BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Sunday, April 01, 2007

UCSB To Add Another Building/Lego Block

Recently, we had a heated discussion about UCSB and growth. Another lego block is set to go up in front of Robertson Gym. Project Manager Karl Burrelsman told the Valley Voice the following about the project:

“Classrooms and offices for the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education and the Koegel Autism Center will occupy one of the buildings. Classrooms and offices for the College of Letters and Science will occupy another. The third building, named the Pollock Theater, will be used by the Carsey-Wolf Center for Film Television and New Media,” he said. Pollock Theater will seat about 300 people.

Labels: ,

71 Comments:

Anonymous El Rincon said...

I disagree that these buildings represent growth... UCSB has severe shortages of space according to state metrics for its existing enrollment. The student enrollment is capped at 20,000. The square footage in these buildings does not bring the campus total above that discussed (after 100 or so community meetings) and adopted in the 1990 LRDP.

The UCSB campus was never finished, because Reagan cut funding in 1970 after the riots.

The campus that has had an enormous rate of growth (exceeding since 1993 that of Lancaster, CA... the growth capital of CA) is Santa Barbara City College. What has really happened is UCSB has built (Manzanita) and acquired (Francisco Torres) housing, creating vacancies in Isla Vista. City College has increased its enrollment and housed those out-of-area students in IV. The out-of-area SBCC students tend to be affluent and immature, and they have made IV much more wild in the last few years.

I think the important growth discussion concerns SBCC, not UCSB. There are locally elected trustees for the Santa Barbara City College District... why hasn't anyone asked them to defend SBCC's rapid rate of growth? SBCC has not held anywhere near the number of public meetings held in 1990 by UCSB to develop its LRDP.

In Feb. 2006 SBCC discussed building a dormitory on Campus. Odd that SLDG did not tag her blog article on that (Feb. 26, 2006) with `growth'. SBCC's rapid expansion does not seem to have been understood on the South Coast.

SBCC's enrollment numbers are available at:

Student Demographics by Academic Year

4/01/2007 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

The worst building sited in Santa Barbara now stands at the entryway to UCSB. It should be studied by all planners for what NOT to do. The new nanotechnology building at the entrance to UCSB is an unbelievable error made in the haste of wanting to use unspent Federal dollars. What an incredible visual transformation of UCSB into a faux Bauhaus technological industrial park. The campus is now ringed by a great (Chinese?) wall of architectural mistakes. I think about it every time I go out there.

Even the environmental studies' Bren building fails the basic precepts of environmental design. Architecture at the University remains a dismal failure. In the old days, the joke was described simply as "Frank Lloyd Wrong."

Nothing stops the juggernaut. What used to be open space around the lagoon, with kites (birds) fluttering above a field you could walk through between classes, is now a mere box-like series of dormatories. And so it goes.

How about that profound entryway to the new Art Museum? Hah.

Parking lots are now a la mode.

A huge new effort in housing proceeds to redefine Isla Vista with a ring of dense apartments.

The population out there was supposedly to be limited to 20,000. Where is Frank Frost today? 20,000 seemed capable of doing their studies with half the buildings in 1970. Why do 20,000 need a plethora of modernist jokes now? Yet constuction just goes on and on.

Nothing is reviewed by bodies whose process in anyway resembles the review process in the City. Who can understand? Who cares? Do you?

I am starting to feel terribly nostalgique for those old marine barracks. What is it that leads to this explosion of development and imperial modernist construction. Certainly, there is no shortage of funds out there--despite the California budget. There is now, even a building to celebrate fund-raising and the alumni--so that they can do even more building.

Construction costs have gone through the roof yet the construction increases. How does this happen.

4/01/2007 2:15 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

I wonder what the donations would be like if the buildings weren't named after the donors. How altuistic of them.

The uni currently has $930,000,000 planned for upgrades and expansion and that's without overruns. I wonder what kind of progress could be made in the elementary, jr. and high schools with that amount of money. I think this is the biggest problem we face in the future, not how first class we can make this UC campus. High school dropout rates are incredibly high and test scores are embarressing. Middle class parents who can, fork out huge amounts to privately educate their children (after paying taxes).

I wonder if the grads of Gervitz plan to work in that venue or are they just being trained to train others how to train others to take their place in the uni system when they retire on their fat, never at risk, gov't plans. Nice deal if you can get it. Meanwhile, I'll just have to keep working to support their industry with my tax money because the tuition doesn't even cover the cost of their services. I wonder how big UCSB would be growing if the students had to pay the full cost?

4/01/2007 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I support the university (the biggest employer we have) 100%!

4/01/2007 6:56 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

don etc. --

Yup, the nanotech building ain't great... it was state money, not federal. Bren doesn't bug me, nor does the Engineering building between the new parking garage and Gevirtz. Not great, but tolerable. Don't know if the Berkus palace further along will be an embarassment or OK.

The site out near the lagoon, near Del Playa, was slated for housing as long ago as the 1954 plan for campus. Housing students on campus is better than abandoning them to IV landlords, IMO.

The student population in 1970 was about 14,000... the 20,000 cap has just been reached. Over 35 years that is a 1.0% growth rate per year, which is lower than the rest of the South Coast. SBCC since 1995 has been growing at 4% per year. In any case, the UCSB campus still suffers a severe space shortage by state metrics, and has for years and years. Of course, well healed and affluent English professors like Frank Frost who can store their books in their Montecito spreads need little space, but young Assistant Professors of today can hardly afford rent on a studio apartment... they need on-campus space for their books. Which says nothing about the space needed for empirical research in the sciences... of course empiricism is rather unpopular on the rarified South Coast.

Of course, it would be more direct if Santa Barbara made its slogan `Young people of California... if you want a college education, don't come to Santa Barbara. We got ours, if you want yours, go to Merced or Riverside.' Then see what happens to the routing of State revenue to our area for all infrastructure, like, say, commuter trains or mass transit.

Most of the construction was programmed years ago, and the rise in construction costs has helped make the buildings ugly and spartan.

sa1 - only 1/6 UC dollars now come from the State revenue.

4/01/2007 8:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad you asked about SBCC:

1. The alledged dorm at SBCC was never given serious consideration -it was a story in the media that got way ahead of any supporting facts.

2. SBCC primary focus remains the local students in its college district which includes Goleta to Montecito and Carpinteria, as well as the city of Santa Barbara itself - and this means a large percentage of local high school grads continue to choose SBCC. SBCC primarily serves local kids.

3. The on-campus enrollment has actually declined on the main SBCC campus. A lot of the enrollment growth has come from high school students taking dual enrollment SBCC classes on their high school campuses, giving them an economical start at accumulating college credits.

3. The new fitness lab classes brought in many new community members, specifically for these classes. This is another way the SBCC student population grew recently.

4. SBCC non-credit Adult Ed day and evening enrollment continues to grow for classes, primarily held off-campus at dozens of community sites. This is very welcomed growth for many local adult residents here who look forward to getting their latest SBCC Adult Ed catalogue.

5. SBCC has been providing more and more on-site training for local businesses and local governmental agencies. This is another source of its recent enrollment growth - reaching deeper into the local community to provide necessary short-term business skills for local needs.

6. Community colleges are subject to growth caps, so there is no benefit growing more than the state funding allowance - this growth cap is determined by an overall state growth percentage formula.

7. If the state grows, it is expected there will be more enrollment pressures on the community college system, wherever they are located. It is a dis-incentive for SBCC to grow beyond what the state determines is an appropriate state-wide growth rate.

8. SBCC is not a private, local school nor it is solely funded solely by local property taxes. It is part of a large state-wide higher education funding system and subject to statewide enrollment pressures and limitations. It is a member of the California Community College (CCC) system - and long has been.

9. SBCC has to stand in line with 107 other stae-wide community colleges to get building funds, since it failed to pass a bond issue a few years back. With no local support for another bond issue, any further build-out of its LRDP is virtually moot.

10. SBCC has an aging infrastructure which will absorb much of its capital expenditures in the near future, as well as self-funding a much needed new parking structure. Like most public institutions, most of its funding goes for salary and benefits.

11. Like UCSB any new state-funded buildings on the SBCC campus will be used to consolidate presently dis-jounted programs, ease its woefully cramped quarters and deficient faculty office spaces, and eliminate its current excessive use of ugly temporary portable buildings.

