Stanford Politics

I

t’s a Saturday at Terman Fountain, and the brothers of Delta Tau Delta are pregaming the Stanford football game. Red Solo cups litter the ground around the fountain, and loud music plays from a speaker.

A conspicuously quieter group sits on the edge of the fountain, eating Trader Joe’s cheese puffs and chatting about whether to go to law school or a public policy graduate school. These are the members of the Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035 (SCoPE 2035), celebrating a win—two ordinances passed by Santa Clara County which require Stanford to pay up to $182.8 million toward affordable housing over the next 17 years.

SCoPE 2035 is an unusual student group. For the last two years, they have committed hundreds of hours to reading lengthy county environmental reports, carpooling to public comment meetings in San Jose and attending weeknight town hall meetings in Palo Alto. Amulya Yerrapotu ‘20, a “point person” for SCoPE’s advocacy subgroup, describes spending the second day of classes this academic year at a Santa Clara county public meeting in order to witness the approval of county ordinances requiring Stanford to pay a greater development fee. “We were at the boardroom for literally six hours,” she says, grinning.

SCoPE’s voice is being heard—according to Joe Simitian MA ‘00, President of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the coalition’s public comments are “some of the best testimony [he has]ever heard.” Simitian has served  in state and local government for more than 20 years, including time spent as a state assemblymember and state senator, and says SCoPE’s “analysis is rigorous, and when they communicate, they communicate clearly and with impact.” Simitian has noticed that other members of the Board of Supervisors lean in when SCoPE members speak and often mention how impressed they are by the students.

At the core of SCoPE’s work is the belief that Stanford is a bad neighbor. In an Oct. 10 teach-in that the organization hosted to educate the campus community about their policy platform, SCoPE members highlighted Stanford’s size—8,180 acres, roughly a quarter the size of San Francisco—as well as its $26.5 billion endowment. In contrast, they noted that the university has spent, at most, $40 million on affordable housing over the past 20 years. To SCoPE, this number is offensively low.

“We need to think of Stanford as a landlord and a developer,” one SCoPE member said at the teach-in.

As the university seeks a renewed land-use agreement with Santa Clara County, known as a General Use Permit, SCoPE is fighting for regulations that would hold Stanford accountable for its development. The organization argues that Stanford’s continued development will bring harm to a community already suffering a severe housing crisis. The proposed 2018 General Use Permit (GUP) will allow Stanford to build up to 2.275 million net new square feet of academic space, as well as 2,600 beds for students and 550 additional units for faculty and staff. For SCoPE, however, the GUP is an opportunity to mitigate the effects of Stanford’s growth and to improve conditions for its employees.

“The fact that [we are]students on campus at a time when Stanford is applying for a new GUP is unique, and most Stanford students don’t have that experience,” SCoPE member Erica Knox ‘16 MS ‘18 said. “It’s one of our only opportunities to give public input where Stanford is required to consider and is influenced by public input and our broader community vision of what Stanford should look like.”

The coalition wants the university to build housing for subcontracted workers and other staff on campus, increase funding for off-campus affordable housing and extend transportation benefits to subcontracted and service workers. Also in the Coalition’s platform is the distribution of the Stanford Affordable Housing Fund to low-income housing development in East Palo Alto, in addition to cities in Santa Clara County. SCoPE urges Santa Clara County to give nine percent yearly from affordable housing fees collected from Stanford—around $27 million total—to East Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and similarly asks Stanford to give $1 million yearly to East Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

The Bay Area housing crisis, characterized by an unprecedented rise in rents and lack of housing affordable for low- and median-income households, spans the 13-county region. Professor Miriam Zuk, who directs the Urban Displacement Project at UC Berkeley, has said that as of 2015, 62 percent of low-income households in the region are at risk of displacement or are already experiencing it. Between 2000 and 2013, the number of housing units affordable for low-income households in the Bay Area decreased by half. In Redwood City, the number of households burdened by housing costs—defined as paying 35 percent or more of their income towards housing—increased from 36 percent in 2000 to 59 percent in 2013. Nearby Redwood City and East Palo Alto have been identified by the Urban Displacement Project as notable areas of “Ongoing Gentrification/Displacement” within the wider context of a gentrifying Bay Area that is displacing low-income residents.

