04-30-2021, 12:44 PM
Isn't that the same link from two posts ago?
Big news? On the forgotten 11
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
04-30-2021, 01:00 PM
When I first saw the spray chalk on the sandstone walls, I didn't think it would come off simply with water and a light detergent. That sandstone brick has texture to it and is porous.
The manufacturers of spray chalk advertise it easily washes off concrete sidewalks. The walls are a different material.
The manufacturers of spray chalk advertise it easily washes off concrete sidewalks. The walls are a different material.
When I first saw the spray chalk on the sandstone walls, I didn't think it would come off simply with water and a light detergent. That sandstone brick has texture to it and is porous.
The manufacturers of spray chalk advertise it easily washes off concrete sidewalks. The walls are a different material.
The manufacturers of spray chalk advertise it easily washes off concrete sidewalks. The walls are a different material.
(04-30-2021, 12:38 PM)winflop Wrote: For those of you who thought this stupid act of vandalism was no big deal and that just washing it off was all that was needed...
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2021/04/29...-main-quad
Still think there shouldn't be consequences for those who did it?
From the article:
"According to Stanford, more than 80 hours of labor from maintenance workers will be needed to complete restoration efforts, and workers have already completed half of those hours.
“The burden of their decision to spray chalk the buildings is falling on workers...”
The burden of the cleanup falls on blue collar workers, not the students. Sounds consistent with society these days.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(04-30-2021, 12:38 PM)winflop Wrote: For those of you who thought this stupid act of vandalism was no big deal and that just washing it off was all that was needed...
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2021/04/29...-main-quad
Still think there shouldn't be consequences for those who did it?
From the article:
"According to Stanford, more than 80 hours of labor from maintenance workers will be needed to complete restoration efforts, and workers have already completed half of those hours.
“The burden of their decision to spray chalk the buildings is falling on workers...”
The burden of the cleanup falls on blue collar workers, not the students. Sounds consistent with society these days.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
04-30-2021, 01:30 PM
I'm sure the students thought it would just wash off. I would consider that in deciding how severe the consequences should be.
As a separate consideration, even if it would have just washed off, IMO it was a poorly considered protest, more likely to anger people at first sight than to be persuasive.
As a separate consideration, even if it would have just washed off, IMO it was a poorly considered protest, more likely to anger people at first sight than to be persuasive.
I'm sure the students thought it would just wash off. I would consider that in deciding how severe the consequences should be.
As a separate consideration, even if it would have just washed off, IMO it was a poorly considered protest, more likely to anger people at first sight than to be persuasive.
As a separate consideration, even if it would have just washed off, IMO it was a poorly considered protest, more likely to anger people at first sight than to be persuasive.
04-30-2021, 01:36 PM
Are we likely to hear news today of any decision made? Perhaps sad news in a classic Friday news dump?
04-30-2021, 03:07 PM
(04-30-2021, 01:36 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Are we likely to hear news today of any decision made? Perhaps sad news in a classic Friday news dump?
The Forgotten 11 Issue feels forgotten. Does anyone have any info on when or even if the Board of Trustees is going to make any statement?
The fact that it's taking so long makes me wonder if there are follow-up action items from the meeting.
FWIW, I tilted somewhat toward the PRO camp in the beginning. At that time, it felt like the world was changing so much and that universities would have to pivot to new post-Covid realities. I also think the university was reacting to the Varsity Blues scandal, as well as the evolving role a university can play.
My biggest disagreement was over wrestling, but I gave the benefit of the doubt that there was some weird Title IX balancing issue that forced it.
But I was a bit puzzled by the BOT's decision to re-examine the issue. In the scope of a university, this decision feels like a relatively small issue to create such a buzz over. I can't recall a time when the Board of Trustees overruled Stanford's president, and it feels even weirder to step in to overrule the AD. A reversal is a vote of no confidence. As passionately as I know people feel about these 11 sports, why is the BOT micromanaging this issue? The BOT should hire the right people. Then ask the right questions while interviewing to make sure the values and vision are aligned. For an issue like this, either fire the AD or let him manage. What next -- will the BOT be examining whom Coach Shaw hired to replace the OL coach? Should the BOT re-examine whether space at Tresidder is allocated to an Ike's Sandwiches or a Taco Bell?