12. Most SBCC students, and the average community college students continue to be older, working adults, boot-strapping their way into a better future.

13. Not clear what percentage of incoming students are "affluent, young and spoiled" or how that percentage compares to other similarly-situated colleges. This would be interesting to ascertain, before an inaccurate stereotype develops to everyone's detriment.

13. The percentage of students who graduated from high-schools outside the SBCC district is a lot smaller than found in other community colleges. It is not correct to assume all enrollment growth comes from out of district.

14. Community colleges do not enroll "illegal aliens", except for a very limited number of legislature-sanctioned young students, who were brought here as minor children by their parents and who as children attended California highschools before transferring to a California community college.

Signed: FCCCE4E - A Friend of California Community College Education for Everyone - dedicated to a life time of learning.

4/01/2007 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I support public safety, public education, public health, and well-maintained public infrastructure as good uses of my tax dollars.

4/01/2007 10:42 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

10:00 pm... thanks... how about giving some actual numbers on out of area students over time at SBCC, say, from 1993 until now?
Is there a report that you can cite to substantiate your claims?

There has really been an explosion in SBCC students in IV in the past few years, and SBCC pretty much is missing in action when it comes to Isla Vista. Why is that? The out-of-area SBCC students in IV are quite a problem. UCSB students are a problem as well, but SBCC seems not to care much about their impact on Isla Vista.

4/01/2007 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon - see if a call the college and the institutional research person will be able to get those numbers for you.

Or better, send a letter to the college President and set out the exact specifics of your question.

This is an often charged issue well-tracked because it is an issue that simply will not die or respond to facts I have seen the college present every few years.

This claim of SBCC being an insatiable growth monster and has too many out of district students simply will not die. Yet controvertable facts alone on this issue never quell some apparently deeper underlying fears that drive this question.

Maybe you can explain why this charge will not die, or what your criteria would provide acceptable answers.

Now for a few brain-teasers to clarify how exactly you want to label an "out of dist5ict" student:

First: What percentage of out of district students, according to your criteria would be okay?

And do you even consider a certain percentage actually being encouraged, so that local students do not remain provincial and under-exposed to a world beyond the limitations of their south coast highschol peers?

0%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 100% would be okay?

One interesting challenge right away is when do you call a student an "out of district" student?

If maybe even you wanted to go to SBCC, yet you graduated from a high school outside the district even years ago, would you be labeled now an out of district student?

Of if you moved here one year ago, two years ago, 6 months ago -- when do you become or not become an out of district student?

If you pay taxes to the state, are you labeled an out of district student and charged more or even prohibited from attending SBCC - for life?

For a year? For five years? if you did not graduate locallly, and live locally for how long?

Should district students living in Carpinteria be prohibited from living on their own while at SBCC or should they be forced to commute everyday and live with their parents?

Is anyone under the age of 21 whose parents do not live here an out of district student?

The current tracking assumes those over age 21 come to Santa Barbara for college come here for permanent residency reasons.

And consequently tracks only those under age 21, who did not graduate from district highschools. These are the numbers you will get as "out of district" students. Will this be okay?

But this also means students from Ventura and North County who may come to SBCC for classes they cannot get at their local colleges also get counted in the "out of district" numbers for under age 21 students.


What happens if your child wanted to take Viticulture at Allan Hancock College up the road, yet he/she did not graduate from an Allen Hancock district highschool, should he/she be prohibited from following his/her educational goals at Allan Hancock? For how long, or at what extra cost.

No one community college can provide all the unique "trade school" programs, so there has to be some flow between different community colleges located around the state.

Should the college say no to any international students, even if they pay their full share as out of district students? Out of state students also pay their full share.

At the same time, should the college stop its study abroad programs, if exposing local students to other countries and people is not a good idea?

If the data already shows the under age 21 population is a limited growth demographic because of the revolving door nature of the college student: some come, some graduate and leave, how would this have an deliterious impact on housing?

How many tax dollars do you want to spend investigating and tracking these issues? From what source - the college dollars, property tax dollars, city dollars?

What form of identification, housing, economic benefit detriment could be easily ascertained to allow this tracking?

It will be easier when there is more electronic data available rather than shifting through paper records, but at what price of personal privacy? For what strategic point?

Please, may this important dialogue continue. What exactly underlies this issue? If the college grows at a normal pace, and much college growth is dedicated to reaching more and more of the local residents who can benefit from college programs, how large or how small should this challenge of out-of-district students actually entail.

Is this really a land-lord problem if students are abusing your neighborhood and not a global "out of district" student problem?

How should the state law and state fundign be changed to prevent any student, according to your criteria that is an out of district student, from coming to SBCC?

We have work to do.

4/02/2007 12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SBCC has worked closely after the recent spate of I.V. problems these past years. Please get the report from this Task Force from the college.

Too many SBCC students lives have been lost senselessly in the I.V. mess. SBCC is and remains very concerned. Why did you say they were not?

Ironically one benefit presented for an SBCC student dorm was more having control over student behavior, which does not exist when a student resides outside the campus.

This is one reason UCSB has wanted to house more students on campus.

4/02/2007 12:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon, I see you use the term "out of area" students - this is what we need to tighten up.

What type of student do you actually mean. Which area?

Also, there are growing numbers of SBCC students enrolled in online education that may not necessarily have impact on local housing.

Some SBCC degrees are now entirely online. Some students may not even set foot in Santa Barbara or California due to the uniqueness of the types of SBCC courses offered online.

Enrollment growth at SBCC has taken many, many forms. Only part of it can be traced to a student who did not graduate from a local highschool chose to come here to live and enroll at SBCC.

So number one: the your local college would most likely appreciate the dissociation between SBCC enrollment "growth" and an automatic assumption this growth came from "out of area" students.

That would help a lot.

Can you be happy SBCC is growing because it really tries to meet local educational needs?

And should your concerns about rowdy students as lousy tenants be addressed to local zoning enforcement bodies? Is their misuse of rental property a public nuisance? Sue 'em in small claims. Turn their obnoxious behavior into a little profit center for yourself.

4/02/2007 12:27 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

From the comments here, it would appear that all these buildings are well-planned, the growth is normal, and all is well in OZ.

Why should a 1954 plan justify today's situation? One must ask: What has happened at UCSB that wasn't in the growth plan from 1954? A lot.

The real student population is more than 20,000.

I am not against education and our primary Santa Barbara industry. Just this building and growth mania and its environmental cost. How much more land must get gobbled up by UCSB? Here again, we see this vision of spreading out as the way to go.

Does this educational boom industry still actually produce students that are adapted to the American economy and will they get hired for their skills?

Frank Frost, Sheila Lodge, and others led Santa Barbara through a rational discussion that searched for a development policy focused on South Coast growth and its costs. These parameters are still valid but now ignored.

El Ricon has justified the poor quality of the building boom as the fault of construction costs. Thus, I guess the building is going to go on, the quality is just going to get worse.

Both UCSB and SBCC now employ part timers in order to pay them sub standard wages and benefits. That's true whether they are faculty or staff. Others are on the gravy train with jobs and housing. Two different standards of weights and measures. This is the Wall Mart approach to education.

Fortunately, Thoreau studies, still thrives on campus. Keep that sustainability committee going folks. When is growth healthy and when is it a cancer?

4/02/2007 6:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don Jose,

The Nanoscience building which greets you at the east gate is not designed for beauty, it's designed for function. That building is strictly labs, (and one classroom). This particular building is built to withstand a large earthquake to the point that windows won't even shake. It also has a generator (that ugly back building) that will keep the building powered in the event of any utility disruption. Due to the nature of the research being performed in that building, both of those functions are necessary. Granted it's not a work of beauty but wasn't designed for that purpose.

Cities have no say in any of the UC campuses internal planning nor should they. What would our city leaders know about campus design? About engineering buildings or science labs?

If we had a good local paper the community might be better educated about construction on campus and campus growth. All of this growth had been slated over 15 years ago, these projects aren't created over night in some campus brainstorming meeting.

4/02/2007 6:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DonJose,

Please tell us more about UCSB and SBCC paying sub-standard wages for part-time faculty. What does each pay per hour?

How many partime/ full time and which way is the trend growing?

Thnx.

4/02/2007 7:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not close SBCC and covert the location to affordable housing?

