevards. The development company is aggressively marketing the complex to USC
students (Appendix 22). There are even airplanes with banners flying over USC
advertising the under-construction development. She believes only wealthy students will
be able to afford the rents of at least $1,000 a month for a shared apartment at the new
complex. Neither local residents nor most USC students will be able to afford to live
there. Therefore, students have no choice but to rent cheaper apartments west of USC
(Appendices 22 and 23). She says USC’s goal should be a gentrification balance that will
work for everyone, including jobs and jobs-training programs for local residents (Saundra
Bryant interview, 12/19/12).
Long-time community resident Jackie Dupont-Walker is the founder and
president of Ward Economic Development Corporation. She is also the current chair of
68
USC’s Master Plan Advisory Committee. She has been involved in USC-community
issues for over 30 years. She has represented community groups and USC.
She doesn’t believe UNIDAD can claim it represents the interests of all local
residents since it is not a legislative or governing entity. She asserts the true
representative body of the University Park community is its Neighborhood Council since
by city charter its very existence is to be the “voice of the people.” She also questions
why USC should be required to provide affordable housing since the Village at USC is a
retail development project on university land. She also suggested local groups and city
officials think hard about what would happen to the community if USC left the area; as
Pepperdine University did in 1972. Too many demands could push USC to relocate to a
safer, more university/business-friendly city. USC would not have difficulty finding a
buyer for its prime real estate in Los Angeles (Jackie Dupont-Walker interview, 12/3/12).
According to Teresa Eilere, Economic Development Associate at SAJE, USC’s
representatives lied to the community about the universities true long-term development
intentions. She cites construction of the Galen Center athletic arena as a prime example.
She alleges USC represented it would not build a large arena in the community but did
anyway. USC’s representative denies Ms. Eilere’s claims (David Galaviz interview,
11/13/12).
Ms. Eilere says the UNIDAD coalition believes USC’s “Village at USC”
development will be a huge, very high-end commercial complex similar to “The Grove”
in Los Angeles and “The Americana at Brand” in Glendale, California. UNIDAD is
opposed to a commercial property of that nature in the community. She asserts such malls
69
would be too expensive for local residents and therefore alienate them from their own
community
35
(Teresa Eilere interview, 11/12/12). Mr. Galaviz of USC states the new
University Village will offer low to mid-range retail stores and sit-down restaurants. The
Village will not be similar in concept or scope of the aforementioned malls (Galaviz
interview, 11/13/12).
Ms. Eilere states its SAJE’s position USC has a moral duty to provide affordable
housing, jobs and jobs training for local residents since higher rents from the Village at
USC project will cause them to move out of the area. SAJE’s position is higher rents at
USC will increase overall community market rates to amounts local residents won’t be
able to afford. UNIDAD/SAJE’s position was also expressed at the City of Los Angeles
Planning Department public hearing on March 14, 2011, and during the KCRW April 6,
2012 radio broadcast entitled “Can USC Grow Without Devouring the Neighborhood?”
Ms. Paulina Gonzalez, president of SAJE, presented the organization’s position during
the broadcast (Appendices 17, 18 and 19).
Ms. Eilere also stated that but for Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes’
intervention she doesn’t believe USC would have raised its affordable housing allowance
from $2 million to $20 million (Teresa Eilere interview, 12/14/12). LAFTA attorney
Nona Randois believes City Council members Jan Perry, Bernard Parks and Ed Reyes all
played important roles in getting the project approved (Nona Randois interview, 1/3/13).
Attorney Randois believes USC has been a “wonderful community partner” due
to the number of education programs offered to community families. She also praises
USC for having a robust minority and small businesses hiring program. However she
35
This is analogous to being stranded in a hot desert and a pool of cool water is just outside your reach.
70
believes USC needs to hire more local residents to work in and around the campus. In
addition, she asserts USC should take an active role in training local residents for these
jobs. She is satisfied with the final terms reached in the University Village development
agreement. UNIDAD wanted to “extract” as many community benefits as possible from
USC. However LAFLA was prepared to delay the project by filing a lawsuit alleging
non-compliance with the Environmental Impact Report and violating the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
36
(Nona Randois interview, 1/3/13).
A local cleric stated “You can’t fight progress.” He feels USC is a good neighbor
and welcomes USC’s efforts to improve the community through development projects.
He has seen the benefits parish children have derived from attending USC’s educational
programs. They are doing much better in school and being accepted at colleges
throughout the nation. Demographics of church members have changed over the years.
He believes this is due to stricter immigrant laws and enforcement and not USC’s
gentrification of the area (Anonymous interview, 11/12/12).
Another cleric reserved comment until after the Los Angeles City Council’s
December 11, 2012 meeting on USC’s Village at USC project. However he sides with
UNIDAD and believes USC should build affordable student housing so students can rent
these properties instead of neighborhood units. This would create more rental property
inventory for low-income residents (Anonymous interview, 12/6/12).
Government
USC is located in the heart of Los Angeles City Council District 9.
Councilwoman Jan Perry represented District 9. However, USC is bordered by District 8
36
Codified in California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.
71
on the west side of the campus and District 1 on the north side, represented by Council
members Bernard Parks and Ed Reyes, respectively.
37
There were a series of hearings on USC’s Village at USC development project.
The first public hearing occurred on March 14, 2012, before the Los Angeles Planning
Department. Thereafter three Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee
meetings occurred in May 2012. Finally, on December 11, 2012, the project was
unanimously approved by the Los Angeles City Council.
Throughout the process the key stakeholders—USC, UNIDAD and members of
the city—were negotiating a development agreement. The city would not approve the
project without USC agreeing to a comprehensive community and city benefits package.
USC initially offered $2 million towards affordable housing. UNIDAD and its
legal counsel lambasted USC at public hearings and during a National Public Radio
broadcast claiming the amount was totally insufficient and that USC had a moral
obligation to pay more (video recordings attached as Appendices 17 and 18, audio
broadcast attached as Appendix 19).