There was only one cultural issue that I thought was so fundamental that it could potentially require the involvement of the BOT and that was over the Stanford Band. And in that case, the actions against the band didn't get very far -- the alumni response was so overwhelming, so many elements were reversed during appeal.
But the Stanford Band is a deep issue that alums are passionate about. As much as I love wrestling and respect my friends who participated in these 11 sports, I don't think this issue merited a Board of Trustees re-examination, regardless of what they decide.
(04-30-2021, 01:36 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Are we likely to hear news today of any decision made? Perhaps sad news in a classic Friday news dump?
The Forgotten 11 Issue feels forgotten. Does anyone have any info on when or even if the Board of Trustees is going to make any statement?
The fact that it's taking so long makes me wonder if there are follow-up action items from the meeting.
FWIW, I tilted somewhat toward the PRO camp in the beginning. At that time, it felt like the world was changing so much and that universities would have to pivot to new post-Covid realities. I also think the university was reacting to the Varsity Blues scandal, as well as the evolving role a university can play.
My biggest disagreement was over wrestling, but I gave the benefit of the doubt that there was some weird Title IX balancing issue that forced it.
But I was a bit puzzled by the BOT's decision to re-examine the issue. In the scope of a university, this decision feels like a relatively small issue to create such a buzz over. I can't recall a time when the Board of Trustees overruled Stanford's president, and it feels even weirder to step in to overrule the AD. A reversal is a vote of no confidence. As passionately as I know people feel about these 11 sports, why is the BOT micromanaging this issue? The BOT should hire the right people. Then ask the right questions while interviewing to make sure the values and vision are aligned. For an issue like this, either fire the AD or let him manage. What next -- will the BOT be examining whom Coach Shaw hired to replace the OL coach? Should the BOT re-examine whether space at Tresidder is allocated to an Ike's Sandwiches or a Taco Bell?
There was only one cultural issue that I thought was so fundamental that it could potentially require the involvement of the BOT and that was over the Stanford Band. And in that case, the actions against the band didn't get very far -- the alumni response was so overwhelming, so many elements were reversed during appeal.
But the Stanford Band is a deep issue that alums are passionate about. As much as I love wrestling and respect my friends who participated in these 11 sports, I don't think this issue merited a Board of Trustees re-examination, regardless of what they decide.
04-30-2021, 03:18 PM
At this point, even if they bring back the sports, both wrestling and field hockey are going to struggle for the next few years. FH's stellar recruiting class only had 1 enroll this academic year and they're losing a talented senior class. There's going to be no additional recruited frosh coming this fall as the decision to bring back the sports will probably come after the decision date. No way they can be competitive with essentially 2 out of 4 recruiting classes. I imagine wrestling is similar.
At this point, even if they bring back the sports, both wrestling and field hockey are going to struggle for the next few years. FH's stellar recruiting class only had 1 enroll this academic year and they're losing a talented senior class. There's going to be no additional recruited frosh coming this fall as the decision to bring back the sports will probably come after the decision date. No way they can be competitive with essentially 2 out of 4 recruiting classes. I imagine wrestling is similar.
(04-30-2021, 03:07 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:I think MTL was part of the driver for re-evaluation as I don't think this is the Board going against MTL.(04-30-2021, 01:36 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Are we likely to hear news today of any decision made? Perhaps sad news in a classic Friday news dump?
The Forgotten 11 Issue feels forgotten. Does anyone have any info on when or even if the Board of Trustees is going to make any statement?
But I was a bit puzzled by the BOT's decision to re-examine the issue.
The reason why MTL and the BOT are re-evaluating it is two-fold
1) The uproar was surprising and bigger than expected. Lots of bad press. Thousands of disgruntled alumni have signed a petition. Hundreds of donors vowing to cut out Stanford including some big donors.
2) The facts have changed. This was sold to BOT as financially necessary. The 36 strong group led by Adam Keefe and others put forth a compelling argument that this was not financially necessary. Plus, the endowment is way up.
I don't know what is going to happen and what the timeframe is but I heard it may be a couple of weeks for a final decision which is not a good sign for the 36 strong effort. The longer the delay, the harder it becomes to salvage these sports. All 11 sports lost one recruiting year when all offers to the Class of '21 were rescinded, and they are about to lose another one.
MTL and BOT are in a tough spot. They look bad with whatever decision they make. I expect litigation will result if it isn't overturned. It could get uglier.
(This post was last modified: 04-30-2021, 03:19 PM by donkey687.)