4/02/2007 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

So many anonymous characters on the blog. How can we know who or what characterizes this or that anonymous. I find it confusing.

If you reread what I said, I noted that the siteing of the nanotechnology building in this location and this particular way right smack at the entry to the campus is a design blunder of major proportions. The worst example in the County. No planner in any city review process would have let that happen. So if all this "planning" is going on out there for years and it wasn't some "midnight barnstorming session" I think some heads should roll.

This is not a negative comment about nifty earthquake design and the latest generators either.

And I don't think judging by the overall product, that the campus planning process is all that great. On the other hand, Santa Barbara looks pretty good to me. You might try to get some help.

But what do I know?

4/02/2007 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Location where SBCC West Campus now exists nearly was sold by the original owners for a highrise hotel, until the local voters agreed to tax themselves to buy it about 25 years ago.

Back to that same old question: Should high-value city land be used for low-income housing?

Would tearing down SBCC and using its land for low-income housing be the best use of this property?

City documents suggest SBCC would never be approved for this Mesa site if it were on the drawing boards today.

4/02/2007 12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree DonJose, that new UCSB building at the smack dab public entrance to the college is plug ugly.

Glad to learn it is such a good building for research and academics. Thanks for the report, anon.

But what an opportunity for a far more reaching initial architectural statement wasted and maligned.

Points do go to a lot of the new building design put in over there during the past decade. Soem good and refreshing stuff. Creating far more a sense of place.

But back to talking about plug ugly, the original state-issue, industrial-strength concrete block architecture that used to be the sole signature at UCSB was even worse.

But sorry they made such a permnanet mistake on this latest one.

4/02/2007 12:51 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

Lots of comments...

My main point was... we should discuss SBCC's growth. I have never seen statistics that try to break down the various categories of SBCC enrollment, and I haven't found such data on their website. It is easy to find the analogous data on UCSB's institutional research website.

In my neighborhood of IV there is a huge impact from freshman and sophomore SBCC students who have moved to the South Coast from outside Santa Barbara County within one or two months of starting courses at SBCC. The freshmen in particular are pretty immature and rowdy... one reason UCSB tries to house all freshmen in dorms. SBCC has expressed concern about IV, but little else.

There are a lot of terrific SBCC students in IV too. I don't think IV is a mess, it is a community with a few unique problems of its own. But I don't think SBCC steps up and embraces responsibility for its share of IV problems. UCSB doesn't either, but, it comes closer than SBCC does.

What resources should SBCC contribute to their impacts? I don't know, but the current level with respect to IV is inadequate. Perhaps SBCC could prohibit their students from living in IV at all. At least SBCC should keep track of the number of its students under 25 who reside in IV (and did not graduate from a South Coast High School), and publish that number from 1990 to the present. Maybe some of the anonymous posters already know those numbers and can just post them here. Doesn't seem to me like it would bankrupt SBCC to keep those numbers. That the numbers are not easily available like those on UCSB's IR website already speaks to SBCC's true level of concern about IV.

The anonymous posters have poured out lots of questions. It would be so much more productive to just give a few answers.

Don etc... yup, budgetary constraints make for ugly buildings. I guess the Eiffel Tower was once considered cheap and ugly too though. 1954 plan? Well, that patch of land where Manzanita is was planned for housing for a long, long, long time. Not a surprise at all that housing was built on it. Actually, the islands in front of campus were slated for housing too... at least those are open space now and forever.

4/02/2007 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The worst example of blunder in the County would be the Granada Garage.

4/02/2007 1:12 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"Cities have no say in any of the UC campuses internal planning nor should they. What would our city leaders know about campus design?"

What do campus planners know about (or care) about community design standards? This issue is what worries me now that UC is building off campus. The other concern, of course is what sort of quality oversight will there be? The planners that presented to the community admitted that the building design and materials were low cost options. They also mentioned that the neighborhood should be happy about bringing in faculty as it would uplift the area due to their intellectualism. As you can tell, I was very impressed with this presentation.

4/02/2007 1:36 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

Both UCSB and SBCC now employ part timers in order to pay them sub standard wages and benefits. That's true whether they are faculty or staff. Others are on the gravy train with jobs and housing. Two different standards of weights and measures. This is the Wall Mart approach to education.

I assert that most of the statement above is patently false (at least regarding UCSB). How about some backup to support this claim? It also conveniently sets up a nice catch-22: anyone who is an employee with full benefits, according to the above POV, is "riding the gravy train." Damned if you do and damned if you don't. All UCSB employees working 50% time or more receive full benefits; you would also be hard-pressed to find more than a virtual handful of positions on campus that are <50%.
---------------

On other topics: Note that most UCSB building growth is going on within a fairly limited 'footprint' at the east end of the IV 'peninsula'. Notable exceptions are some housing complexes, but the idea that the University is running amok, gobbling up broad swaths of land from one end of the Goleta Valley to the other is pretty much an alarmist fiction. I know that doesn't please sa1, who is peeved that a faculty townhouse will be "200 feet from his/her backyard" (let me ask you, would you have preferred another Costco?).

A UCSB architecture professor once commented that the design/planning problems there have roots from the campus's inception and could only be most effectively solved starting with a series of strategically placed bombs. Working from an original core of 1950s/60s concrete monstrosities (Storke Plaza Neo-Stalinist?) certainly didn't help later efforts.

One of the key issues is staying within the footprint and wedging new buildings among existing ones (high density). This is efficient planning, and you will see that buildings and multistory garages are filling in much of the 'airspace' of 'inefficient' parking lots (and other open space). I suspect El Rincon's comment about juggling cost vs. aesthetics is probably often true; in addition, any/every delay on start of construction after a bid has been accepted adds to the cost.

I'm sure serious money could have been added (where to find it?) to make the Nanosystems Institute an aesthetic wonder (the new "Engineering Science" two buildings over is quite nice), but I believe the costs for the tech requirements alone were astronomical. In addition, funding specifically earmarked for this new "institute" came through in a relatively short time span, when other building projects were already in the pipeline. Try answering 3 major questions: Where ya gonna put it? How ya gonna build it? and How much do you wanna spend on architect fees & design features? It's easy to be an armchair planner... Maybe Sara could secure a guest post/interview with someone from UCSB Planning to address these burning issues. In addition, people could attempt the effort of reading the long-range campus plan.

4/02/2007 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon, call SBCC and get the numbers you want. I don't understand why you have not already.965-0581 - President;s Office Ext 2211.

I have seen these numbers published over the past many years because this claim of "too many out of area" students has long been charged.

The college has responded in the past and does keep these numbers current. I am sure they would be happy to accomodate your request.

But more importantly, how many are too many in your mind? What do you want to do with these numbers? What is your plan once you know? How will it change anything.

Local voters turned down the last SBCC bond issue - they got their message across they don't like what they see as "too many out of area students" here and refused to help refurbish the aging campus.


Do you still think all students at SBCC are "junior college" students - that is that they are all 18-20 year old transfer students who need to make up highschool grades to transfer to a four year college?

Far from it. The California Community College mission changed years ago. Transfer is only one part of its mission today.

CCC's also provides most of the 2 year career tech education (trade school), life-long non-credit adult education, and local economic development resources.

CCC's now have a huge mission well beyond just teaching the two year transfer student.

With that in mind, you want to track all the students who come to SBCC, or just the traditional transfer students under age 21?

Or do you want to track all the nursing students, the auto tech students, the cosmetology students etc, the culinary students?

Track all the Adult Ed students - some Canadians come here in the winter and take Adult Ed classes.

Do you want to know where they live and how they conduct their lives outside the classroom?

When UCSB opened their new dorms, it left a lot of unrented spaces for students in I.V. Rental costs went up in Santa Barbara due to a lot of rental apartments getting converted into short-term furnished vacation rental (kind of informal hotels at premium weekly rates.)


So this influx of SBCC students into IV seems like a natural to take up the student rental slack. Plus the SBCC/I.V. bus routes improved trying to cut back on daily car trips making life in IV more desireable for SBCC students trying to find low rental costs. Should the bus routes from IV to SBCC be eliminated?

I still think your concerns are landlord concerns and public nuisance concerns. There is little the college can do with students once they leave campus. But they certainly are held to an honor code of student contact while they are on campus.

