Old West Durham Neighborhood Association






 

 

 

 









    Main Menu

    Column: Community perspective on Central Campus
    Duke Chronicle, 11 April 2005

     

    "How does using tax-free money to fund businesses that compete with the local economy, serve the mission of education?" -Tom Clark, Duke University, Class of 1973

    I am a Duke grad, fan, neighbor and 35-year resident of Durham. And I guess Andrew Collins (Chronicle, 4/05,) would say I am a "longhair" as well. (Except as noted, all quotes below are from that 4/05 column.)

    Actually, he and I agree on a lot: I too am proud of many things about Duke, all that he listed and a few more. And it looks like we agree on History's fundamental mechanism for social change: He says " longhairs" like me should stay around to keep folks like him awake. I'd say various "longhairs" -- Moses, Jesus, ML King, to name just the obvious examples -- agitate for what's right, and sometime later -- years, sometimes centuries, sometimes millennia -- after many more or less bloody battles, the powers that be finally come up with appropriate operational rulesets. But who's to quibble about the words?

    However, for the current subject of "town/gown" economic relations, the issue is not some game of "who do you trust" based on who you think is generally the more admirable player, as Mr. Collins suggests. The real issue is paying your fair share. The fact is that Duke has discovered a goose laying golden-eggs: Because of society's regard for education as embodied in the policy of tax-exemptions for educational institutions, Duke raises millions, even billions of dollars on which they pay no taxes.

    They then insist on retaining the right to use every last one of those dollars as potential investment capital to make even more money, supposedly in support of the educational mission. No one is arguing that Duke doesn't carry out its educational mission at least reasonably well, or that the pride some of us have for the Duke name is not well earned. But how does using tax-free money to fund businesses that compete with the local economy, serve the mission of education? The only answer to that is some belief that Duke students are better educated by having as little to do with Durham as possible.

    For two years or more, the Duke-Durham Partnership neighborhoods have worked hard with Duke to support re-zonings for various Duke projects. For the Central Campus renovation in particular, we worked with Duke officials on a specific list of projects acceptable to all as compatible with an educational mission: Restaurants, a performing arts center, a 99-room hotel, a bowling alley, an on-campus book store with coffee shop, and others. The partnership neighborhoods voted explicitly to support these uses. Duke then requested that we further approve re-zoning for other looming construction projects. And we did it.

    These are not the behaviors of "intransigent anti-Duke zealots." True, some of us keep insisting that Duke treat the community in which it lives as a true partner. This insistence doesn't make us moral leaders along the lines of the "longhairs" mentioned above. It makes us citizens trying to deal with the reality of having what amounts to a Fortune 500 company in its neighborhood that pays no taxes. And not only pays no taxes, but demands nearly absolute control over how, when, and even if it contributes to the burgeoning needs of the local community.

    In fact, though clearly related, the Central Campus re-zoning issue doesn't even get to the notion of " fair share." It is beyond the scope of this article to give that concept it's full due.

    Suffice to say that at Yale, a formal "Fair Share" movement has determined that for the cost of about two days worth of interest on their endowment per year, that university could pay New Haven what it would owe in taxes if it were a "real" business (see http://www.yaleuoc.com/fairshare.html). Whatever the analogous figure for Duke is, they could come to the table with City of Durham as a partner, instead of a dictator if they would use a small portion of their riches, gotten with tax-advantaged privileges, to take some true leadership on this question.

    For here and now, the issue comes down to Duke declaring they won't seek a "general commercial" zoning, for the Central Campus project. Instead, they could accept what the Partnership Neighborhoods agree is the appropriate "University-College" designation. This small step is all Duke would have to do to ease these current tensions, and continue down the sentimental path that they have Mr. Collins on. I believe they resist taking that step as a show of political force. Win or lose on this particular zoning issue, they make the point with everyone that when it comes to dealing with the local community, they are only bound by their "fiduciary responsibility," as John Burness puts it, a 'responsibility' that turns all Duke assets into potential investment capital for further profiteering.

    I'm not here to deny Duke's record of useful community involvement. But Duke doesn't have to be "actually antagonistic" toward Durham to have an unnecessarily negative impact. Refusing to contribute taxes and, at the same time, as a matter of policy -- never mind "responsibility" -- always placing Durham's concerns second to its own economic bottom line is a recipe for such impact. Such policies have the effect of Duke viewing itself as wholly separate from Durham, dictating to it, as opposed to being an integral part of it, and truly leading.

    Tom Clark, Trinity '73, is a long-time community activist. More on the perspective of the neighborhoods can be found at http://www.owdna.org/duke.htm.


    Back to top