(04-30-2021, 03:07 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:I think MTL was part of the driver for re-evaluation as I don't think this is the Board going against MTL.(04-30-2021, 01:36 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Are we likely to hear news today of any decision made? Perhaps sad news in a classic Friday news dump?
The Forgotten 11 Issue feels forgotten. Does anyone have any info on when or even if the Board of Trustees is going to make any statement?
But I was a bit puzzled by the BOT's decision to re-examine the issue.
The reason why MTL and the BOT are re-evaluating it is two-fold
1) The uproar was surprising and bigger than expected. Lots of bad press. Thousands of disgruntled alumni have signed a petition. Hundreds of donors vowing to cut out Stanford including some big donors.
2) The facts have changed. This was sold to BOT as financially necessary. The 36 strong group led by Adam Keefe and others put forth a compelling argument that this was not financially necessary. Plus, the endowment is way up.
I don't know what is going to happen and what the timeframe is but I heard it may be a couple of weeks for a final decision which is not a good sign for the 36 strong effort. The longer the delay, the harder it becomes to salvage these sports. All 11 sports lost one recruiting year when all offers to the Class of '21 were rescinded, and they are about to lose another one.
MTL and BOT are in a tough spot. They look bad with whatever decision they make. I expect litigation will result if it isn't overturned. It could get uglier.
05-12-2021, 03:40 PM
(04-30-2021, 03:19 PM)donkey687 Wrote:As I expected, this is getting uglier with two lawsuits filed today. Students suing Stanford for Fraud and Title IX violations. This is all a shame that Stanford made these decisions where these students felt they had to resort to legal action.(04-30-2021, 03:07 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:I think MTL was part of the driver for re-evaluation as I don't think this is the Board going against MTL.(04-30-2021, 01:36 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Are we likely to hear news today of any decision made? Perhaps sad news in a classic Friday news dump?
The Forgotten 11 Issue feels forgotten. Does anyone have any info on when or even if the Board of Trustees is going to make any statement?
But I was a bit puzzled by the BOT's decision to re-examine the issue.
The reason why MTL and the BOT are re-evaluating it is two-fold
1) The uproar was surprising and bigger than expected. Lots of bad press. Thousands of disgruntled alumni have signed a petition. Hundreds of donors vowing to cut out Stanford including some big donors.
2) The facts have changed. This was sold to BOT as financially necessary. The 36 strong group led by Adam Keefe and others put forth a compelling argument that this was not financially necessary. Plus, the endowment is way up.
I don't know what is going to happen and what the timeframe is but I heard it may be a couple of weeks for a final decision which is not a good sign for the 36 strong effort. The longer the delay, the harder it becomes to salvage these sports. All 11 sports lost one recruiting year when all offers to the Class of '21 were rescinded, and they are about to lose another one.
MTL and BOT are in a tough spot. They look bad with whatever decision they make. I expect litigation will result if it isn't overturned. It could get uglier.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/articl...169879.php
(04-30-2021, 03:19 PM)donkey687 Wrote:As I expected, this is getting uglier with two lawsuits filed today. Students suing Stanford for Fraud and Title IX violations. This is all a shame that Stanford made these decisions where these students felt they had to resort to legal action.(04-30-2021, 03:07 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:I think MTL was part of the driver for re-evaluation as I don't think this is the Board going against MTL.(04-30-2021, 01:36 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Are we likely to hear news today of any decision made? Perhaps sad news in a classic Friday news dump?
The Forgotten 11 Issue feels forgotten. Does anyone have any info on when or even if the Board of Trustees is going to make any statement?
But I was a bit puzzled by the BOT's decision to re-examine the issue.
The reason why MTL and the BOT are re-evaluating it is two-fold
1) The uproar was surprising and bigger than expected. Lots of bad press. Thousands of disgruntled alumni have signed a petition. Hundreds of donors vowing to cut out Stanford including some big donors.
2) The facts have changed. This was sold to BOT as financially necessary. The 36 strong group led by Adam Keefe and others put forth a compelling argument that this was not financially necessary. Plus, the endowment is way up.
I don't know what is going to happen and what the timeframe is but I heard it may be a couple of weeks for a final decision which is not a good sign for the 36 strong effort. The longer the delay, the harder it becomes to salvage these sports. All 11 sports lost one recruiting year when all offers to the Class of '21 were rescinded, and they are about to lose another one.