Best wishes on getting the information you seek and please report back when you decide what you want to do with it. I hope it helps.

4/02/2007 5:31 PM  
Anonymous A UCSB Employee said...

UCSB wages are known for being the lowest in the UC system, while the cost of living for the surrounding community is around the highest. There used to be a time when the job descriptions throughout the UC system were linked, so if you worked as a MSO on one campus you got paid the same as an MSO on another campus (assuming you were in the same grade within the MSO classification). That's not longer the case.

If my position was in the private sector, for example, I'd probably be making $5k to $10k more a year - at least. The benefits do make up for some of that, however, as the benefits are terrific.

Most of the UC jobs are union, but the unions are not very strong - and in my opinion, do a pretty crappy job at representing the employees. My position is not union.

Being a graduate student, however, is a completely different ball game, as the T.A.'s have a really rough time. And the UAW was a HORRIBLE choice for representation.

4/02/2007 5:34 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

ER...Dude, I meant to warn you about poking the sacred cows...

Sara, Thanks for continuing to host this topic. There are obviously a lot of misconceptions about what is really happening in this town. The more we talk about it the more the truth comes to light on both sides, which is always a good thing. I feel as do a lot of old time locals that we are losing that special appeal of a slower, less harried, somewhat informal lifestyle. I'm certainly no Luddite and I can accept change for the better. I know there is a lot of important work being done at both SBCC and UCSB. But at what cost to the community? The huge changes in density of So Cal in the last 10 years should really cause us pause and reevaluate the plans. Real estate is already weakening and I wonder if so much demand for housing will cause us to overbuild at the price of more communal projects. The higher Ed industry needs to examine their own motivations. Why does Westmont, SBCC, and UCSB think this is a smart place for expansion when everybody complains about the cost of living here?

I see how the expansions help those directly related to career enhancement but what good is it really doing for long term residents here? You know, the other 150,000 or so that don't work for the system?

4/02/2007 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To El Rincon and others:

http://www.sbcc.edu/institutionalresearch/

Public data - everyone has a right to know.

4/02/2007 6:29 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"I know that doesn't please sa1, who is peeved that a faculty townhouse will be "200 feet from his/her backyard" (let me ask you, would you have preferred another Costco?)."

Actually it was more like 20 feet from a distant neighbor's backyard.

You say peeved like it's no big deal. Like spending a third of your life investing in a dream and making personal sacrifice should be just be of no consequence when a faceless beuracracy with dubious intentions wants (and is going) to severely impact your lifestyle. When you're older and have something to lose, you'll understand...

4/02/2007 6:38 PM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

I have seen the new campus long term plan. The issue of planning regards more than the in-fill of empty air locations. But thanks for the small glipse of what is really going on.

What a long subject to take up in a blog without illustrations.

Let's just leave it at this example: There was this nice Institute of Theoretical Physics building at the entryway. It was better than the usual fare--a reasonable improvement.

And then this shall we call it, "empty air planning" called forth the nanotechnology monster that destroyed the atmosphere of both the Theoretical Physics site and the entry to campus all in one fell swoop. I won't even mention the trees and landscape. Buildings obviously have a relation to each other. Who came up with the idea of enclosing the campus in a great wall of knick nack heaps that keep out the mountains, the sea, and the marsh? When was the general campus plan completed? Not too long ago I bet. Usually you do that first.

Now Oz is leap-frogging over IV into what were once some good pristine natural spots. Why should I have any confidence that UCSB will do better over there then on campus?

I can see from the drift of allegro805's comments that he would like to bomb the old two-story dorms and it appears Storke Plaza too. I think he's got demolition fever. Do these destructive notions fall under the purvue of the 50 year rule that calls up Historical Preservation Standards and Review for the rest of the County?

On the other matter of two standards of weights and measures: How many classes are taught by adjunct faculty and lecturers to those undergrads? What is their rate of pay compared to regular faculty? Do you see a trend here? This trend is true at SBCC too. Are they elegible to become a permanent hire even if they are great teachers? Are those tenured folks really doing their stuff? And is it so important that the tenured elite forego teaching undergrads? I think there is active resistance to hiring part-timers at 50% when benefits would kick in.

Why is it when we question University plans and politics that the University would like us to understand they're superior and just know better? Some might call that arrogance. I am not lapsing into anti-intellectualism here just looking for some standards based on merit and good planning.

I walk on campus all the time. It's being botched. And it's getting worse.

4/02/2007 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the UCSB part-timer who complained about making $5-10,000 less than in private industry who then goes on to admit he gets at least $5-10K extra in gold-plated benefits (health and retirement) that no private industry here even comes close to providing: Feh.

4/02/2007 9:24 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

5:31pm... I will call.

6:29pm... that SBCC Insitutional Research website does not have the pertinent numbers. Reports there are generally out of date, but do show a steep increase in out-of-state domestic students between 1998 and 2003.

What do I want? I want SBCC to step up to the plate and say they embrace Isla Vista as a major community of SBCC students. I want SBCC to support the IV Foot Patrol in a manner proportionate to the UCSB support. I want SBCC to contribute to social services and infrastructure in IV proportionate to UCSB support. I want SBCC to sponsor plays and artistic activities in IV. I want SBCC to express ownership of the IV community because SBCC has expanded its out-of-area students there.

We've heard UCSB's similar excuses about landlords, etc, for years, and hearing them from SBCC is just as tired. The difference is UCSB has contributed a fair bit of resources to IV, and SBCC has been MIA.

Sure, SBCC has lots of functions other than servicing the out-of-area, under 25 freshmen and sophomores. Those functions do not eliminate SBCC's responsibility for those out-of-area, under 25 freshmen and sophomore who wreak havoc in IV. It is not that all or even the majority of those students raise hell in IV. But enough do, and SBCC needs to seriously undertake responsibility for them.

The simplest would be to just prohibit SBCC students who are not truly locals (some students do grow up in IV) from living in IV. Community colleges do have such power, they just haven't used it for years.... it used to be female students could not live in unchaperoned dorms, for example. But if SBCC does not want to take responsibility for its out-of-area students, it could solve the problem with a stroke of the pen by instituting a no-residency-in IV unless you grew up there policy.

I think that communicates pretty clearly what I'm after. SBCC should either shoulder its responsibility for IV impacts or clear out of IV. All the dissembling about auto tech, nursing and Canadians is just a diversion.

Don etc... remember the Nano building is a Venturi... Robert Venturi, the Pritzker Prize winning architect. Someone did try to make it OK, but the best laid plans... now I actually think the Bren/neighbor buildings are OK, but the new drama building is execrable. The students services building is average. But I like HSSB.

4/02/2007 11:03 PM  
Anonymous A UCSB Employee said...

To the UCSB part-timer who complained about making $5-10,000 less than in private industry who then goes on to admit he gets at least $5-10K extra in gold-plated benefits (health and retirement) that no private industry here even comes close to providing: Feh.

For the record, I am a full-timer. I have no idea what your point is...

4/03/2007 12:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon, I hear your personal frustration about SBCC students who coincidentially live in IV.But I still do not see how you can control private lives the way you want.

Have you contacted Brooks Firestone's office to see the resolutions of the joint SBCC/UCSB Isla Vista Task Force to see what in fact each college is bringing to the table to help solve these issues already. Did you even know this had gone on?

SBCC does have a limited housing relationship with some of the private "dorm" units out there and they require appropriate conduct in exchange for reserving a certain number of beds for SBCC students. Contact Student Affairs at SBCC for more information about that program. IV Landlords my also list rental units available to SBCC students also.

The SBCC website page was offered to you for information on who you can contact for more specific information.

You gave no numbers to support your claim of "steep increase" of out of state students. Proportionate to what?

And is your bone to pick with "out of state" students or "out of area" students. If you want these numbers tracked, please be very specific.

Can you supply proof it is the "out of state" students attending SBCC that bother you the most?

I know of no legal mechanism that prohibits where a person may live. I don't understand your claim about college dormitories (from over 40 years ago when Jim Crow was alive and well then too) being relevant to today's constitutionally protected freedoms of habitation and privacy when a person chooses a private living relationship in IV.

SBCC does not act as legal guardians for any of its students. How would you actually work to change that status? Have you contacted Pedro Nava's office to get legislation passed that requires community colleges to control the private lives of their students in attendance.

