UC Administration and Corryville Relations

UC Administration and Corryville Relations (sent by Kay Weaks Thurs June 16. 2005)bj 6.17.05

To accomplish one of its main goals—to improve relations between UC and Corryville—the CFRC needs to understand the communication avenues available to reach some of the University’s decision makers. Understanding how the administration is working to enhance partnering with its surrounding community, the Uptown area, unveils opportunities for the CFRC to improve the cooperation between the two parties.

Beyond the UC/21 publications, our research on the relationship between UC administration and Corryville included the following sources:

• An article published in the Spring 2003 issue of the Economic Development Journal entitled“town and gown,” written by three of UC’s top administration: Dale McGirr, Vice President for Finance; Ronald Kull, Associate Vice President and University Architect; and K. Scott Enns, Coordinator of Community Development for the University.
• “UC Connection: A New Model for Partnerships,” a proposal by UC’s Civic Engagement Council (see excerpts in Appendix C).
• The UC Community Partnership Projects website, at http://www.uc.edu/ucinfo/commpart.htm
• The UC Master Plan website, at http://www.uc.edu/ucinfo/buildin.htm
• Interviews with Scott Enns; Bobi Jackson, Program Director of the Corryville Family Resource Center; Margaret Ahlrichs, Director of the Corryville Recreation Center; and Mary Stagaman, Assistant Vice President for Community Relations and Marketing.
• The Capstone participants’ attendance at Corryville Think Tank and Corryville Community Council meetings from March 2005 through May 2005.

How the administration views its relationship with Corryville

UC|21 is the general strategic plan that all members of the University are to follow under Zimpher’s vision for moving the University forward in the 21st Century. One portion of the strategic plan is partnering in civic engagement. For the CFRC to work on improving the relationship between Corryville and UC, the CFRC needs to understand how UC defines civic engagement, how UC is working to stimulate civic engagement, how UC views its history of civic engagement with Corryville, and how UC is working to stimulate civic engagement with Corryville. Once the CFRC understands the University’s views of civic engagement and opportunities for civic engagement, the CFRC can work to stimulate more engagement between Corryville and UC.

How UC defines civic engagement

There are two parts to understanding the University’s view of civic engagement. The first part is to understand what the University views as community. According to Mary Stagaman, Associate Vice President for Community Relations and Marketing, the University doesn’t define community as just its local surroundings. To the University, community means any entity outside of the University walls that can have a beneficial relationship with the University, whether that be a nearby neighborhood, the United Way, or even the residents of another country. The University must view community on this broad level because its goal is to be seen as a source of far-reaching knowledge and expertise, and, with this image, to compete successfully for students and faculty.

The second part is to understand what engagement activities the University views as civic engagement. According to Stagaman, the University has yet to specify what types of engagement activities the University views as civic engagement. Stagaman explained that, in general, universities define civic engagement as “the application of institutional resources in community.” For most universities, this general definition of civic engagement does not include individual volunteerism. Many universities only view longer term and more complex types of engagement as civic engagement. Stagaman would like to include individual volunteerism into UC’s view of civic engagement because she recognizes that individuals are a large resource for university-community relationships.

How UC is working to stimulate civic engagement

Civic engagement is an important part of the UC|21 vision, as one of its six goals is to forge key relationships and partnerships. One of the key ways the University is working to stimulate civic engagement is through the Civic Engagement Council. The Council is chaired by Stagaman, who explained that the University created the Council about a year and a half ago as “a communications vehicle for individuals and departments across UC who are engaged and work with community.” One of the primary objectives of the meetings is to share best practices across the University on civic engagement.

To stimulate more engagement and interactions among departments, the Council is working to launch the UC Connection and the UC Center for the City (both called “UC|Connect” in the earlier UC/21 Technical Report, Appendix X). According to the Council’s proposal (see Appendix Y), The UC Connection will serve as a “physical, virtual, and symbolic ‘front door’” for potential community partners asking the question, “’Where do I start if I want to partner with UC?’” The Center for the City, as part of the UC Connection, will pull together UC’s academic resources for improving urban life and bring them to bear on existing and future forms of civic engagement. Stagaman hopes that the UC Connection and the Center for the City will be launched in 2006.