During the initial PLUM meetings the amount was raised to $8 million. After the
third (and final) PLUM meeting the amount was raised to $20 million. However, as
illustrated in Table 9 below, it cost USC substantially more than $20 million to get its
project approved by the Los Angeles City Council.
Marie Rumsey is a senior deputy for Los Angeles City Council member Jan
Perry. She stated it was always the city’s desire to reach a “win-win-win” solution for all
37
http://www.lacity.org/government/ElectedOfficialOffices/CityCouncil/CouncilDirectory/index.htm?laCate
gory=1820
72
stakeholders. The city wins as a result of significant increases in tax revenues, the
community wins due to the number of new jobs created and the numerous items set forth
in the development agreement and USC wins since it is allowed to proceed with its $1.1
billion massive mixed-use project.
The city was a “strong partner” with USC. However it was also an advocate for
the community coalition group. The city’s Chief Legislative Analyst, Gerry Miller, was
an intermediary between the city and the City Council. He took more of an aggressive
position when it appeared negotiations between PLUM and USC were stalled at USC’s
$8 million offer towards affordable housing assistance. As set forth in Appendix 24, he
communicated USC’s final offer (shown in Table 9) to the city.
The city wanted community groups to be content with getting most of the items
on its “wish list” (which included not only funds for affordable housing assistance but
also a percentage of new project jobs and jobs training programs for local residents).
Although the Village at USC project was creating 12,000 new jobs (8,000 permanent) in
an economically depressed part of the city, City Council members used the project as an
opportunity to acquire funding for items typically sought from developers and ratified in
development agreements (Marie Rumsey interview, 1/15/13).
A summary of the final University Village development agreement’s provisions
are listed below in Table 9 below.
73
Table 9: Summary of University Village Development Agreement
Initial Payments Total Payments Key Provisions
$ 10,000,000 $ 20,000,000 Affordable Housing Trust Fund (creation, preservation, rehabilitation of affordable
housing in Nexus Study area); $10m immediately, $10m year 10, $5m year 20 but
waived if USC has 4,038 new USC-owned beds for students and offers on-campus
housing to 70% or more of its undergraduate students
$ 30,000 $ 600,000 $30,000 annually for graffiti abatement
$ 16,000,000 Fire Station estimated cost
$ 350,000 $ 350,000 One-time payment for Hoover Park improvement and maintenance
$ 25,000 $ 500,000 $25,000 annually to fund 10 neighborhood schools programs
$ 10,000 $ 200,000 $10,000 annually to fund parks programs
$ 500,000 $ 500,000 One-time payment towards transit oriented districts
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 One-time payment for integration of Subarea 3 into Figueroa Corridor BID; will
provide security and maintenance programs
$ 500,000 $ 500,000 One-time payment to City for Vermont Ave business façade program; affected
City Council offices to offer $20,000 grants to businesses; Councils to work with
community stakeholders to administer the funds
$ 500,000 $ 500,000 One-time payment to city for Vermont Ave streetscape improvement
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 One-time payment for Jefferson Ave pedestrian improvement
$ 350,000 $ 350,000 One-time payment to city's Bicycle Lane Trust Fund; may be used for Jefferson
Ave
$ 30,000 $ 30,000 One-time payment into an escrow account for a pilot jobs training program;
escrow holder to distribute funds by RFP to a 3rd party evaluation panel (TPEP)
with workforce development expertise; Economic Development Coordinating
Council will select TPEP
$ 175,000 $ 175,000 $17,500 for each current tenant for relocation or up to 4 months rent payments
(10 tenants used for this calculation)
$ 13,570,000 $ 40,630,000
Additional Provisions:
University Village must:
Contain a 25,000 sq ft grocery store that accepts WIC, EBT
Include an 800 sq ft community room
Maintain a English/Spanish Community Outreach Website
Provide and operate a Mobility Hub re transit options
USC must:
Make good-faith efforts to buy 4 alcohol licenses or pay city equivalent market
value, as determined by city
Build a new fire station ($16,000,000 estimated cost noted above)
Expand USC Tram shuttle service to UV
Have an annual hiring goal of 30% of operational and contract jobs, and an annual
goal of 10% of jobs for disadvantaged workers, excluding USC students; Tier 1:
within 2-mile radius of Specific Area, Tier 2: within 5-mile radius
Enter into a Project Labor Agreement with Building and Construction Trades
Council; with 30% local hire goal, 10% disadvantaged workers goal based on Tier 1
and 2 boundaries
Make good-faith efforts to achieve a 15% goal of local procurement consistent
with current policies
Create a legal clinic at the law school re landlord-tenant disputes
Have at least quarterly Village tenant meetings re updates on development
progress and leasing opportunities
Hire a small business technical services specialist to provide Small Business
Empowerment Services to a min of 40 UV businesses and all UV tenants
Provide at least 6 months notice to UV tenants before closure of UV for
demolition
Provide financial assistance of $17,500 to each tenant; can be used towards final
rents (noted above)
Make good-faith efforts to retain current tenants
Provide ombudsman in UV or nearby to perform civil engagement and community
relations functions
There is no penalty for not achieving university's current Small Business, Minority
Business and Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise construction hiring goals
Source: Los Angeles City Council Development Agreement
74
In Comparison: Other Urban University Expansion Projects
Overview
Columbia and Harvard Universities are involved in massive expansion projects.
Like USC, these universities desperately need additional physical space for faculty,
researchers and students and therefore chose to expand into nearby neighborhoods. As
such, a brief discussion of these projects and the resulting community benefits
agreements is in order.
Columbia University
Columbia University is located in two New York City neighborhoods. The
medical campus is located in the Washington Heights section of the city. The
undergraduate, graduate and professional schools are situated in the Morningside Heights
section of the city. Washington Heights and Morningside Heights are densely populated
urban environments with low-income and mostly Latino and African-American residents.