This would be tough to get passed but that would be a place for you to start.

4/03/2007 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the UCSB employee - same point about your complaint of being underpaid whether you are full or part time.

Many in private industry who you claim make more than you have to pay for retirement and health benefits out of their own pocket. This means it comes out of the paycheck they take home - the one you claim is more than yours.

You do a great disservice to the rest of the world not on the public payroll when you fail to appreciate your gold-plated benefits are also part of your taxable salary.

4/03/2007 8:21 AM  
Anonymous UCSB Employee said...

You do a great disservice to the rest of the world not on the public payroll when you fail to appreciate your gold-plated benefits are also part of your taxable salary


Really? THE WHOLE WORLD?!!?!?! Your just full of all kinds of rhetoric.

I don't have to "appreciate" anything my employer does for me. I work hard and EARN my benefits and my salary. Anyone who says otherwise or thinks otherwise can stick it.

You have a pretty twisted view of the employer/employee relationship.

4/03/2007 1:12 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

So, anon SBCC boosters, what considerations go into student population increase decisions in regards to available housing? Probably none as with UCSB. Do you just expect the students to find their own way? What I'm getting at of course is what is driving the demand for over 2000 new housing units in Goleta, and we know that UC is building 400 more plus what was built on El Colegio. IV master plan wants to build for an additional 3000 people. Where is all the demand coming from?? Commuters, students, growing families, new businesses in town? Are we sure all these demanders are really going to be able to afford the price when all these new units are built?

4/03/2007 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Tessitura said...

stop picking on the poor TA...working here at the Univ. isn't that great.

4/03/2007 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are right UCSB employee, only the California taxpayers want to see a little appreciation for their tax dollars, not the whole world.

When anyone mentions "teachers" salaries, always pro-rate them for a 9 month year, add in health care benefits, retirement equivalents, time in grade increases, annual COLA, tenure/job security, professional development courses and conferences, and other paid goodies dispensed like manna from some pseudo-heaven the employees think has a permanently open spigot.

And just discount the 9 month year prorata for the full-time public employee staff persons, but include all the rest of the goodies taken on top of the salary.

How did these public employees turn into such an ungrateful group with this sense of permanent entitlement? Oh, do you think this is how the unions keep their jobs?

Keep the union members totally unhappy and in a constant state of wounded greed and neglect and then keep sticking it to the taxpayers.

Works well so far, so it must be working. Glad something is.

4/03/2007 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sa 1 - Sacramento now sets the expected growth formula for community college enrollments. They do not take available housing into consideration for funding any particular local district.

I assume this is because the primary intent of community colleges is to serve the local population who already resides there.

Yes, some SBCC/UCSB students come from out of the area, but so do workers come from out of the area if one were to create new businesses and industries here. Retirees come from out of the area.

So what is it really about students and it seems particularly SBCC students coming from out of the area that sets off so many alarms here?


Prop 13 changed a lot of things - and giving the state funding control over local community colleges is one of them. Before local taxpayers funded their own local community college and it showed up on their annually increadsing property tax bills.

There was a concern about some local colleges being more privileged than others and the state felt it was a better choice to provide equal access to equal education statewide. And thus ended the purely local funding for the local college.

I am hearing many here want to turn the clock back and maybe even dispense with having any local community college in this area.

Is this where the community should be going to solve this problem of "out of area" SBCC students allowed to come here?

How does one close down a community college when it becomes too burdensome for the local community to continue having in its midst?

That way there could be an outflow of our local students into other community college districts freeing up shabby rental housing ...for whom?

4/03/2007 3:44 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Let's not forget that the employee's of UCSB pay taxes too.

My issue's are certainly not with the individuals, so much as the system/decisions makers, whoever, wherever they are.

4/03/2007 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UCSB employees pay taxes only on their salaries. All the rest of the goodies they get paid for with state tax dollars come in tax-free to them.

This does make UCSB employees a little bit different from those who either do not get these benefits, or have to pay for them out of their own earnings and reap only limited IRS deductions for some of them.


I wish they would show more appreciation rather than hearing how underpaid and overworked they always are. That is all.

But maybe this is what allegro calls "smart employment choices" - feeding off the public trough.

4/03/2007 7:28 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Anon-3:44,
"Sacramento now sets the expected growth formula for community college enrollments. They do not take available housing into consideration for funding any particular local district."

What formula is it that had SBCC growing so much faster than the surrounding community? Is there no feedback from the local college that increasing pop would be difficult? In our case that housing was in short supply? Is there any recourse?

"So what is it really about students and it seems particularly SBCC students coming from out of the area that sets off so many alarms here?"

I don't mind the students per se but there are limited resources to support them. Housing is just one of them. The Ed "industry" provides arguably lower paying job opportunities and requires resources of it's own from the infrastructure while also arguably not paying the full price in the form of various taxes like non-public industries.

I have taken advantage and do support the idea of offering adult ed and community based classes along with a standard associate degree program. No problem there.

Yet I'm struck by the headline banner on the SBCC web site proclaiming highest transfer to UCSB. In effect an advert for out of area types to come here to start their four year degree process. This, I think is an end around to the student cap at UCSB.

No one is seriously saying that we should get rid of SBCC or UCSB. That is just ridiculous. I just wish they were more in tune to the area's long history of slow growth and low density. If we have to grow, it should be balanced with jobs and community space. It feels like the only building is housing at the sacrifice of all other use of space like high end business. Where's our Cisco or Intel campus? Where's our Nano Tech plant going to be constructed? How about a Harley Davidson factory?

"That way there could be an outflow of our local students into other community college districts freeing up shabby rental housing ...for whom?"

Well you could start by freeing it up for the low income types and the RV people.

4/03/2007 8:11 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

The steep increase in out of state students between 1998 and 2002 is shown in the table on page 8 of:

This report.

1998 - 288
2002 - 459

an increase of 60% in 5 years. There are no statistics on students from outside the SBCCD area.

I called 965-0581 - President;s Office Ext 2211. They called back and politely informed me that no statistics are available on out-of-SBCCD students or on the number of SBCC students who reside in IV.

On the street in IV the large growth in SBCC student is quite evident. I have a friend who serves on the SBCC/UCSB IV group... he says the SBCC faculty rep stopped showing up months ago. An SBCC student comes sometimes. But those 2 out 15 or so in that group are the only ones from SBCC involved.

To compare proscription of residency in IV for SBCC students to Jim Crow laws is absurd. Most of SBCC's activities are targeted toward local students, high schoolers, continuing education, etc, and are terrific.

But SBCC happens to be unusually good for a variety of reasons, and so it attracts out-of-SBCCD students who move here and live in IV, where their immaturity is a cause of much trouble. Recall UCSB makes freshmen live in dorms, so they can adapt from home living to being on their own over a year. But SBCC freshmen from outside of the area show up, move to IV, and often go wild. I'm thinking of those who killed Brad Jones, of the student who was stripped naked by SBCC students and left passed out on a couch filled with trash, etc.

SBCC has been missing in action in its responsibility for IV. Totally MIA and/or AWOL. As I said, either SBCC should stand up and embrace its responsibility, or proscribe students from living in IV. They certainly have the power and resources to do either... an IV residence ban works because SBCC attendance is a privilege and not a right. Of course anyone who grew up in IV should be exempted, as should those who are over 25. This is not a state law issue... it is a local issue that addresses a specific problem caused by local phenomenon.

Or... SBCC could embrace IV as an important part of its situation here, and support the IVFP proportionate to UCSB's support, support the Youth Project like UCSB, and establish cultural activites in IV.

But back to the issue of UCSB growth... there has been a decline in UCSB students living in IV over the past few years, due to FT and Manzanita. The local community has been clamoring for this sort of thing for years... and now that it happens, SBCC ups its enrollment to fill the spots in IV vacated by UCSB students.

And SBCC does so without any consultation whatsoever of the community... I can't recall a single meeting in IV or Goleta organized by the SBCC Trustees (who are elected after all) to discuss their growth in IV.

4/03/2007 10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sa1- do you still correlate enrollment growth at SBCC automatically with only people moving into this area and therefore somehow putting demands on housing?

Can you please try to dissociate these two factors?

Itsounds like you assuming 100% of SBCC enrollment growth came from out of the area. That is patently untrue as previously discussed.

