Editorials

UC Berkeley’s latest long range development plan has been much criticized, and rightly so, by Berkeley’s civic responsibles. City officials have prepared a cogent criticism of the university’s plans, both disclosed and undisclosed, which is about to be taken up this week by UC’s Board of Regents. If past performance is any indication of future behavior, the Regents are unlikely to give the city much consideration. In the past, they have arrogantly asserted their right under the state constitution to do as they please, and there’s no reason to think they’ll change now. Chains are being rattled, lawsuits are being threatened, and it might all make some difference, but since the city has a history of backing down in confrontations with the mighty U, the Regents are probably not very worried. 

Lost in the discussion of UC’s upcoming building boom is a major enterprise which is barely mentioned in the Long Range Development Plan Environmental Impact Report. Late in 2003 Mayor Bates announced with pride that UC was planning a hotel-conference center for downtown Berkeley. After some preliminary skirmishes over turf, the city’s Planning Commission, with the City Council’s blessing, convened a task force to study the proposal. One of its conclusions: “The proposed new hotel and conference center and the relocation of the UC museums could give a significant boost to the downtown economy and add nearly $1 million per year to direct city revenues….Local businesses would benefit from these additional visitors.” 

The Brookings Institution issued a report this week which addresses such conclusions, Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy. Based on its findings, it is clear that before the City of Berkeley gives its blessing to any convention center project the real economic costs and benefits of such projects should be carefully re-examined.  

The author, Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio, notes that “to cities, the lure of the convention business has long been the prospect of visitors emptying their wallets on meals, lodging, and entertainment, helping to rejuvenate ailing downtowns.” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  

But the conclusion of Sanders’ study is not so rosy. He finds that “the overall convention marketplace is declining in a manner that suggests that a recovery or turnaround is unlikely to yield much increased business for any given community, contrary to repeated industry projections. Moreover this decline began prior to the disruptions of 9-11 and is exacerbated by advances in communications technology. Currently, overall attendance at the 200 largest tradeshow events languishes at 1993 levels.” He warns that “this analysis should give local leaders pause as they consider calls for ever more public investment into the convention business.” 

Berkeley’s Task Force authors showed some awareness of potential problems with the project in their report, saying that “new development can create additional costs for the city” and “University acquisition of additional property in the area would decrease city revenues if UC does not pay the equivalent of property and related taxes, assessments, and fees.” They warned that “the City Council should closely consider the impacts and costs of these projects, as well as potential associated revenue sources, in order to maximize their net economic benefits.” 

The city’s demands for a full environmental impact report should not be limited to the impact of the university projects currently included in the LRDP. The LRDP should be expanded to reflect the full cumulative impact of all university-generated development which is planned for the greater Berkeley area, including the convention center project.  

Carpenter and Company, UC’s chosen hotel developer, is due to submit a proposal in March. The City of Berkeley in the meantime needs to do its own up-to-date economic analysis of the real costs and benefits of a project like this, using the findings of the Brookings Institution study. As funding for local government continues to shrink, Berkeley can’t afford to base its future on the pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by promised by the university.  

—Becky O’Malley