In 2003, Columbia announced it was seeking governmental approval to build a
$6.3 billion satellite campus in the Manhattanville (West Harlem) section of the city. The
17-acre site the university will develop is just north of Columbia's Morningside Heights
campus and consists primarily of the four blocks from 129th to 133rd Streets between
Broadway and Twelfth Avenue. The plan includes more than 6.8 million square feet of
space for teaching, research, underground parking, and support services. It will feature
75
new facilities for civic, cultural, recreational, and commercial activity.
38
Columbia
acquired the properties through purchases and eminent domain proceedings.
39
After much public outcry and legal delays, in May 2009, New York State's Public
Authorities Control Board granted the final public approval for the university's plan. In
December 2007, the New York City Council approved rezoning of the project area from
light industrial to mixed-use academic purposes. Columbia also reached a final
community benefits agreement with the West Harlem Local Development Corporation
(“WHLDC”) which supports expansion of educational, cultural, health care and civic
programs in the local community. Columbia agreed to the agreement in exchange for full
approval of its campus expansion project by the City of New York. Specifically, the
agreement included:
A Benefits Fund valued at $76 million; funded over 16 years (1.2% of project
cost)
An Affordable Housing Fund valued at $20 million with an additional $4
million for related legal assistance
38
http://neighbors.columbia.edu/pages/manplanning/
39
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that
the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as
a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This allowed use of eminent
domain by a private entity to acquire another private owner’s property “to further economic development”.
In Kelo, the city of New London, Connecticut allowed a private company to condemn privately owned real
property so that it could be used for a comprehensive redevelopment plan. Previously, under the Takings
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, only state and local governments could exercise condemnation
proceedings.
In 2005, however, in direct rebuke of Kelo, California voters passed Proposition 99 which prohibited state
and local governments from granting private entities the use of eminent domain to acquire an owner-
occupied residence if the owner had occupied the residence for at least one year.
76
A Columbia University In-Kind Services agreement valued at $20 million
Services, expertise and other resources, having a market value of $30 million,
provided for the purpose of supporting a “Demonstration Community Public
School” to be established and developed by Columbia University’s Teachers’
College
40
As per the benefits agreement, the Benefits Fund proceeds were deposited in an
account with the Fund of the City of New York (“FCNY”). However, in March 2011,
WHLDC moved to dissolve and form the West Harlem Development Corporation
("WHDC"), a Delaware registered corporation, due to non-compliance with the
community benefits agreement. Although a New York Attorney General Investigation
found no evidence of fraud, theft or misappropriation of funds, it discovered WHLDC
lacked the expertise to properly administer grant proposals in accordance with the
benefits agreement.
41
WHDC is now charged with disbursing the community benefit grants and
acquiring public funding for low-income West Harlem residents. WHDC is also
responsible for partnering with other West Harlem community-based organizations to
ensure full implementation of all the components of the agreement.
Harvard University
Harvard University is situated in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The university is
seeking approval to expand into the Allston section of Boston. The proposed project
entails developing180 of the 360 acres Harvard owns in an established community. The
40
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gca/pdf-files/CBAAgreement.pdf
41
http://www.westharlemdc.org/whdc/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AssuranceofDiscontinuance.pdf
77
university’s extensive new construction will consists of: (1) Harvard Business School,
Kresge Hall replacement; (2) Harvard Business School, Burden Hall replacement; (3)
Harvard Business School, faculty and administrative office building; (4) Harvard
Stadium addition and renovation; (5) Athletics Department, Basketball venue and
institutional/mixed-use facility; (6) a mixed use/institutional project; and (7) a hotel and
conference center. Harvard will also renovate its Harvard Business School’s Baker Hall
and Soldiers Field Park Housing complex.
42
Phase I of the project will cost about $1
billion.
In April 2008, Harvard University and Boston Redevelopment Authority signed a
Community Cooperation Agreement. Boston Redevelopment Authority is a government
agency which has the power to grant tax concession, zoning, buy or sell city owned land,
acquire land through eminent domain, and encourage commercial and residential
developments. Harvard agreed to the agreement in exchange for full approval of its
Allston campus expansion project. The agreement, which is valued at $25 million (a mere
2.5% of Phase I’s project cost), covers the entire project and provides for:
Harvard Allston Partnership Fund - $500,000 in grants over 5 five years
Public Realm Improvements for Library Park
Establishment of Academic and Athletic Educational Programs
Workforce Development
Development Impact Project Exactions (Housing Linkage)
Long-Term Community Partnership
42
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/PlanningPublications/Harvard%20Allston%20IMPNF%
20for%20Ten-Year%20Master%20Plan%2010-19-12.pdf
78
The agreement funds will be administered by Harvard. The university is required
to file annual reports evidencing its compliance with the benefits agreement.
43
In October 2012, the Boston Redevelopment Authority released the university’s
Institutional Master Plan. Local residents have many concerns about the university’s
“piecemeal master planning” and want Harvard to honor existing community benefit
agreements and complete other projects before proceeding with the Allston expansion
project.
44
Like universities across the nation, Harvard, Columbia and USC have run out of
space. Their only choice is to expand into nearby communities. The universities argue
their expansion projects will also improve the communities by bringing thousand of
much-needed jobs to these areas. However, local residents in each of these impacted
communities have complained about gentrification and potential displacement.
Finally, with respect to USC, Harvard and Columbia’s community benefits
agreements, it must be noted Columbia’s benefits package was 1.21% of its project cost,
Harvard’s was 2.5% and USC’s is 3.64%. A critic opined it cost USC more because it
refused to negotiate early and “waited until the 11
th
hour” to seriously deal with external
constituents (Anonymous interview, 1/30/13). Future research and analysis of what
constitutes appropriate and reasonable community benefits expenditures is in order.
43
The 2011 annual report can be found at
http://community.harvard.edu/files/documents/Harvard_University_Annual_Report_on_the_Cooperation_
Agreement_3.31.11.pdf.