As previously stated, much of the enrollment growth at SBCC comes from more local adults and highschool students in this area becoming SBCC students, online classes, the fitness lab and more off-campus business courses and adult ed classes.

"Growth" also comes when a single student takes more units, which is also happening. Students are getting more serious about finishing their college education. Yet, this positive quality also translates as more "enrollment" growth. And this you find scary.

Many (you are not alone here by a long shot) do see SBCC enrollment growth ONLY in terms of more "out of area" students moving in and taking up housing.

These continuing complaints about SBCC enrollment "growth" indicate there are deeper concerns that remains under the surface.

What are they really?

4/03/2007 11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't worry about the SBCC banner bragging about its UCSB transfer rates. It is a very narrow and local boast.

Santa Monica City College transfers far more students to UCLA and Diablo Valley College in Concord, CA sets the all time college record for its transfers to UC Berkeley.

If a student wants to go to a UC campus, they would pick those well ahead of one that might get them transfering to UCSB.

Let SBCC crow a little, okay? It is a proud accomplishment to get students at a community college UC ready. You have a good little local community college here. Cheers.

4/03/2007 11:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon, you have a choice to say a 150 increase in SBCC out of state students over 4 years is the death knell for IV, or put it in context of the thousands of local students who are now benefited by SBCC programs during that same period.

You have a police/landlord issue in IV. UCSB taking students into more campus dorms opened the doors for more SBCC students to live their private lives in your community.

Talk to the landlords. Make them refuse to rent to SBCC students. That is your quickest and most direct way to accomplish what you want.

4/04/2007 7:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UCSB does not mandate that freshman live in the residence halls!

4/04/2007 7:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember UCSB student David Attius who killed and injured SBCC students with his car. IV is a problem. Alcohol and drugs are a problem. Rapacious, absentee landlords are a problem.

4/04/2007 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

If I am not mistaken, the prime mover for most budgetary decisions at SBCC is how many students they have in class. THe principal reason for this is that the admin gets their money from the state based on how many students are sitting there, in class, are certain key dates.

This primary motivation to max out the bodies, envelopes all their teaching decisions, and also what follows in the capital budget. Student attendance is the function that drives all the rest.

This El Ricon would call the metrics of the situation.

One should not overlook either, the extraordinary attendence figures at SBCC because Santa Barbara adults decide to go to enjoy the offerings--especially in the evenings. This is a reflection of the community's deep interest in education. On the other hand this too fuels the budget and all the factors of growth.

SBCC is a serial abuser of the part time faculty trick. They bring in outstanding individuals in the community to teach classes (obviously the community has a lot of well educated potential teachers) but SBCC is extremely careful to keep them under the percentages that would result in their getting a full time position that would give them a real salary and benefits. They are exploiters are this score. I am sure that SBCC abuses faculty on this count much more than UCSB.

Parking on the campus is so difficult. And housing is difficult too. As we all know. It's all about too many people and a budgetary structure that wants as many bodies as possible with as little costs as possible. Foreign students are welcome because they pay an out of state tuition fee that is quite expensive. But as we know, Santa Barbara sells. Foreign bodies are very profitable.

Maybe as with the bed tax and tourists, the city could tap these excess students, out-of-towners, foreigners, with a tax to pay for needed infrastructure.

We note, all of us, that education is popular and sought after. That isn't bad. But this is the problem with everything. Too many want too much. National Parks are loved to death. And Santa Barbara teems with eager students. (The cynic in me want to say, maybe some not so eager).

Unfortunately, SBCC has become the last hope and refuge of the high school graduate who doesn't know their stuff--many even who turn to SBCC to make faux high school graduates out of them. We call that remedial education and I don't think the old plan for City Colleges in the State was supposed to be about that!

4/04/2007 7:46 AM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

7:40am... no, I am not saying that 150 new out-of-state students cause the problems I see on the street in IV.

I believe the 50% increase is indicative of the percentage increase in out of *SBCC DISTRICT* students over the same time period. The great majority of out of district students come from California, so they aren't included in the out-of-state number. The office of the president at SBCC declined to provide me with numbers on the out of SBCC District students, and I can't find them on the SBCC IR Website... does SBCC have something to hide? Where are those numbers? Why won't SBCC make them available?

I think the out-of-district SBCC students have increased by a number around 1000 to 3000. They have had a huge impact in IV.

As I said, lots of terrific things are done by SBCC, but their treatment of IV is not one of those terrific things.

Whoops, UCSB does not mandate that freshmen live in dorms, but the overwhelming majority of out-of-area UCSB freshmen do live in the dorms.

About Attias... yes, UCSB students also cause problems in IV. But SBCC students also do so, and SBCC as an institution is MIA/AWOL in IV. SBCC has never held a single meeting concerning its enrollment plans or its concern for IV.

UCSB does a poor job too, but at least they try through support for the IVFP and the Youth Projects among other things... over $1 million a year, I recall.

4/04/2007 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Attias was mentally ill!

4/04/2007 1:12 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"Sa1- do you still correlate enrollment growth at SBCC automatically with only people moving into this area and therefore somehow putting demands on housing?

Can you please try to dissociate these two factors? "

No and No.

By SBCC's own numbers, there were more than 1,000 out of state and foreign students in 2002. Probably the same now. They are living somewhere I'm sure. This issue with IV is El Rincon's not mine but I support his claim that SBCC is contributing to the cry for more "affordable" housing (where this discussion started weeks ago).

My issue is that all colleges in town are getting the much better part of the deal than the commited residents because they don't pay taxes here, are not accountable to the community for their actions, provide low paying jobs for the most part and do all this for a transient population of frugal, part time (if at all) working students that use a lot of in-town infrastructure. The net results are that we don't have a skilled labor force to draw from, all available space is open for condo and affordable housing only (apparently), the only new business expansion seems to be in resorts, golf courses, restaurants and big box retail.

I think this direction SUCKS and it's is simple as that.

Nothing hidden here and read my previous posts over the last months if you'd like more detail (and some seriously entertaining reading :-P ).

4/04/2007 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don Jose, do you still think of community colleges only as remedial?

That is only one small, but very important, part of their entire mission.

Yes, they do give poorer students a second chance, both academically and financially. This is not bad.

But they also take top students and turn them into nurses and all the other 2 year para-professionals needed in our communities who are paid enviable salaries.

They also send students on to the Ivy Leagues and UC - community college students are no slouches.

Sacramento sets a formula for full-time part-time instructor ratios and every year a college is required to make progress towards this 75% ratio: 75% of a student contact hours must be with a full time instructor. This is the law. Is there something similar at UCSB?

Unions don't let SBCC slack reaching this goal even if they wanted to, so drop the argument SBCC intentionally abuses part-time workers. They do not.

Sacramento recently gave part-timers a hefty raise, some limited access to health benefits. No one is balancing the budget abusing parttime workers. Go else where if you want to keep that argument alive.

The parity between part-time and full time instructors grows closer each year and is an interesting concept. What is a proper parity ratio?

A college needs both - full time professionals and the flexability and uniqueness of partime instructors. It would be hard to keep an Arabic instructor busy full time, but how great there is one available part time.

How great to take advantage of unique individuals in the local community to make education come alive with real world business experience. This is a gift to students - not an intentional abuse of instrutors.

And some part-timers when given the choice want to keep working part-time. To create one full-time job means one of the two part-timers has to be let go, so there is some humane flexability when creating and retaining part-time positions.

Additionally, any growth in community college enrollment requires hiring a certain set number of full-time faculty or else the college gets fined.

Ventura College recently took the fine because it was cheaper than hiring additional faculty.

The budget at community colleges is driven by hiring the best people you can find and if that takes "growth" dollars because this is the only way to get new money, then it takes growth. For now.

Be glad SBCC has found ways to reach into the community providing more access to skills and needs, rather than other colleges who do intentionally go out to recruit well-paying international or out of state students.

SBCC sets a cap on the number of international students, though this is a very popular part of the educational experience if you listen to what SBCC students have been saying in letters to the NewsPress. They like getting to know people from other countries a lot.

Schwarenegger is looking into a better funding mechanism than being based primarily on student head counts, but until that is changed in Sacramento community colleges have to make do with what they can get. I agree, it is a tortured funding formula and it does need to change. It does punish colleges in slow-growth areas. No disagreement here at all.