SCoPE regards Stanford as a direct contributor to the housing crisis. As the university develops and brings more faculty, students, administrators, researchers, events and services to campus, it creates demand for service employees who can’t afford to live nearby. Stanford’s development exacerbates the region’s jobs-housing imbalance. Currently, 37 percent of Stanford’s service employees live outside the Bay Area and 35.5 percent commute more than 90 minutes each way to get to campus. When asked why they don’t live closer, 88 percent of workers cited the cost of housing. The new GUP is a rare chance to change this story.

“This is actually an opportunity to do some good in an area that has suffered for a really long time,” Knox said.

T

he seed for the founding of SCoPE was planted in the spring of 2016. John Zhao ‘18 first heard about the General Use Permit from Peter Drekmeier, an advisor to Students for a Sustainable Stanford and former mayor of Palo Alto. A native of the Bay Area, Zhao was interested in the housing and labor issues addressed by the GUP, as well as the traditional environmental impacts of Stanford’s development.

“I took Michael Kahan’s Gentrification class in the spring,” Zhao said, “and that really shaped how I was thinking about the GUP.”

Zhao approached Dan Sakaguchi ‘16 MA ‘18 over the summer about organizing students around social and environmental justice issues related to the GUP. When the duo enrolled in the Housing Justice Research Lab in the fall of 2016, they asked if the project-based class would be interested in analyzing and advocating for housing justice through Stanford’s development plan. “It felt hard to talk about housing justice without talking about the room we were in,” said Zhao.

Nani Friedman ‘20 was in the class as well and continues to be a core member of SCoPE.  Also a Bay Area native, she said that her experience going to high school in Redwood City shaped her strong interest in working on issues of housing policy, gentrification and anti-displacement. At Sequoia High School, Friedman became aware of how her peers and friends were being impacted by the rapid changes and displacement in Redwood City, and says that there was “a very clear difference in experience based on if your family consisted of homeowners or tenants.”

It was important to the early members of SCoPE that the coalition represent voices of those most affected by Stanford’s development, as well as indigenous perspectives and other perspectives from the Stanford student body. Zhao said that he and Sakaguchi “racked our brain[s]trying to figure out what groups needed to be in the room.” Eventually, they began building a relationship with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2007, which represents Stanford service workers. They also reached out to leaders of the Ramaytush Ohlone people, who are indigenous to Stanford’s land, as well as the Stanford American Indian Organization, the Pilipino-American Student Union, and the Stanford Asian-American Activism Committee, among other groups.

Stewart Hyland, an internal organizer for SEIU involved in the GUP process, said that there is “a really strong alignment” between SCoPE’s platform and that of the union.

“In some ways the students’ demands are a little beyond what the workers’ demands are because workers are kind of used to limitations in life,” Hyland said. “And I guess it’s just the nature of younger folks to have higher standards. So they actually put a good pressure on what more can be done.”

Sakaguchi and Zhao both described a challenge in leveraging their privilege as Stanford students without claiming absolute ownership over the group, given that they were not members of the communities most impacted by Bay Area displacement.

“Urban planning and planning, in general, is a process that is maybe by design … very technical, very abstract, not designed to be accessible,” Sakaguchi said.

In order to strike a balance, SCoPE found its place as a coalition. The coalition works closely with SEIU to center the voices of those most impacted while also using their privilege as Stanford students to decipher complex planning documents and to be taken seriously at public comment meetings. Still, the coalition often wondered how to speak out, using technical language, on issues in Stanford’s General Use Permit without speaking over residents of East Palo Alto and other localities who offered personal stories and anecdotes at public comment meetings.

“They’re curious about learning more, so they engage us and the workers, too,” Hyland said, “which is not something Stanford’s necessarily known for in communities of color—asking questions as opposed to coming in with answers already.”

O

n a Monday night in October, SCoPE gathers in the lounge at El Centro Chicano y Latino. It’s their first general meeting since hosting a public “teach-in” to educate the Stanford community on the General Use Permit and housing justice, and they have attracted a handful of new recruits. Almost 20 students are present, nestled against cushions with computers perched on their laps, listening as Matt Nissen ‘20 updates the group on the past week’s news: the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in an Oct. 16 meeting, determined that it would not pursue a Development Agreement unless Stanford’s offer exceeded the terms currently required by the two ordinances. Moving forward, he says, the “next big thing” will be a vote on the final Environmental Impact Report in December, followed ultimately by a conclusive late-June vote on the GUP.

SCoPE’s campaign is in the final stretch: the county is “really set on finishing” the GUP process, Nissen says, and the matter will largely be settled within the 2018-2019 academic year. Before launching into the meeting, the group pauses to make sure new members are all familiar with the relevant nomenclature of housing development, explaining terms like GUP, DA, and ordinances.