44
http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/residents-frustrated-by-allston-expansion
79
Conclusion
USC is a private, not-for-profit university. Unlike the Harvard and Columbia
projects, the new University Village development will be on commercial property USC
already owns. The new development will replace the antiquated, dilapidated current
University Village. And unlike Harvard and Columbia, USC has not displaced local
residents through eminent domain or any other acquisition methods to obtain residential
properties since it does not need residential properties. Community groups, however,
assert displacement of local renters will result from the new University Village’s
significant improvement of the University Park area (Appendices 17 and 19).
On December 11, 2012, the Los Angeles City Council held a hearing on USC’s
“Village at USC” project (see Appendices 20, 21 and 25). After months of negotiations,
the terms of a public benefits development agreement were reached and the Los Angeles
City Council unanimously approved USC’s project. USC initially offered to provide $2
million towards a fund to assist community residents with acquiring housing in the event
relocation to less expensive neighborhoods transpired. The proposal was based on
community activists’ assertions rents in the area will undoubtedly increase after the
project is completed and local residents will have no choice but to move to less expensive
areas.
UNIDAD has repeatedly claimed USC has a “moral duty” to spend much more on
housing assistance and requested funding for a “wish list” of other programs, e.g., 30% of
the resulting jobs for local residents, 10% of these jobs for “disadvantaged” employees, a
80
guarantee current tenants at the University Village would be allowed to return to the new
Village at the same lease rate, etc. (Appendices 17 and 19).
For the project to receive city approve, the city also required funding for a number
of other programs, e.g., a new state-of-the-art fire station (approx. $16 million), graffiti
removal ($30,000 annually for 20 years), Hoover Park improvement ($350,000), etc.
Before even breaking ground USC must pay the city over $13 million.
Among the city required funding is $500,000 for a Vermont Avenue business
façade improvement fund. This agreement provision stood out since the monetary amount
was relatively high and disbursement of the funds is highly suspect.
The fund allows “affected City Council offices to offer $20,000 grants” to
Vermont Avenue businesses. The Council offices are to “work with community
stakeholders to administer the funds.” The agreement language is totally ambiguous. It’s
hard to believe that a half a million dollars is at issue and it’s up to the stakeholders to
decide which of the many business will be given $20,000 to improve their façades. Will
there be a lottery? Will the funds be limited to family and friends of the council
members? This grant process needs concrete guidelines to prevent fraud and squandering
of university funds.
After months of political maneuvering, all key stakeholders—USC and
representatives of the community and the city—agreed on the terms of a development
agreement. At the end of the day it will cost USC well over $40 million to construct its
expansion project (3.64% of the project cost). The stakeholders that were diametrically
81
opposed to each other’s positions and bitterly contesting entitlements are now holding
hands and singing Kumbaya (see Appendix 27).
A fundamental question was asked Mss. Gonzalez and Eilere of SAJE and Ms.
Randois of LAFLA: “When is enough enough?” The provocative question was premised
on USC’s financial and in-kind investments in its local communities, which as outlined
above, is well over $100 million annually. This is time and money USC could use to fund
campus academic programs and athletic activities. Moreover, at a minimum, the Village
project will bring 12,000 much needed jobs (8,000 permanent) to the area. However,
according to Mss. Gonzalez, Eilere and Randois the community deserves more. Again,
when is enough enough? Apparently enough was enough when USC conceded and
agreed to all of the community and city demands set forth in Table 9 above.
USC could have fought opponents over the community benefits, but the project
would have been delayed indefinitely due to protracted litigation. It would have also cost
USC valuable “political capital” if it continued to argue with the city over funding for
council districts’ programs. USC needs the city to be a good partner so the university can
successfully accomplish its 2030 Master Plan’s goals (Anonymous interview, 1/16/13).
The Los Angeles City Council’s approval of the project was the top story on the
evening news and front page of local newspapers. LAFLA issued a joint statement
announcing its elation over the development agreement (Appendices 26 and 27). Ms.
Eilere said: “It was nice to see democracy work and the little guy win” (Teresa Eilere
interview, 12/14/12).
82
Finally, the literature notes that community based groups, labor unions, and
politicians often hail community benefits agreements as a legitimate means for achieving
social justice and delivering economic opportunities and enhanced public goods to
disadvantaged, predominantly minority communities affected by privately led, publicly
subsidized, revitalization (Blackwell and Fox, 2008; Foster and Glick, 2007). Some see
negotiated neighborhood benefits as victories for groups and individuals whose interests
the public sector neglected in past redevelopment and might otherwise ignore again
(Wolf-Powers, 2010).
In the case of the Village at USC project, community groups and the City of Los
Angeles were extremely successful in obtaining extensive, lucrative benefits for local
community residents. However, did the means justify the ends? How much of their
limited political capital did these entities expend to achieve these community benefits?
Will USC be so magnanimous when future projects are being pursued? Will USC say
“enough is enough” and refuse to submit to extensive community and governmental
demands? These are the risks taken when pursuing community benefits agreements.
83
Chapter 6
______________________________________________________
Limitations of the Study/Future Research Required
This study was limited by time. There was insufficient time to interview more
community residents and governmental representatives. Based on UNIDAD’s arguments,
I wanted to hear from elderly citizens about the prospect of them being displaced from
their homes. I also did not have time to investigate why the Jessie L. Terry Manor senior
housing center, which is not a part of the project area, is being relocated.
I was unable to speak to a sufficient number of African-American local residents
to ascertain whether they felt their opinions about USC’s expansion project were
accurately represented by UNIDAD and LAFTA. The few I spoke to support the project
and welcome the new jobs. They felt USC has been very good for the community,
especially the additional USC DPS patrols. They feel much safer.
I also did not have the opportunity to hear the perspectives of current University
Village retail tenants. I wanted to their thoughts about closing their businesses and the
possibility of paying higher rents in USC’s new development (assuming they are allowed
to return). I attempted to contact several of them but they did not return my calls.
