Guest View, Opinion of Christine Breen
Thank you for continuing to cover the Gavilan College Board of
Trustees’ meetings and the college’s search for a permanent campus
site in San Benito County. I was out of town last week, and missed
the meeting held here in Hollister. Upon my return, I was glad to
see the coverage in your newspaper. However, I was disappointed to
learn that a representative of Gavilan’s student association had
disparaged my efforts and those of my colleagues, suggesting we
must be motivated by financial gain in lobbying for a campus close
to downtown Hollister.
Guest View, Opinion of Christine Breen
Thank you for continuing to cover the Gavilan College Board of Trustees’ meetings and the college’s search for a permanent campus site in San Benito County. I was out of town last week, and missed the meeting held here in Hollister. Upon my return, I was glad to see the coverage in your newspaper. However, I was disappointed to learn that a representative of Gavilan’s student association had disparaged my efforts and those of my colleagues, suggesting we must be motivated by financial gain in lobbying for a campus close to downtown Hollister.
I am a member of the Independent Smart Growth Research Group, a small, informal group of community members who are advocating for the implementation of smart growth principles in local redevelopment and new construction projects. One of us is a retired Gavilan teacher; one is a cattle rancher; one is local businessman and community volunteer; and I am a stay-at-home mom. My only special interests are my two sons, ages 3 and 1.
We became involved in this process after Gavilan announced its intention to locate a permanent campus north of the Hollister Airport runway. The site was troublesome for several reasons. First, the proposed site was in direct conflict with Hollister’s newly revised general plan, and contrary to smart growth principles. Second, any construction within such close proximity to the airport would prevent the airport’s expansion and deal a serious blow to critical component of the community’s economic growth.
Finally, the college only paid $4 million for site acquisition, significantly less than the $12.7 million that the voter-approved bond had allocated for land acquisition in San Benito County. We believe the college could have spent even slightly more and come up with a much more appropriate location.
In response to our criticisms, Gavilan representatives cited the state’s requirements for a “full-service campus” as the reason the campus had to be so far removed from the Hollister city center, housing, and any appreciable services appropriate for a college campus. We learned that the state currently requires a “full-service campus” in the community college system to be between 80 and 100 acres, with one-third of the property allocated to facilities, one-third to athletic fields, and one-third to one-story, field parking lots.
We also learned that at the same time Gavilan acquired the Hollister property, it spent $20 million ($12 million more than had been allocated under the bond) to acquire 55 acres in Coyote Valley for a “full service campus.” However, at a meeting with the Coyote Valley Special Task Force in December 2005, Gavilan representatives assured the task force the college would seek to have the state requirements amended, consider multi-level parking and a joint-use library, and utilize the city’s proposed athletic fields in order to provide a “full-service campus” with only 55 acres owned by the college.
Over the last several years, the demographics of community colleges have changed considerably. The majority of students are female, with the median student age around 30. The physical landscape of California has also changed. Land in California is at a premium, and communities have to be smarter about how they grow. In light of these changes, we question whether the “full service campus” requirements implemented decades ago are still appropriate today. Apparently, Gavilan has similar reservations, since it is attempting to work around them to get the Coyote Valley campus built. We would like them to do the same thing in this community.
I do not question the necessity and value of athletic fields to any college campus. What I do question is whether the athletic field component, or the parking component of the “full-service campus” model, should drive the site selection process in San Benito County. Gavilan is willing to transcend that model in order to locate a site within the urban core of the proposed Coyote Valley community.
Why not here? By utilizing similar elements (multi-level parking, joint-use library, performing arts center and athletic fields) we could end up with a community college that benefited and enhanced the community. It would be a shame to settle for an inferior site just to meet an outmoded parking requirement.
While I do not have a financial stake in where the college locates, I am not embarrassed to say that one reason I favor locating close to downtown is that it would have a positive economic impact on local business. Locating the college close to downtown would also have a positive impact on the health, culture and social life of the community. What is the alternative? What would the financial, health, cultural and social impact be on the community were the college to build at the end of an airport runway, several miles from the city center?
I am gratified that the college trustees willing to reconsider the San Benito campus site selection. They have held three meetings in Hollister over the last two months to hear from the community and share information. Another meeting is scheduled this coming Tuesday, May 23, at 6 p.m. in the County Supervisors’ chambers. Things are moving in a positive direction.
I am encouraged that the student association is now engaged in these discussions. I hope through their continued participation, they will realize that our objectives and their interests are not mutually exclusive.
Christine Breen is a resident of Hollister.