One change that may also come is community college salaries will be set in Sacramento, and not retained as a local bargaining issue. This gives Sacramento more control over how total community college dollars are spent. It is widely recognized this current funding formula is not working.

When 80% and more of typical college budget goes to salary and benefits, there is not a lot of left over money to keep the lights turned on and roofs not leaking. Those costs go up every year too. This makes it very difficult for slow-growth colleges.

SBCC will be building a new parking garage out of reserved funds saved over time, where dorms were once briefly considered.

So two things for you to know: no dorms ever (that would allow control over students lives and relieve the burden on IV) and now more parking.

Community colleges are a darn efficient public educaton delivery system - you get more for your money at a community college than anywhere else. They get the least amount per student and they delivery high quality to over 1.5 million students in this state.

They are incredible.

4/04/2007 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon, SBCC does track "out of district students" and has published this information from time to time for years - people have made various inflated charges about this number so many, many rebuttals have been published.

I believe you said you asked if they had figures for out of state students living **only in IV** -which they may not necessarily have.

SBCC has nothing to hide. These "out of district" and "out of state" numbers are public facts and you can have access to them. It would probably help if you set out your request in writing so it can go through the Institutional Research person for the most accurate responses. I believe there was an email address on the website for that person.

Some have claimed as high as 50-75% of SBCC students are from out of district. That was never true, but it still gets repeated as if it were. College figures at one time were closer to 20%, which is low for many other community colleges. SBCC has always been an attractive college. So are many others.

Regardless of the numbers, if they can all legally come here what do you want to do with these numbers?

If I were you, I would contact the Dean for Student Affairs at SBCC and ask to have another representative to the County IV task force appointed ASAP, if you can show SBCC has dropped the ball.

What conclusions and recommendations did the County IV Task Force actually come up with? Have any of them been met?

I would think for the $170 per unit out of state SBCC students pay, it would be stupid for them to be blowing their brains out in IV. So yes, your problems may well be with California students, not out of state students.

County Supervisor Brooks Firestone is with you all the way on this one. Let him know your frustrations and if the county plan is not working he needs to follow-up on this.

4/04/2007 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city of Santa Barbara is beholden to the federal goverment for HUD dollars and for this they have to sell the soul of the city, the price being and more affordable housing promises.

Read the city website draft report: HUD Third Program Year Action Plan

Here at last is the guilty growth culprit.

The city loses Section 8 housing money if they don't show they are removing barriers to allow more and more affordable housing.

It is a very instructional report. It may shock you at its depth. I don't think anyone voted for this, at least knowingly.

This may well be the "shadow government" everyone is talking about. We met the enemy and he is us.

HUD money funds the very groups the city asks for input on how they are doing, and what do you think they tell them?

These groups funded by HUD community development block grants keep telling the city they are not doing enough and thus the cycle of self-fullfilling demands spirals out of control.

May we have a moritorium on blaming UCSB or SBCC for growth when it is HUD who is in fact calling the real shots on this issue?

It is a 51 page report and every page is eye-opening. Mystery solved.

4/04/2007 3:32 PM  
Anonymous ursula said...

Let's see... someone thinks that UCSB employees don't pay taxes. Hmmm... they don't pay taxes on retirement benefits until they retire and use them, at which time the benefit is taxed as income.

Just like a 401(k) or IRAg, which all private employees have access to.

The UC pension fund is in deep trouble; UC employees within a few years will have to dig into their pockets to fund it, which will be a 10-15% cut in takehome pay. Doesn't get much press for some reason. Right now the retirement plan nearly compensates for the depressed takehome pay (to within 5% or so, but UC is lower), but that will end by 2008 or 2009.

UC employees don't get full retirement benefits until age 68... unlike a fair number of state employees these days, where full benefits start as early as 50.

Many UC employees like myself are quite worried about the UC 401(a) pension plan, and think it will crash and have to default on its commitments... like many private industry plans. So we are already using our 401(k) type accounts to save up. And that takes us back to about 20% below market, but it is a personal choice/evaluation.

Healthcare? My spouse works in private industry, and his healthcare is rather better than mine at UC. But it is not taxed in either case.

The big benefit UC employees get is that the parking fees are tax deductible. That's worth about $150/year.

Otherwise UCSB employees pay standard medicare, social security, and income taxes. They certianly pay standard property taxes... there is no `UCSB' exclusion on your property taxes.

4/04/2007 4:10 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

3:17pm ... I asked the office of the president for out-of-SBCCD numbers and the polite reply was that no such statistics are available. Go back and read my post.

You say those numbers have been published. Where? When? How can I find them?

The fact on the street in IV is that there has been a steep increase in SBCC students living there. As I said, SBCC has the power to prohibit living in IV (with a few exceptions for those who grew up there, or are over some age like 25 or 30). They choose not to use that power.

I've certainly been bugging my friend on the IV/UCSB committee to look into this. Sure would be nice if just once (even on this blog) some SBCC supporter acknowledged and embraced their responsibility for IV. All anyone here has done is deny, deny, deny. You can imagine how frustrating this is to IV residents who are on the front lines of SBCC's substantial expansion in IV.

As I keep saying, SBCC has many wonderful aspects. Its abuse of Isla Vista is not one of those wonderful aspects.

As for Firestone, he has zero influence on SBCC, because the County has no leverage at all with SBCC. SBCC needs no County approvals, only City approvals. And the City of Santa Barbara cares not one bit about Isla Vista. So SBCC can deny, deny, deny, and hide the facts on its expansion into IV with impunity.

4/04/2007 6:36 PM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

Just two quick responses tonight. Anonymous who? I find that what's wrong with the anonymous pseudo is that it does not allow us to develop a sense of completeness for the character and thoughts of someone who responds to the theme of the blog put out by Sara. Which anonymous are we blogging to, responding to? A very simple solution is just to take on a pseudo that isn't anonymous. You still aren't known any more than if you declare anonymous! It just that there are so many who choose anonymous. I don't get the virtue in this choice.

To the anonymous who informatively replied to the situation at SBCC. We agreed that the body count runs the policy at SBCC. And you point with pride to a 75%/25% ratio of full-time to part-time. I would call the 25%, the floating bottom which perhaps gives the issue a different tone. Sure, I bet there are people happy to be part-time but I bet there are plenty who hope for full time and hope for years. I could go into this in detail.

I am not opposed to the remedial mission but I think even you must be astonished about how that need has grown.

And what about the tax on out-of-county and foreign students to be paid to the city somewhat like the bed tax for tourists? For or against?

4/04/2007 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have me intrigued.

How exactly does SBCC have the power to prevent their students from living in Isla Vista?

Where is citation setting out that power - is it in the Education Code? What section number.

Thanks.

4/04/2007 7:34 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Anon - 3:32

Thanks for the lead to the HUD report. I'll read it. No moritorium yet though...I'll get back to you on that. :-/

(I do feel a lot smarter about the situation now...thanks for the input from all)

4/04/2007 8:40 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

7:34pm... of course, SBCC could just step up and embrace Isla Vista as their place, and work hard to improve it.

Again, funny how you don't suggest SBCC do that, but focus in on the possibility of restrictions on living in IV. I'd suggest you look at SBCCD Governing Board Policy 3231, which has rules that go well beyond California State Code. I'd add `AA. Residing in Isla Vista if the student has not resided within the SBCC District for at least 3 years. Isla Vista shall be considered an SBCC off-campus facility.'

4/04/2007 9:30 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

7:34pm... the basis for the SBCC Governing Board's ability to govern student behavior is Education Code 66300-66301. Rights to free speech cannot be governed under most circumstances due to 66301, but there is no legal roadblock to governing the location of student residence. As I said earlier, women were once forced to live in chaperoned dorms... further, a male student right now cannot insist that he live in certain all-female housing situations at UC campuses (and vice versa)... location of student residence is already regulated.

Golly, seems like I'm the only one who fishes out hard data. Sure would be nice if someone could get the numbers on the history of out-of-district student enrollment at SBCC over the last 17 years. SBCC won't give it to me.