MTL and BOT are in a tough spot. They look bad with whatever decision they make. I expect litigation will result if it isn't overturned. It could get uglier.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/articl...169879.php
05-12-2021, 06:48 PM
I don't understand the delay unless the decision is to bring back only some sports, and they have to figure out how to sell that. Easy way out is to roll it all back and apologize; I think everyone would have been rattled but okay. They could just stand their ground and outright declare no-go. Dragging out the decision is either banking on our short attention spans (moderately insulting) or the admin trying to cobble together some complicated compromise.
I don't understand the delay unless the decision is to bring back only some sports, and they have to figure out how to sell that. Easy way out is to roll it all back and apologize; I think everyone would have been rattled but okay. They could just stand their ground and outright declare no-go. Dragging out the decision is either banking on our short attention spans (moderately insulting) or the admin trying to cobble together some complicated compromise.
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
05-12-2021, 06:56 PM
This might be comparing apples to oranges. Three years ago WVB player Hayley Hodson sued Stanford claiming a concussion from being hit in the head with a ball. I thought Stanford would quickly settle to avoid negative PR. Well it's three years into the civil case. Every article I read says Stanford continues to play hardball and will likely appeal if any of Hodson's claims prevail. The point being Stanford doesn't seem to be afraid of negative publicity.
I don't know enough about the women's sex discrimination suit to comment intelligently. I thought more male athletes lost out than female athletes. If that is true my uneducated thinking doesn't follow the discrimination against women.
I don't know enough about the women's sex discrimination suit to comment intelligently. I thought more male athletes lost out than female athletes. If that is true my uneducated thinking doesn't follow the discrimination against women.
This might be comparing apples to oranges. Three years ago WVB player Hayley Hodson sued Stanford claiming a concussion from being hit in the head with a ball. I thought Stanford would quickly settle to avoid negative PR. Well it's three years into the civil case. Every article I read says Stanford continues to play hardball and will likely appeal if any of Hodson's claims prevail. The point being Stanford doesn't seem to be afraid of negative publicity.
I don't know enough about the women's sex discrimination suit to comment intelligently. I thought more male athletes lost out than female athletes. If that is true my uneducated thinking doesn't follow the discrimination against women.
I don't know enough about the women's sex discrimination suit to comment intelligently. I thought more male athletes lost out than female athletes. If that is true my uneducated thinking doesn't follow the discrimination against women.
05-12-2021, 07:28 PM
I think Stanford has bungled this issue from the get-go, but I don't support the lawsuits. I get why they filed them but I just don't think anyone has a "right" to play collegiate sports. If that was the reason they came to Stanford, then I wish them luck and success at whatever school they transfer to. Sorry not sorry
I think Stanford has bungled this issue from the get-go, but I don't support the lawsuits. I get why they filed them but I just don't think anyone has a "right" to play collegiate sports. If that was the reason they came to Stanford, then I wish them luck and success at whatever school they transfer to. Sorry not sorry
05-12-2021, 07:31 PM
(05-12-2021, 06:56 PM)paloalto Wrote: This might be comparing apples to oranges. Three years ago WVB player Hayley Hodson sued Stanford claiming a concussion from being hit in the head with a ball. I thought Stanford would quickly settle to avoid negative PR. Well it's three years into the civil case. Every article I read says Stanford continues to play hardball and will likely appeal if any of Hodson's claims prevail. The point being Stanford doesn't seem to be afraid of negative publicity.
I don't know enough about the women's sex discrimination suit to comment intelligently. I thought more male athletes lost out than female athletes. If that is true my uneducated thinking doesn't follow the discrimination against women.
She might be admitted to the California bar by the time the case goes to trial...
(05-12-2021, 06:56 PM)paloalto Wrote: This might be comparing apples to oranges. Three years ago WVB player Hayley Hodson sued Stanford claiming a concussion from being hit in the head with a ball. I thought Stanford would quickly settle to avoid negative PR. Well it's three years into the civil case. Every article I read says Stanford continues to play hardball and will likely appeal if any of Hodson's claims prevail. The point being Stanford doesn't seem to be afraid of negative publicity.
I don't know enough about the women's sex discrimination suit to comment intelligently. I thought more male athletes lost out than female athletes. If that is true my uneducated thinking doesn't follow the discrimination against women.
She might be admitted to the California bar by the time the case goes to trial...