I was unable to speak with landlords west of Vermont Avenue about their rental
rates and aggressive marketing towards USC students. However, a clear high return on
their investment is their primary motivation for renting individual rooms in houses and
apartments at exceptional high rates to USC students. This is Economics 101—charge
84
whatever the market will bear. This issue could be relevant to the dramatic shift in race
demographics in the surrounding neighborhoods between 2000 and 2010 (Table 1 above).
However, are unscrupulous landlords illegally discriminating against local area
families? Are landlords refusing to rent houses and apartments to families because they
perceive USC students as better paying tenants? Are landlords wrongly evicting low-
income families so they can rent to USC students at higher rates? Moreover, will the $20
million housing fund allocation in the development agreement really rectify the alleged
housing displacement resulting from gentrification of the neighborhood? If the answer is
“yes” to any of these questions, then the provision in the development agreement
regarding establishment of a landlord-tenant clinic at USC’s law school is a valid
community benefit. However, these issues require further inquiry. As such, future
research and analysis of what constitutes appropriate and reasonable expenditures and
inclusions in community benefits agreement is necessary.
Finally, independent, non-partisan oversight of the development agreement’s
funds is paramount. There are no clear guidelines in the agreement regarding the proper
allocation of funds. There are too many opportunities for conflicts of interest,
misappropriation of funds and fraud to occur. Implementation of strict controls to
preclude these illegal acts from occurring is imperative. This paper was completed prior
to implementation of the payment provisions set forth in the development agreement.
85
Chapter 7
______________________________________________________
Conclusions and Recommendations
Urban universities across the nation are contemplating expanding the physical
footprint of their campuses. The reasons for expanding are numerous but the primary
reason is to make the institutions more competitive, attractive magnets for prominent
faculty, researchers and students. All universities want the academia rock stars to join
them. Rock stars beget rock stars—once a few join an institution other equally talented or
better scholars follow. Moreover, highly sought-after researchers usually bring large
grants with them. Such funding raises the universities visibility and ranking.
Elite faculty, researchers and students (typically their parents) want safe
environments to work, live, learn and socialize. High crime around a university may be a
deterrent to recruiting these talented individuals. As such, the recruiting institution must
take significant steps in reducing area crime.
However expansion typically entails acquiring sections of nearby communities.
This paper suggests acquisition of sections of neighborhoods should be done respectfully
and with finesse. Universities must use their moral compass to guide them in making
decisions which will mitigate potential negative economic and social impacts on
communities. They must ask themselves, “What’s the right thing to do?” For example,
will the project destroy a surrounding community by introducing retail stores and
restaurants only people working at or attending the university can afford?
86
I contend if universities follow the 13 steps below, this paper can be used as a
template when contemplating expansion projects. This template will ensure universities:
(1) properly chart courses which will assist them in expeditiously completing their
expansion projects, and more importantly, (2) mitigate potential negative economic and
social impacts expansion projects may have on communities.
Specifically, this paper suggests universities can accomplish these two objectives
by:
1. Establishing a history of being a good neighbor by significantly investing
in surrounding local communities through community engagement
activities (e.g., outreach programs, medical and dental services,
educational programs, etc.; see for example Appendix 5);
2. Investing heavily in efforts to reduce poverty and crime in local
communities (i.e., jobs for local residents can lead to a reduction in
poverty and consequently a decline in crime and ultimately better quality
of life);
3. Adding a “moral compass” to their strategic planning processes so the
institution is continuously cognizant that expansion projects, large and
small, if not handled with reason and finesse can permanently and
irreparably damage communities;
4. Being transparent of the institution’s intentions (i.e., don’t be perceived as
a liar or having a hidden agenda);
87
5. Not only performing in-depth cost/benefit and return-on-investment
analyses, but determining early in the planning stages the amount of
financial, political and social capital the institution is willing to expend on
present and future projects;
6. Building and sustaining solid, trusting relationships through respect with
all internal (faculty, students and staff) and external (community, business
and political leaders) key stakeholders/constituents so a win-win-win
development or community benefits agreement can be reached
expeditiously;
7. Understanding the university will inevitably contribute funding towards
community benefits;
8. Demanding all stakeholders negotiate in good-faith provisions of
community benefits agreements and demonstrate a willingness to
compromise;
9. Avoiding being perceived as a “very deep pockets” or weak entity which
will acquiesce and pay exorbitant amounts for expansion projects to
proceed;
10. Willing to “just say no” to unreasonable and potentially illegal community
benefits demands;
11. Making it clear the institution is willing to litigate issues for as long as it
takes to resolve issues the university perceives as unreasonable or
overreaching;
88
12. Continuously weigh the options whether to settle with external
stakeholders over project and community benefit issues and whether to
litigate them (however the time value of money may control this decision);
and
13. Being prepared to exercise eminent domain proceedings to acquire needed
properties (pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New
London). Use of such proceedings should be the absolute last resort due to
inevitable negative publicity and backlash from the community and the
media.
In conclusion, Universities must avoid being perceived as the Goliath land baron
attempting to devour communities for their own selfish benefits. Such a perception may
lead to unnecessary delays resulting from community and government opposition to the
project. All key stakeholders (internal and external) must keep their “eyes on the prize,”
to achieve a win-win-win solution for everyone. This can only be accomplished through
transparency, mutual trust and good-faith negotiations.
Community groups and governing bodies may attempt to extract (or extort,
depending on perception) significant amounts of capital from the university. The amount
the university expends depends on its tolerance for delay and willingness to work with
demanding stakeholders. To facilitate community and governmental acceptance of the
project, universities must be prepared to dig deep into their proverbial pockets. However
community and governmental groups must be mindful their demands may be perceived
as unreasonable and overreaching. A simple comparison of the USC, Columbia and
89
Harvard development and community benefits agreements glaringly highlights how
provisions can vary greatly.
