Gavilan College’s board needs to return to work, for in their
latest decision they left the community out of
”
community
”
college.
Editor,
Gavilan College’s board needs to return to work, for in their latest decision they left the community out of “community” college.
It is more than slightly ironic that you give the “Thumbs Up” to the civic conversation on going in the community about this issue, when for three years there have been serious and thoughtful conversations involving many sectors of the community that bear on this issue. Beside me on my desk are three iterations of “vision statements” that have resulted from those conversations. The Gavilan decision process and the site itself run absolutely contrary to those visions.
I think you seriously discount the blow that a Gavilan campus sited four miles from town would deal to any vision our community has come up with. For example, the airport enhancement would probably be shot; a walkable, bikeable community would be a joke; downtown would suffer mightily; poorer residents who might want to attend Gavilan would have another hurdle to overcome, as distance implies need for a car; air and water quality would suffer; partnerships that would enhance both Gavilan and the city would be forsaken; sprawl would be induced; the argument to maintain open space and viable farmlands in North County would be far more difficult to make and the opposite argument that development should occur there given the presence of a large development on 156 would be proportionally easier, etc. No this is a serious blow indeed.
In contrast to these inclusive processes, Gavilan’s decision making process has been thoroughly exclusive of the community’s participation and continues to be so. Gavilan’s assertion that the planning process has been open is disingenuous, as Mr. Kinsella has explained quite clearly. In his opinion of many bold but bald assertions about the rationale for building near the airport runway, Mr. Kinsella states that the community will be welcome to join the process when the “serious planning” gets underway. In other words, we are welcome to plan the layout of the campus, but about the layout of our county we will have nothing to say. That is “the law” according to Mr. Kinsella. That is unacceptable. Your question to readers should not be “Is this the best site?” for it is not even a good site. The community should rather be asked where is the best site – an open ended question and far more complicated, to be sure. That is the beginning of a meaningful process.
As for me, it ought to be within a radius of one mile from Fourth and San Benito. The campus of U.C. Davis is located right next to the town, and Davis is one of the “most livable” communities in the U.S. Does it need to all be at one location? Probably not. Is 100 acres an appropriate size? Who knows? What would the people of San Francisco or New York or Tokyo say about such folly? Perhaps we should shoot for the best rather than shrug our shoulders and accept an expedient solution to a complex problem. Back to the drawing board Gavilan.
Joe Morris, San Juan Bautista