05-12-2021, 07:56 PM
(05-12-2021, 07:28 PM)winflop Wrote: If that was the reason they came to Stanford, then I wish them luck and success at whatever school they transfer to. Sorry not sorry
I don't understand what you are saying. Of the 700 varsity athletes that attend Stanford, just about all 700 of them came because Stanford offers their sport. Almost none of them would have come if they couldn't pursue their sport at Stanford. They are all nationally if not globally elite athletes that have likely dedicated most of their lives to perfecting their sport. Many of them have Olympic dreams post Stanford. They turned down other scholarships and and elite academic offers in many cases. Simply wishing them luck on the transfer portal isn't very friendly. Their lives and dreams got turned upside down by Stanford. You can support Bernard and chalk it up to a tough decision being made in the best long term interest of Stanford, but even if you hold that position which is perfectly reasonable, I think you would have some empathy for these 200+ athletes whose world got turned upside down. They got royally screwed. Many of them before they even got on campus. If you look at the plaintiffs, they are current freshman who were told just a few months after they committed to Stanford and turned away other opportunities that their sport was being cut.
(05-12-2021, 07:28 PM)winflop Wrote: If that was the reason they came to Stanford, then I wish them luck and success at whatever school they transfer to. Sorry not sorry
I don't understand what you are saying. Of the 700 varsity athletes that attend Stanford, just about all 700 of them came because Stanford offers their sport. Almost none of them would have come if they couldn't pursue their sport at Stanford. They are all nationally if not globally elite athletes that have likely dedicated most of their lives to perfecting their sport. Many of them have Olympic dreams post Stanford. They turned down other scholarships and and elite academic offers in many cases. Simply wishing them luck on the transfer portal isn't very friendly. Their lives and dreams got turned upside down by Stanford. You can support Bernard and chalk it up to a tough decision being made in the best long term interest of Stanford, but even if you hold that position which is perfectly reasonable, I think you would have some empathy for these 200+ athletes whose world got turned upside down. They got royally screwed. Many of them before they even got on campus. If you look at the plaintiffs, they are current freshman who were told just a few months after they committed to Stanford and turned away other opportunities that their sport was being cut.
05-12-2021, 08:52 PM
I’m saying they shouldn’t behave like entitled brats. Saying they have a “right” to this is complete crap
I don’t support what the university is doing, but this argument is going nowhere fast
I don’t support what the university is doing, but this argument is going nowhere fast
05-12-2021, 09:20 PM
I'm with winflop here, in the sense that players go to schools for all sorts of reasons that don't pan out. Maybe the coach they committed to gets fired or leaves for a better job elsewhere. Maybe they get told there will be early playing time, but they have been passed over by a younger player. Maybe their sport gets cut. I'm pretty sure that Stanford is honoring any scholarship offers for four years, regardless of whether the players play or not, and, of course, the players are free to transfer.
I'm not at all surprised that there is a lawsuit, but I'm having trouble seeing the merits of the case. Of course, something may emerge during discovery, and I could imagine is if upon discovery it emerged that the coaches recruiting players knew that the sport was going to be cancelled, and misrepresented the status of the sport when recruiting the player. But I highly doubt the coaches were told in advance.
All that being said, if they can show that Stanford defrauded them and get a settlement or a judgment, more power to them.
BC
I'm not at all surprised that there is a lawsuit, but I'm having trouble seeing the merits of the case. Of course, something may emerge during discovery, and I could imagine is if upon discovery it emerged that the coaches recruiting players knew that the sport was going to be cancelled, and misrepresented the status of the sport when recruiting the player. But I highly doubt the coaches were told in advance.
All that being said, if they can show that Stanford defrauded them and get a settlement or a judgment, more power to them.
BC
I'm with winflop here, in the sense that players go to schools for all sorts of reasons that don't pan out. Maybe the coach they committed to gets fired or leaves for a better job elsewhere. Maybe they get told there will be early playing time, but they have been passed over by a younger player. Maybe their sport gets cut. I'm pretty sure that Stanford is honoring any scholarship offers for four years, regardless of whether the players play or not, and, of course, the players are free to transfer.
I'm not at all surprised that there is a lawsuit, but I'm having trouble seeing the merits of the case. Of course, something may emerge during discovery, and I could imagine is if upon discovery it emerged that the coaches recruiting players knew that the sport was going to be cancelled, and misrepresented the status of the sport when recruiting the player. But I highly doubt the coaches were told in advance.