How UC views its history of civic engagement with Corryville

Today, the University perception is that there has been a lack of civic engagement and partnering with Corryville and the rest of its surrounding community. The "town and gown" article authored by three UC administrators outlines how the University’s lack of partnering with its surrounding community and the University’s substantial growth after World War II helped lead to the deterioration of its surrounding community. In 1895, the University began relocating to its current hilltop campus. From the University’s arrival to 1945, the University and its surrounding communities had few relationships, a separation common at most campuses. During this period, the faculty tended to live within two to three miles of campus and the students lived at home or in the residence hall system. But from 1945 to 1990, the influx of students led to the University undertaking a large amount of physical expansion, consuming much of its surrounding neighborhoods and parks. The expansion led to the University occupying two “super blocks.” During this period the faculty increasingly lengthened its commute to work, the surrounding business districts changed to serve primarily student and employee traffic, and the business of renting out older houses became a growth industry. The increase in renting houses led to a plummeting of owner-occupied housing to today’s level of 12 to 15 percent. The high level of rental property has virtually put a halt on housing investment because landlords don’t want to diminish profits by spending revenues on refurbishing investment properties.

How UC is working to stimulate civic engagement with Corryville

According to the “town and gown” article, in 1990 the University was faced with the need for more expansion, but this time, University planners had become sensitive to the needs of the surrounding communities. To involve community leaders in development planning, UC developed a consortium of six neighborhoods that it called “Uptown” and helped each develop a community development corporation (CDC).

The CDCs were spawned by the success of UC’s partnering with the Corryville Recreation Center (CRC) in 1995 to work on problems each were having. The University needed more space, and the CRC was outdated, undersized, and separated from its neighborhood by a six-lane highway, Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. To solve both problems, the University offered to buy the land from the CRC for the price of constructing a larger and more up-to-date recreation center. The result of the agreement is the new recreation center on Eden Avenue. The success of the partnership became the basis for launching the other CDCs.

Each CDC has a board of five members from three groups: local community leaders, who are chosen by the community council; local business leaders, who are chosen by the local business association; and a UC representative, who never has more than one vote out of five. All meetings of the six Uptown CDCs are open to the public.

According to Scott Enns, Coordinator for Community Development and one of the co-authors of the “town and gown” article, UC is involved in the CDCs in two ways aside from its one vote. UC provides the CDCs with funding and access to resources. As part of the funding, UC has given operational grants to the CDCs to pay for staff and overhead. UC also provides gap financing to projects undertaken by CDCs. Rather than giving direct financial assistance to a project; UC gives low-interest loans to the CDCs to cover the 15 percent to 20 percent of a project’s financing that banks usually won’t provide. The resources that UC makes available include equipment, such as computers to draft development plans, and professional expertise. UC’s university architect, finance director, project managers, and community development coordinator oversee and assist with projects of the CDCs.

Enns explained that there are two Corryville CDCs: the Corryville Community Development Council (CCDC) and the Corryville Economic Development Council (CEDC).

• The CCDC board has three community representatives elected by the Corryville Community Council (CCC), one business representative elected by the University Village Association (UVA), and one UC representative. According to the UC Community Partnership Projects website, the CCDC is currently involved in the development of Stetson Square. Stetson Square will be a village of townhouses and apartments located in Corryville.
• The CEDC has one community representative elected by the CCC, three business representatives elected by the UVA, and one UC representative. According to the UC Community Partnership Projects website, the CEDC is currently involved in the development of Charlton Place and The University Village Urban Renewal Plan. Charlton Place is the development of townhouses on Charlton, and The University Village Urban Renewal Plan is a plan to revitalize the Short Vine neighborhood business district.

Enns explained that much of the housing development by the six CDCs is targeted to people who work and study Uptown. Because these two groups represent several income levels, there is a variety of housing developments being built, including condos, walk-up rowhouses, townhouses, apartments, and private housing for students.

According to Enns, the private housing for students being developed on the western side of campus will also work to achieve another goal, to get families back into the homes Uptown. Many of the houses in the University’s surrounding communities have been “cut up” to accommodate multiple student renters. Moving the students into the private housing developments will release the “cut up” houses. Then these houses can revert back to what the University’s post-WWII expansion nearly extinguished, family homes.

Summary of how the administration views its relationship with Corryville

The University understands that its lack of partnering with its surrounding community contributed to the decline of that community over the past half-century. But with the University’s new vision, UC|21, the University is looking to improve relationships and partnerships. As part of UC|21, the University is making strides to increase civic engagement, especially with its surrounding community.

True, when the University thinks community, the University thinks on a national or even international level. And when the University thinks surrounding community, the University thinks the Uptown area. To the University, Corryville is only one part of the Uptown area. But the University is demonstrating that Corryville is one of the most important parts of the Uptown area by working with two CDCs in Corryville. These CDCs are Corryville’s primary avenue to partnering with the University.

Drawbacks of UC-sponsored development

While the University deserves credit for an updated and larger recreation center and launching CDCs, achievements not common in other town and gown relationships, UC-sponsored development has come with drawbacks. These drawbacks can be seen in the loss of green space and residences in Corryville and the lack of Corryville resident representation in the CDCs. In a “random social capital survey” conducted by the CFRC, residents reported feelings of isolation and hopelessness, and of being “pushed out” (Friars Club, United Way Outcome Report, 2004 Year End). The losses entailed by development and the lack of a strong resident voice in community governance have helped cause these feelings.

What the new recreation center cost Corryville

Margaret Ahlrichs, Director of the Corryville Recreation Center, has been with the CRC for over 28 years. During her time at the CRC, Ahlrichs has enjoyed many partnerships between UC and the recreation center. As director, she played a major role in the planning of Corryville’s new recreation center. She appreciates and is very satisfied with the larger and updated facility, but she realizes that the new recreation center has come with costs to Corryville.

The old recreation center was located on the northwest corner of the Martin Luther King-Eden Avenue intersection. This land was located within the University’s east campus “super block.” The first drawback came as soon as the recreation commission agreed to sell the old recreation center; the sale gave one more piece of Corryville land to UC. The land is currently the location for UC’s Vontz Center for Molecular Studies.

The original plans called for the new recreation center to be located just across the street on the block southwest of the Martin Luther King-Eden Avenue intersection. To meet the plans, the CRC began purchasing the houses on this block. The CRC bought five houses facing Eden Avenue on this block for about $250,000, but there was a sixth property owner holding out. The CRC needed all six properties to have enough land for the new recreation center. Collectively, the six properties were of special interest to the CRC because it would have attached the new recreation center to the CRC’s tot-lot, a small park for young children. Because of the hold out, the CCC voted to place the new recreation center on the southwest corner of the University Avenue-Eden Avenue intersection, its current location. However, this location was home to Corryville’s only ball field. When the CCC voted to place the new recreation center on this corner, it eliminated this ball field. According to Ahlrichs, many residents wo were against losing the ball field voted to replace the ball field with the recreation center because otherwise they would have had to wait several years for a new recreation center.

Once the building began on the new recreation center, the CCDC asked the recreation commission to sell, for $1, the five houses on Eden Avenue that they had purchased. The recreation commission approved the deal. Eventually, the hold-out property owner gave up and sold the sixth house on the block to the CCDC. Then the CCDC came back to the CRC with an offer to purchase the tot-lot for $60,000. The deal was approved because the CRC realized that it needed the money to improve the park behind the new recreation center.

The CRC gained an updated and larger building, but in the end the CRC and Corryville gave up a lot. First, the CRC gave up its original location. Next, it gave up Corryville’s only ball park. Then, the CRC gave up the five houses and the $250,000 it cost to purchase them. Finally, the CRC gave up its tot-lot. Now, the only green space left in Corryville is the new recreation center’s park, which is just large enough for a playground and basketball court.

This example of UC-Corryville development shows that, while there are large gains to be had, it comes with losses. The CRFC is well aware of the residents' feelings of powerlessness in the face of such complex changes occurring in their neighborhood. For this reason, the CRFC established the Corryville Think Tank as a forum to involve residents and give them a way to voice their concerns in a setting that is less formal than the Corryville Community Council meetings, which can be intimidating. As yet, however, only a few residents participate in the Think Tank, and only a few more attend the council meetings. Meanwhile, UC-assisted development continues to change the face of Corryville at a fast rate. Theoretically, residents participate in the dialog with UC and the developers by way of the CDCs, but the real situation falls short of this ideal.

Flaws in the CDCs

The Corryville CDCs may not represent the community as well as university publications lead one to believe because the CDCs give business members of the community an advantage over residents and other non-business stakeholders. Even though the CCDC and CEDC have two categories of community members—those elected by the community council and those elected by the local business association—business members actually have the opportunity to fill all eight community positions on the two councils because they are eligible to be elected by the Corryville Community Council (CCC) as well as by the University Village Association. On the other hand, the Corryville CDCs give residents and other non-business stakeholders the opportunity to fill only four of the eight community board positions because residents and other non-business stakeholders are not eligible to be elected to board member positions by the local business association.