As a last resort Universities may decide to exercise eminent domain proceedings
to acquire needed properties. However venturing down that path is treacherous. The
institution may destroy all good-will it acquired through community engagement
activities and be perceived as disingenuous, callous and greedy. Community organizers
may hold loud protest at every available opportunity. The last thing an institution wants is
daily disparaging newspaper articles and equally damaging stories on the evening TV
news about protracted legal proceedings against its neighbors.
Universities, however, may decide enough is enough and fold-up their tents and
move to a safer and more university/business-friendly community, as Pepperdine
University did in 1972. Nonetheless, I contend if universities use the template suggested
in this paper, they should be able to complete their expansion projects in a timely manner
while simultaneously minimizing negative economic and social impacts on neighboring
communities.
90
Bibliography
Ali, T. "Affordable Housing Remains an Issue." The Columbia Daily Spector. November
15, 2005.
"Anchor Institutions Toolkit." https://www.nettercenter.upenn.edu/anchortoolkit/what-
anchor-institution (accessed November 12, 2012).
Annonymous, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of USC Faculty Member
(January 30, 2013).
Anonymous, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Community Cleric
(November 13, 2012).
Anonymous, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Community Cleric
(December 6, 2012).
Anonymous, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Community Resident
(December 11, 2012).
Anonymous, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Community Resident
(January 9, 2013).
Anonymous, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Community Resident (May
15, 2012).
Atkinson, R. "Introduction: Misunderstood Savior or Vengeful Wrecker? The Many
Meanings and Problems of Gentrification." Urban Studies, 2003.
Bartelt, D. "The University and Community Development." Metropolitan Universities,
1995.
Benson, L., and I. Harkavy. "Universities, colleges, and their neighboring communities."
Universities and Community Schools, 1997.
Blackwell, A. G., & Fox, R. Promoting economic renewal in older industrial cities.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Press, 2008.
Bok, D. Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.
Bombardier, M. "A Building Boom on Campus: Major Projects for Area Colleges to
Boost Landscape, Economy." The Boston Globe. December 10, 2006.
91
"Boston Redevelopment Autority."
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/PlanningPublications/Harvard%20All
ston%20IMPNF%20for%20Ten-Year%20Master%20Plan%2010-19-12.pdf (accessed
January 21, 2013).
Boyer, E. "Creating the new American college." Journal of Public Service & Outreach,
1994.
Boyer, E. L., and F. M. Hechinger. "Higher learning in the nation’s service." Washington,
D.C., 1981.
Boyer, G., and J. Jarrett. "The scholarship of engagement." Journal of Public Service &
Outreach, 1996.
Bryant, Saundra, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Saundra Bryant
(November 19, 2012).
Carr, J.H. It's Not Just Academic: University-Community Partnerships are Rebuidling
Neighborhoods. Spring 1999.
http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/article/relfiles/hff_0101_car
r.html (accessed March 1, 2013).
Cisneros, H. "The university and the urban challenge." Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, 1996.
Columbia University. http://neighbors.columbia.edu/pages/manplanning/ (accessed
January 22, 2013).
"Columbia University Community Benefits Agreement."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gca/pdf-files/CBAAgreement.pdf (accessed January 21,
2013).
Cortes, A. "Estimating the Impacts Urban Universities on Neighborhood Housing
Markets: An Empirical Analysis." Urban Affairs Review, 2004.
Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998.
Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban. University community
partnerships in America: Current practices. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1999.
Dixon, Bruce. On Gentrification in Chicago. 1998.
http://www.mdcbowen.org/p5/np/on_gentrification_in_chicago.htm (accessed January
13, 2013).
Dobelle, Evan S. Saviors of Our Cities: 2009 Survey of College and University Civic
Partnerships. Westfield, Mass.: Westfield State College, 2009.
92
Dupont-Walker, Jackie, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Jackie Dupont-
Walker (December 3, 2012).
Eilere, Teresa, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Teresa Eilere (November
12, 2012).
Eilere, Teresa, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Teresa Eilere (December
14, 2012).
Fain, Paul. "Penn Seen as a Model for Community Partnerships." Chronicle of Higher
Education, July 22, 2005.
Foster, S., & Glick, B. "Integrative lawyering: Navigating the political economy of urban
redevelopment." California Law Review, 2007.
Freeland, R. "Universities and Cities Need to Rethink Their Relationships." The
Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2005.
Freeland, R.M. "Universities and Cities Need to Rethink Their Relationships." Chronicle
of Higher Education, May 13, 2005.
Freeman, Lance. There goes the 'hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up.
Temple University Press, 2006.
Galaviz, David, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of David Galaviz (January
16, 2013).
Galaviz, David, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of David Galaviz
(November 13, 2012).
Gelmon, Sherril, and Barbara Holland. "Community-University Partnerships for Mutual
Learning." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1998.
Gilderbloom, J., and R. Mullins. Promise and Betrayal: Universities and the Battle for
Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.
Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.
New York: Little, Brown, 2000.
Gold, Scott. Los Angeles Times. June 27, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-
me-outthere27-2008jun27,0,2697514,full.story (accessed January 15, 2013).
Grant, Benjamin. What is Gentrification?
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/flagwars/special_gentrification.html (accessed January
13, 2013).
Grant, J. "USC is a $4 Billion Economic Engine, Says New Impact Study." USC
Chronicle, 2007.
93
Hackney, S. "The university and its community: Past and present." Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1986.
Harkavy, I. "Lessons from Hull House for the contemporary urban university." Social
Service Review, 1994: 68.
Harkavy, I. "The demands of the times and the American research university." Journal of
Planning Literature, 1997.
Harkavy, I. "The university and its community: Past and present." Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1986.
Harkavy, Ira, and Harmon Zuckerman. "Eds and Meds: Cities Hidden Assets." Survey
Series: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, D.C., 1999.