All that being said, if they can show that Stanford defrauded them and get a settlement or a judgment, more power to them.
BC
I'm not at all surprised that there is a lawsuit, but I'm having trouble seeing the merits of the case. Of course, something may emerge during discovery, and I could imagine is if upon discovery it emerged that the coaches recruiting players knew that the sport was going to be cancelled, and misrepresented the status of the sport when recruiting the player. But I highly doubt the coaches were told in advance.
All that being said, if they can show that Stanford defrauded them and get a settlement or a judgment, more power to them.
BC
05-12-2021, 10:35 PM
(05-12-2021, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I'm with winflop here, in the sense that players go to schools for all sorts of reasons that don't pan out. Maybe the coach they committed to gets fired or leaves for a better job elsewhere. Maybe they get told there will be early playing time, but they have been passed over by a younger player. Maybe their sport gets cut. I'm pretty sure that Stanford is honoring any scholarship offers for four years, regardless of whether the players play or not, and, of course, the players are free to transfer.
I'm not at all surprised that there is a lawsuit, but I'm having trouble seeing the merits of the case. Of course, something may emerge during discovery, and I could imagine is if upon discovery it emerged that the coaches recruiting players knew that the sport was going to be cancelled, and misrepresented the status of the sport when recruiting the player. But I highly doubt the coaches were told in advance.
All that being said, if they can show that Stanford defrauded them and get a settlement or a judgment, more power to them.
BC
I can't believe you are equating a player being upset over a coach change or lack of playing time with Stanford dropping their sport. I think it is more akin to turning down Harvard Business School in favor of Stanford Business School and getting there and Stanford telling you that they are no longer offering a MBA.
(05-12-2021, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I'm with winflop here, in the sense that players go to schools for all sorts of reasons that don't pan out. Maybe the coach they committed to gets fired or leaves for a better job elsewhere. Maybe they get told there will be early playing time, but they have been passed over by a younger player. Maybe their sport gets cut. I'm pretty sure that Stanford is honoring any scholarship offers for four years, regardless of whether the players play or not, and, of course, the players are free to transfer.
I'm not at all surprised that there is a lawsuit, but I'm having trouble seeing the merits of the case. Of course, something may emerge during discovery, and I could imagine is if upon discovery it emerged that the coaches recruiting players knew that the sport was going to be cancelled, and misrepresented the status of the sport when recruiting the player. But I highly doubt the coaches were told in advance.
All that being said, if they can show that Stanford defrauded them and get a settlement or a judgment, more power to them.
BC
I can't believe you are equating a player being upset over a coach change or lack of playing time with Stanford dropping their sport. I think it is more akin to turning down Harvard Business School in favor of Stanford Business School and getting there and Stanford telling you that they are no longer offering a MBA.
05-13-2021, 12:01 AM
MTL was interviewed by the Commonwealth Club today. When asked about the status of the cut sports, he responded that supporters of those sports had proposed a new financial model which is being evaluated. He expected to have some news within a few weeks.
On other questions regarding admissions, he mentioned several times that Stanford would like to expand its enrollment, but that certain factors would have to fall in place first. He did not specifically mention the hammering their proposed GUP for the coming 15 years took from the county and the city of Palo Alto, causing them to withdraw their application rather than negotiate further. Right now, Stanford is extremely limited in the amount of new building that could take place on campus under the expiring GUP.
Meanwhile, Palo Alto is ramping up its efforts to pressure Stanford to convert part of Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center to housing. The regional and state housing authorities have allocated the production of 6K+ housing units to Palo Alto, and the controlling residentialist lobby on the city council does not want additional development in single-family areas of Palo Alto.
On other questions regarding admissions, he mentioned several times that Stanford would like to expand its enrollment, but that certain factors would have to fall in place first. He did not specifically mention the hammering their proposed GUP for the coming 15 years took from the county and the city of Palo Alto, causing them to withdraw their application rather than negotiate further. Right now, Stanford is extremely limited in the amount of new building that could take place on campus under the expiring GUP.
Meanwhile, Palo Alto is ramping up its efforts to pressure Stanford to convert part of Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center to housing. The regional and state housing authorities have allocated the production of 6K+ housing units to Palo Alto, and the controlling residentialist lobby on the city council does not want additional development in single-family areas of Palo Alto.