4/04/2007 10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

California Codes
California Education Code
EDUCATION CODE SECTION 76030-76037


76030. Consistent with requirements of due process of law, with the
provisions of this article, and with the rules of student conduct
adopted by the governing board under Section 66300, the governing
board, the president of a community college or the president's
designee, or an instructor shall suspend a student for good cause.
In addition, the governing board is authorized to expel a student for
good cause when other means of correction fail to bring about proper
conduct, or when the presence of the student causes a continuing
danger to the physical safety of the student or others. The
suspension or expulsion of a student shall be accompanied by a
hearing conducted pursuant to the requirements of Section 66017.




76031. The adopted rules of student conduct may authorize the
president of a community college or the president's designee to
suspend a student for good cause as follows:
(a) From one or more classes for a period of up to 10 days of
instruction.
(b) From one or more classes for the remainder of the school term.

(c) From all classes and activities of the community college for
one or more terms.
The adopted rules of student conduct shall prohibit a student from
being enrolled in any community college in the district for the
period of suspension.
The president of the community college shall report all suspension
of students to the governing board or to the district
superintendent.
Whenever a minor is suspended from a community college, the parent
or guardian shall be notified in writing by the president or the
president's designee.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the
president of a community college or the president's designee from
imposing a lesser disciplinary sanction than suspension. A lesser
sanction may include, but need not be limited to, verbal or written
reprimand, probation, or ineligibility to participate in
extracurricular activities.



76032. The adopted rules of student conduct may authorize an
instructor to remove a student from his or her class for the day of
the removal and the next class meeting. The instructor shall
immediately report the removal to the chief administrative officer
for appropriate action.
If the student removed by an instructor is a minor, the college
president or the president's designee shall ask the parent or
guardian of the student to attend a parent conference regarding the
removal as soon as possible. If the instructor or the parent or
guardian so requests, a college administrator shall attend the
conference. During the period of removal, a student shall not be
returned to the class from which he or she was removed without the
concurrence of the instructor of the class.



76033. As used in this article, "good cause" includes, but is not
limited to, the following offenses:
(a) Continued disruptive behavior, continued willful disobedience,
habitual profanity or vulgarity, or the open and persistent defiance
of the authority of, or persistent abuse of, college personnel.
(b) Assault, battery, or any threat of force or violence upon a
student or college personnel.
(c) Willful misconduct which results in injury or death to a
student or college personnel or which results in cutting, defacing,
or other injury to any real or personal property owned by the
district.
(d) The use, sale, or possession on campus of, or presence on
campus under the influence of, any controlled substance, or any
poison classified as such by Schedule D in Section 4160 of the
Business and Professions Code.
(e) Willful or persistent smoking in any area where smoking has
been prohibited by law or by regulation of the governing board.
(f) Persistent, serious misconduct where other means of correction
have failed to bring about proper conduct.



76034. No student shall be removed, suspended, or expelled unless
the conduct for which the student is disciplined is related to
college activity or college attendance.



76035. The president or the president's designee at a community
college shall, upon the suspension or expulsion of any student,
notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities of the county or
city in which the school is situated of any acts of the student which
may be in violation of Section 245 of the Penal Code.




76036. Any violation or violations of law, ordinance, regulation,
or rule regulating, or pertaining to, the parking of vehicles, shall
not be cause for the removal, suspension, or expulsion of a student
from a community college.


76037. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the
authority of a governing board to adopt additional rules and
regulations which are not inconsistent with the requirements of this
article. These additional rules may, among other things, prescribe
specific rules and regulations governing student behavior, along with
applicable penalties for violations of the adopted rules and
regulations, and may prescribe appropriate due process procedures,
including procedure by which students shall be informed of these
rules and regulations.

4/04/2007 11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon, the Ed Code governs student conduct only when they are in their role as a student. This is not a 24 hour identity under state law. They are private persons as well once they leave their college activities. The Ed Code covers that too.

I still don't see how SBCC can legally restrict where students, now outside college activities, can live and conduct their lives.

Dr MacDougal kept track of out of district enrollment because so many people asked about this and I recall wrote about this topic in the NewsPress. It is my error that I misled you that this information was also currently available. Keep trying.

Please make a Freedom of Information Request for this information from the college. Other colleges track this so this is regarded as pertinent information.

College of the Canyons in their public report stated their "number of students outside the district has grown from 3,230 to 5,505, and increase of 70% from Fall 1999 to Fall 2004".

This is exactly what you want from SBCC. File an FOIA request and I am sure you will be able to get this information.

Do you mind telling how old you are? Your reference to college dorm or college sponsored housing rules does not track with students living off campus in private apartments today.

I didn't find anything on the college website that shows what you just posted as college policy 3231. How old is your source of that college policy 3231? Is it available online, because the only reference I could find did not say what you posted at all.

I hope you will think about filing a small claims nuisance lawsuit against the landlord if he/she is abusing properties in your immediate neighborhood.

4/04/2007 11:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

El Rincon, I think I see the problem in what appears to be a communication breakdown. A "student residence" is very different from the residence of a student.

A college does have control over "student residences" if they are college activities, or in some way connected to official college housing policy.

The private residence of a student not connected to any official college relationship is private. A college has no extended authority over his/her lifestyle here.

Your SBCC student trouble-makers are in private housing. And they are beyond the control of the college.

While this may not be helpful for you, it actually is. Because this dicussion helps narrow the issues so you can target your efforts more productively that may finally help solve your neighborhood problems.

I don't blame you for being upset. And I also hope you find the most productive way to resolve this.

4/05/2007 12:04 AM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

Yes, I'm beyond retirement age, but younger than the average live expectancy of an American at birth. I ate at Nebi's when I was in my 30's.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the Ed Code that prohibits designations on student residency; up until about 1968 here in IV there were restrictions on which private residences students could live in. To this day, BTW, colleges can decertify and prohibit residence in certain private living arrangements (Fraternities and Sororities). There just has to be good and just cause.

Restrictions about most private residences were relaxed simply in response to popular sentiment. And popular sentiment could reintroduce them again. I think SBCC supporters are just trying to create a non-existing legalism to evade responsibility.

BTW, public schools routinely regulate, often extremely strictly, the clothes that high school and elementary school students wear. That is comparable in invasiveness to regulation of where a college student may live.

There has been tremendous growth in SBCC student residency in IV over the past 10 years. SBCC will not own up to it, and is happy to hide behind the finger pointing at UCSB, on this specific point. Which is not to say SBCC is not a terrific place in many, many, even most, ways.

4/05/2007 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who would move into your IV neighborhood if SBCC students moved out? Would there still be UCSB students or would quiet retired people move in?

4/05/2007 3:05 PM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

A few years before I came here, in the 1950's, IV was filled with families, like Hank Pitcher's. That's what I'd like to see.

4/05/2007 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Rincon in the 1950's UCSB was at the SBCC Mesa site and SBCC was at the Alachama site. I am sure you would like to see that too.

But this does show that IV suffers no more growing pangs than any place else on the entire south coast.

Goleta used to be all lemon groves and State Street ended at Alamar.

Sigh.

4/06/2007 8:26 AM  
Anonymous El Rincon said...

??? Isla Vista has suffered from unplanned growth more than any other community on the South Coast. No place else is even close. And that growth was at the behest of the IV property owners (a couple hundred of them) who got property from the 1925/26 subdivision of IV that occurred 23 years or so before UCSB moved from its two City sites to the Goleta Mesa. Property rights and endruns to the Regents totally stymied UCSB's attempts to influence Isla Vista's development. UCSB did bring the students, but the fecundity of the post WWII baby boom was the ultimate driving force.

4/06/2007 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Demographics of college age students ebb and flow: BabyBoom created the BabyBoom Echo of large numbers. Followed by far lower demographics inbetween.

Maybe you will soon be seing vacancy signs on all those IV apartments again.

4/06/2007 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sooner rather than later seeing those vacancy signs. County population is down according to latest headlines. With our county psychology so geard for decades against growth, is there any non and declining growth public planning scenario out there.

Just like the end of the Cold War when we could no longer blame everything on the "communists" and ended up a nation obsessed with Chandra Levy and Monica Lowinski.

Who will be our next scape goat if we can't blame everything on those rapacious UCSB and SBCC students whose number increases have lead to every social malaise this county faces?

Who will we be when fighting "growth" is not our primary psychological pastime.

Why do I suspect alarms will be raised and we will go back to encouraging growth to maintain a healthy economy and psychological and civic vitality?

Feckless Scape-Goaters Unite! Your existence is in peril!!!

4/08/2007 9:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home