"Harvard Magazine." January 13, 2013. http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/residents-
frustrated-by-allston-expansion (accessed January 30, 2013).
Hebel, S. "If You Build It They Will Come." The Chronicle of Higher Education,
February 7, 2003.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House,
1961.
Kennedy, Maureen, and Paul Leonard. Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on
Gentrification and Policy Choices. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001.
Kerr, C. The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Keys, Craig, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Craig Keys (November 13,
2012).
League, Brian, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Brian League (November
12, 2012).
Leiderman, S., A. Furco, J. Zapf, and M. Goss. "Building partnerships with college
campuses: Community perspectives." The Council of Independent Colleges, 2003.
Los Angeles Time. November 11, 2012. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-
la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/westwood/crime (accessed November 11, 2012).
Los Angeles Times. 2012. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/violent-
crime/neighborhood/list/ (accessed December 1, 2012).
Los Angeles Times. November 11, 2012. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-
la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/university-park/ (accessed November 11, 2012).
Lynton, E. A., and S. E. Elman. New priorities for the university: Meeting society’s
needs. 1987.
94
Markus, G.B., J. Howard, and D. King. "Integrating Community Service and Classroom
Instruction Enhances Learning: Results from an Experiment." Education Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 1993.
Marziali, Carl. "New faculty recruits become the recruiters." USC News. November 26,
2012. http://news.usc.edu (accessed December 26, 2012).
Maurrasse, David J. Beyond the campus: How Colleges and Universities Form
Partnerships with Their Communities. Routeledge, 2001.
—. Higher Education-Community Partnerships: Assessing Progress in the Field.
Routeledge, 2002.
Maxwell, J.A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousnd Oaks:
Sage Publications, 1996.
Norquist, John O. The Wealth of Cities: Revitalizing the Centers of American Life.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1998.
Randois, Nona, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Nona Randois (January 3,
2013).
Rodin, Judith. Common Cause: Investing in the Community. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 2001.
—. The university and urban renewal: out of the ivory tower and into the streets.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2007.
Romano, Lois. "Urban Colleges Learn to Be Good Neighbors: Universities also Reap
Benefits from Investing in Their Communities." Washington Post, January 9, 2000.
Rumsey, Marie, interview by Jeffrey S. Wigintton. Interview of Marie Rumsey (January
15, 2013).
Shin, Shirley S. USC News. October 1, 2012. http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/41852/good-
neighbors-campaign-sets-1-6-million-fundraising-goal/ (accessed January 11, 2013).
Sternbergh, A. "New York Magazine." What's Wrong with Gentrification? The
Displacement Myth. December 21, 2009.
http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.usc.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA2145
25456&v=2.1&u=usocal_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1 (accessed March
1, 2013).
Thomas, N.L. "Community Perceptions: What Higher Education Can Learn By Listening
to Communities." Washington, D.C.: Office of University Partnerships Conference, 2000.
U.S. Department of Education. http://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/school/clery-act
(accessed January 17, 2013).
95
U.S. News & World Report. 2013. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-
colleges/rankings/national-universities/page+3 (accessed January 22, 2013).
USC Communities. http://communities.usc.edu/economic/impact.html (accessed October
6, 2012).
USC Facts. http://about.usc.edu/facts/ (accessed October 6, 2012).
USC History. http://about.usc.edu/history/ (accessed October 6, 2012).
USC News. September 24, 1999. http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/4769.html
(accessed December 11, 2012).
USC News. April 12, 2012. http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/33160/answers-about-usc-
security/ (accessed January 29, 2013).
USC Specific Plan. http://www.usc.edu/specificplan/ (accessed October 22, 2012).
USC UPC Master Plan. http://www.usc.edu/community/upcmasterplan/background/
(accessed October 21, 2012).
USC's Village at USC. http://village.usc.edu/information/overview/ (accessed November
1, 2012).
Walshok, M. L. Knowledge without boundaries: What America’s research universities
cando for the economy, the workplace, and the community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1995.
Wan-Jan, W. "Defining corporate social responsibility." Journal of Public Affairs, 2006.
"West Halem Development Corporation." http://www.westharlemdc.org/whdc/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/AssuranceofDiscontinuance.pdf (accessed Janaury 13, 2013).
Wolf-Powers, Laura. "Community Benefits Agreements and Local Government: A
Review of Recent Evidence." Journal of the American Planning Association, 2010.
Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications,
1993.
Young, W.B. "University-community partnerships-Why bother?" Metropolitan
Universities, 1995.
Zlotkowski, Edward. "Civic Engagement and the academic Disciplines." Civic
Responsibility and Higher Education, 2000.
96
List of Appendices
1. USC Historical Photographs; Source: USC Library Archives
2. Current USC Photographs; Source: Jeffrey S. Wigintton
3. USC Strategic Vision: Matching Deeds to Ambition, pgs. 1, 7. December 7, 2011;
Source: USC Office of the Provost
4. Transform LA’s Outcome/Objective and “Integrating President Sample’s Five
Community Initiatives” Graphics; Source: USC Department of Career and
Protective Services
5. USC Civil Engagement, Investing in Our Communities brochure
6. Photographs of a few USC Community Engagement Buildings; Source: Jeffrey S.
Wigintton
7. Los Angeles Times Community Profile Data re: University Park; Source: Los
Angeles Times
8. Los Angeles Times Community Profile Data re: Westwood; Source: Los Angeles
Times
9. Los Angeles Times Crime Mapping Data re: University Park; Source: Los
Angeles Times
10. Los Angeles Times Crime Mapping Data re: Westwood; Source: Los Angeles
Times
11. University of Southern California’s Cleary Act Statistics 2006-2011 and Area
Response Map; Source: USC Department of Public Safety
12. Photographs of Existing University Village Shopping Center
97
13. “Village at USC” Community Flyer – English; Source: USC Office of the Senior
Vice President, External Affairs
14. “Village at USC” Community Flyer – Spanish; Source: USC Office of the Senior
Vice President, External Affairs
15. Photograph of Existing Fire Station
16. Photographs taken at Public Hearing on March 14, 2012 re: USC’s Specific Plan;
Source: Jeffrey S. Wigintton
17. Video Clip of Public Hearing – USC’s Presentation; Source: Jeffrey S. Wigintton
18. Video Clip of Public Hearing – SAJE’s Presentation; Source: Jeffrey S. Wigintton
19. Link to KCRW 4/6/12 Broadcast re: “Can USC Grow Without Devouring the
Neighborhood?”
20. Development Agreement’s Legal Description of the University Village project
21. Exhibit B to Development Agreement, Description of the Property
22. Web sites and photographs re: Private Residential Housing east of USC; Source:
Jeffrey S. Wigintton
23. Web sites and photographs re: Private Residential Housing west of USC; Source:
Jeffrey S. Wigintton
24. Memo to Los Angeles Planning and Land Use Management Committee from City
of Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry F. Miller, dated October 10, 2012
25. Photograph of Notice of Public Hearing to be held on December 11, 2012;
Source: Jeffrey S. Wigintton
98
26. News excerpts about the Los Angeles City Council’s approval of the “Village at
USC” project
27. Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles’ Joint public statement regarding the public
benefits provided by the USC plan and development agreement
99
Appendix 1: USC Historical Photographs
100
101
102
103
Appendix 2: Current USC Photographs
104
105
106
107
Appendix 3: USC Strategic Vision: Matching Deeds to Ambition
108
109
Appendix 4: Transform LA’s Outcome/Objective and “Integrating President Sample’s
Five Community Initiatives” Graphics
110
111
Appendix 5: USC Civil Engagement, Investing in Our Communities brochure
112
113
114
115
Appendix 6: Photographs of a few USC Community Engagement Buildings
116
117
118
Appendix 7: Los Angeles Times Community Profile Data re: University Park
119
120
121
Appendix 8: Los Angeles Times Community Profile Data re: Westwood
122
123
124
Appendix 9: Los Angeles Times Crime Mapping Data re: University Park
125
126
127
128
Appendix 10: Los Angeles Times Crime Mapping Data re: Westwood
129
130
131
132
Appendix 11: University of Southern California’s Cleary Act Statistics 2006-2011
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Appendix 12: Photographs of Existing University Village Shopping Center
141
142
143
Appendix 13: “Village at USC” Community Flyer – English
144
Appendix 14: “Village at USC” Community Flyer – Spanish
145
Appendix 15: Photograph of Existing Fire Station
146
Appendix 16: Photographs taken at Public Hearing on March 14, 2012 re: USC’s Specific
Plan
147
148
149
150
Appendix 17: Video Clip of Public Hearing–USC’s Presentation
151
Appendix 18: Video Clip of Public Hearing–SAJE’s Presentation
152
Appendix 19: Link to KCRW 4/6/12 Broadcast re: “Can USC Grow Without Devouring
the Neighborhood?”
153
Appendix 20: Development Agreement’s Legal Description of the University Village
project
154
Appendix 21: Exhibit B to Development Agreement, Description of the Property
155
Appendix 22: Web sites and photographs re: Private Residential Housing east of USC
156
157
158
159
160
161
Appendix 23: Web sites and photographs re: Private Residential Housing west of USC
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
Appendix 24: Memo to Los Angeles Planning and Land Use Management Committee
from USC Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry F. Miller, dated October 10, 2012
172
173
174
175
Appendix 25: Photograph of Notice Public Hearing to be held on December 11, 2012
176
Appendix 26: News excerpts about the Los Angeles City Council’s approval of
the “Village at USC” project
177
178
179
180
Appendix 27: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles’ Joint Public Statement
regarding the public benefits provided by the USC plan and development
agreement
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
University campus expansion: an analysis of Harvard University’s expansion into Boston, Massachusetts
PDF
Bank community development coporation investments in community economic development
PDF
The interplay between green space and transit: a case study of revitalization within Atlanta’s Adair Park and its potential to improve future policy outcomes
PDF
The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters
PDF
Essays on congestion, agglomeration, and urban spatial structure
PDF
A framework for evaluating urban policy and its impact on social determinants of health (SDoH)
PDF
Community development agreements: addressing inequality through urban development projects
PDF
Avoiding middle-class planning 2.0: media arts and the future of urban planning
PDF
A view from below: the development and role of organizational social capital in neighborhood regeneration in Los Angeles
PDF
Health impact assessment, the concept, science, and application in China
PDF
The demand for reliable travel: evidence from Los Angeles, and implications for public transit policy
PDF
Curating gastronomy: restaurants and social media in the cultural economy
PDF
The institutionalization of nonprofit management: emergence, development, and legitimization
PDF
Governance and urban design: Omaha by design
PDF
The twilight of the local redevelopment era: the past, present, and future of urban revitalization and urban economic development in Nevada and California
PDF
Where there is discretion, should law enforcement officers at the local level be involved in enforcing federal immigration law? a study for consideration
PDF
Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty
PDF
Social construction of the experience economy: the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles
PDF
The kindered community: using a child's perspective to improve urban planning and evaluate neighborhood friendliness
PDF
Environmental justice in real estate, public services, and policy
Asset Metadata
Creator
Wigintton, Jeffrey S.
(author)
Core Title
Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
04/11/2013
Defense Date
03/13/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
economic and social impacts,expansion projects,OAI-PMH Harvest,urban universities
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Moore, James Elliott, II (
committee chair
), Suarez, David (
committee member
), Wiley, Dorothy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jwigintt@usc.edu,jwigintton@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-235467
Unique identifier
UC11293158
Identifier
etd-WiginttonJ-1540.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-235467 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WiginttonJ-1540-2.pdf
Dmrecord
235467
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Wigintton, Jeffrey S.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
economic and social impacts
expansion projects
urban universities