MTL was interviewed by the Commonwealth Club today. When asked about the status of the cut sports, he responded that supporters of those sports had proposed a new financial model which is being evaluated. He expected to have some news within a few weeks.
On other questions regarding admissions, he mentioned several times that Stanford would like to expand its enrollment, but that certain factors would have to fall in place first. He did not specifically mention the hammering their proposed GUP for the coming 15 years took from the county and the city of Palo Alto, causing them to withdraw their application rather than negotiate further. Right now, Stanford is extremely limited in the amount of new building that could take place on campus under the expiring GUP.
Meanwhile, Palo Alto is ramping up its efforts to pressure Stanford to convert part of Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center to housing. The regional and state housing authorities have allocated the production of 6K+ housing units to Palo Alto, and the controlling residentialist lobby on the city council does not want additional development in single-family areas of Palo Alto.
On other questions regarding admissions, he mentioned several times that Stanford would like to expand its enrollment, but that certain factors would have to fall in place first. He did not specifically mention the hammering their proposed GUP for the coming 15 years took from the county and the city of Palo Alto, causing them to withdraw their application rather than negotiate further. Right now, Stanford is extremely limited in the amount of new building that could take place on campus under the expiring GUP.
Meanwhile, Palo Alto is ramping up its efforts to pressure Stanford to convert part of Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center to housing. The regional and state housing authorities have allocated the production of 6K+ housing units to Palo Alto, and the controlling residentialist lobby on the city council does not want additional development in single-family areas of Palo Alto.
05-13-2021, 05:49 AM
(05-13-2021, 12:01 AM)chrisk Wrote: On other questions regarding admissions, he mentioned several times that Stanford would like to expand its enrollment, but that certain factors would have to fall in place first. He did not specifically mention the hammering their proposed GUP for the coming 15 years took from the county and the city of Palo Alto, causing them to withdraw their application rather than negotiate further. Right now, Stanford is extremely limited in the amount of new building that could take place on campus under the expiring GUP.
Perhaps Stanford could add another campus in another area, one that would be just as good as Palo Alto and carry as much cachet. Like Merced or Riverside.
(05-13-2021, 12:01 AM)chrisk Wrote:
Meanwhile, Palo Alto is ramping up its efforts to pressure Stanford to convert part of Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center to housing. The regional and state housing authorities have allocated the production of 6K+ housing units to Palo Alto, and the controlling residentialist lobby on the city council does not want additional development in single-family areas of Palo Alto.
Wouldn't Palo Alto want to follow San Jose's trend and expand currently zoned single family homes to duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and ADUs?
https://sanjosespotlight.com/opportunity...me-zoning/
It's bad enough that we have to deal with monster homes. Let me outta here...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(05-13-2021, 12:01 AM)chrisk Wrote: On other questions regarding admissions, he mentioned several times that Stanford would like to expand its enrollment, but that certain factors would have to fall in place first. He did not specifically mention the hammering their proposed GUP for the coming 15 years took from the county and the city of Palo Alto, causing them to withdraw their application rather than negotiate further. Right now, Stanford is extremely limited in the amount of new building that could take place on campus under the expiring GUP.
Perhaps Stanford could add another campus in another area, one that would be just as good as Palo Alto and carry as much cachet. Like Merced or Riverside.
(05-13-2021, 12:01 AM)chrisk Wrote:
Meanwhile, Palo Alto is ramping up its efforts to pressure Stanford to convert part of Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center to housing. The regional and state housing authorities have allocated the production of 6K+ housing units to Palo Alto, and the controlling residentialist lobby on the city council does not want additional development in single-family areas of Palo Alto.
Wouldn't Palo Alto want to follow San Jose's trend and expand currently zoned single family homes to duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and ADUs?
https://sanjosespotlight.com/opportunity...me-zoning/
It's bad enough that we have to deal with monster homes. Let me outta here...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
05-13-2021, 07:07 AM
(05-13-2021, 05:49 AM)Mick Wrote: Perhaps Stanford could add another campus in another area, one that would be just as good as Palo Alto and carry as much cachet. Like Merced or Riverside.They have considered opening a second campus in the Big Apple:
nyc-campus
(05-13-2021, 05:49 AM)Mick Wrote: Perhaps Stanford could add another campus in another area, one that would be just as good as Palo Alto and carry as much cachet. Like Merced or Riverside.They have considered opening a second campus in the Big Apple:
nyc-campus
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »