Ray, thanks for posting this report and link! It really helps to bring
clarity to our local experiences over the last decade. And I don't think
the Moody's organization is regarded as a group of crazy, leftist, wankers!
">> Most college leaders are reluctant to give up the
ultimate ownership of their land, writes the report's
author, Roger Goodman, a vice president and senior
analyst for Moody's. But the partnerships allow
institutions to make money off the real estate without
developing it themselves."
The local town/gown partnership has always been exclusively a
university/corporate partnership. Neighborhoods and people are simply
invisible and irrelevant to the 20, 50, and 100 year real estate master
plans of the U Trustees.
The truth is that "revitalization" has always been a business plan
exclusively focused on the bottom-line while land banking. And the
operational paradigm is ruthlessly corporate, not a benevolent
community/university partnership. The "monopoly board" data (ie income
distribution maps) are the only relevant data to assist us with
understanding the real estate goals of this corporate/university
partnership. "Community this and that" is all obfuscatory propaganda.
The big problem for the university community and our west Philadelphia from
the bullying is the same; trading the name and integrity of a university
for corporate goals, tactics, and rule. (A similar problem, trading the name
and reputation of University of Pennsylvania, is the problem with the
censored exclusive Barking Cheese listserv!)
Had Penn been honest with us about its "vision"over the last decade, we
would not now need to doubt everything with the name University of
Pennsylvania, (something which is very painful for me).
The community could have rallied and gone through a fair adversarial system
to argue its cases. Penn could have stood by its bottom-line planning. The
town-folk could have argued that we would expect something more than a
corporate partnership from the university (some commitment to community
engagement, progressive democracy principals, etc.), but we could have
argued our causes without needing to say that the name, University of
Pennsylvania, means bullshit! We could have seen, at least, a separation
between the university and its corporate partners.
(Aside: I believe some of the hotel opponents are correct about the
corporate goal. Screw the hotel, the huge corporate developers want iron
rule with no restrictions between 40th and 50th The hotel is the tip of that
iceberg.. That is what the U community is endorsing/supporting by trading-in
the Penn name on this scheme)
The entity, Penn, uses the "corporate model" of "engagement." Lies, secrecy,
backroom dealing, propaganda, ad hominem etc. are the common tools for
corporate America, but they were not considered tactics to bring honor and
integrity to the University. Conflict of interest and acceptance of
corporate malfeasance seems to be running rampant at Penn and now seems to
define the university as an entity in the world.
I think that there is little our West Philadelphia community can do
ourselves to save the great parts of our neighborhoods or the university
reputation. The Penn community needs to rise up and take back the university
name and integrity!!!!
I think many always knew that land-banking was happening as well as the need
to look at the bottom line. But what happens to the whole University
reputation as it is dominated by corporate tactics instead of its historic
role and stated principals????
The university community needs to restore the integrity of the U or everyone
associated with it and their work is cheapened. They and the work are put at
risk because Penn has become something indistinguishable from Haliburton,
Blackwater, and Exxon!
Wow, a report in which high level business analysts and a lefist, criminal,
wanker come to at least some of the same conclusions!
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "University City List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 1:10 PM
Subject: [UC] universities + real estate + developers
from today's chronicle of higher education:
Land-Rich Universities Weigh New Options for Real-Estate
Development
By PAUL FAIN
Real-estate-rich universities are taking advantage of new
ways to develop their holdings through corporate
partnerships, says a report released this week by Moody's
Investors Service, a credit-rating agency. Those
partnerships pose a wide range of payoffs and risks, the
agency says.
Universities have long been strategic real-estate
investors. Many urban institutions own off-campus
buildings while rural and suburban colleges often hold
tracts of vacant land. Those "banked" real-estate
holdings are viewed second only to endowments as
strategic assets, the report says.
Many institutions are looking for new streams of revenue
and forming public-private partnerships to develop their
land and buildings. Under those deals, colleges typically
retain the long-term ownership of their real estate while
private investors build or operate a facility on the
property, generating revenue for both the college and
investor.
Most college leaders are reluctant to give up the
ultimate ownership of their land, writes the report's
author, Roger Goodman, a vice president and senior
analyst for Moody's. But the partnerships allow
institutions to make money off the real estate without
developing it themselves.
"Newer options allow those universities to monetize their
real-estate assets or create a new revenue stream to
support other mission-focused activities, without
sacrificing complete control or ownership in the long
term," Mr. Goodman said in a written statement.
The report, which is available by e-mailing
[EMAIL PROTECTED], is titled "Public-Private
Partnerships in U.S. Higher Education: Real-Estate Rich
Organizations May Benefit, but Credit Impact Always
Assessed on Case-by-Case Basis." The development options
listed in the report are included below, with
descriptions of potential benefits and risks.
* Privatized student housing. These projects are
generally 100-percent debt-financed. Their construction
can be cheaper and faster than if managed by
universities. However, institutions lose control,
including over the "pricing and programming of
residential experience."
* Commercial development. Private development of
mixed-use facilities near colleges can enhance
neighborhood appeal and campus life while also generating
significant financial gain through upfront payments. The
projects can also fail and result in vacant lots or
"unattractive tenants and services."
* Retirement communities. These projects can bring in
money through profit-sharing with a developer. They can
also help build alumni connections. The downsides include
potential financial losses and distractions for
university leaders as they help manage these typically
complex developments.
* Outright property sale. This option improves liquidity
and increases endowment holdings. It is also the loss of
a long-term asset that could be used for future campus
growth.
http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/06/3585n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1522 - Release
Date: 6/27/2008 8:27 AM
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