Joining SCoPE, Eva Reyes ‘22 told Stanford Politics, can initially appear “formidable.”

“It seems so esoteric and technical,” Reyes said.

The level of expertise the students of SCoPE command is startling. They’re well-versed in 500-page legal documents, and can recall numbers off the tops of their heads in conversation. But most current core members are relatively new, and many joined in the spring or summer of 2018, as founding members with more experience graduated and stepped back from the organization. David Yosuico ‘20 became involved in early July 2018 and, after being brought up to speed by SCoPE co-founder Dan Sakaguchi, is now the “point-person” for the team’s policy subgroup.

“I guess it was pretty fast,” Yosuico acknowledged.

The minutiae of land-use politics are undeniably complex. Students readily admitted to Stanford Politics when they found a detail to be confusing, and Yosuico said that in some ways he is “still learning.” But the momentum of their predecessors’ mission, coupled with what Reyes referred to as a “stocked” Google Drive folder of introductory documents, has allowed relatively new members to continue the campaign without missing a beat.

Nissen, who joined in the spring of 2018, told Stanford Politics he was “very impressed by the resilience of SCoPE.”

“It’s interesting to be a part of that process, being the new generation of SCoPE, picking up the reins, especially in the final mile,” Nissen said.

As SCoPE gears up for this final mile, its five component subgroups work to advance the campaign from different angles. Members become involved in either the policy, direct action, media, advocacy, or partnerships subgroups. Their work ranges from combing through county documents to holding rallies, which makes the organization uniquely comprehensive among campus activist groups.

“Other groups will often stage a rally or protest or something, which is all well and good, and it’s important to have those, but it doesn’t necessarily bring about action,” Nissen said. “I think what I really like about SCoPE is it does both. We have the public awareness … but we also try to find an avenue to work through our policy proposals and talk to the county and get actual change done.”

Those policy proposals are outlined in SCoPE’s official platform—a detailed, 15-page document posted to the group’s website. Reyes has been involved with other campus activist groups in the past, and said that meeting with administrators often tests the strength and clarity of a campaign. She learned that university officials would “try to do anything in their power to take what you came and brought them and completely shift it into something they wanted.”

“It’s easy for admin to sideline you and make you burn out faster if you don’t have set goals that you’re working towards,” Reyes said.

S

CoPE’s relationship with the university is unusual. The organization rarely interacts with the administration directly, focusing instead on pushing for legal change on a county level. The consensus within the group is that the university will not make a meaningful contribution toward affordable housing unless it is forced to, and therefore informal negotiations will not be productive. But Stanford is very interested in SCoPE: multiple members recalled university administrators, including Director of Government and Community Relations Lucy Wicks, showing up to SCoPE events unannounced. According to several SCoPE members, Wicks attended last year’s teach-in. Wicks reportedly actively participated in the teach-in and advocated on behalf of the university; afterward, she approached SCoPE members with concerns that some of their statistics were outdated.

Administrators have not attended any SCoPE events so far this year. Reyes said the encounter at last year’s teach-in was unlike anything she’d experienced with other campus activist groups, as she believes administrators feel the university is “threatened” by SCoPE.

“If I [were]Stanford, I would be threatened by us,” Reyes said. “Because it’s not like a regular group networking with admin and admin has the final say—the county has the final say on what Stanford does.”

A university spokesperson told Stanford Politics in an email that administrators “have heard and understand SCoPE 2035’s areas of interest regarding the 2018 General Use Permit.”

“Stanford staff have met directly with students in the SCoPE group several times and we welcome their participation in this process,” the spokesperson wrote. “We will continue to stay engaged with them and other organizations and groups that have an interest in the future of Stanford as the 2018 General Use Permit proceeds.”

University administrators declined to speak more extensively about SCoPE. 

S

tanford has made abundantly clear, especially in recent months, that it finds much of SCoPE’s platform excessively demanding. Catherine Palter, Stanford’s Associate Vice President for Land Use and Environmental Planning, said in an interview with Stanford News that the University is and “will continue to be a leader” in building affordable housing.

“But we must do so in a manner that keeps our focus on our academic mission and preserves our core campus for future generations,” Palter said. She also noted that Stanford knows of “no other employer in the region that has constructed more employee housing.”

The argument that Stanford is unfairly targeted by the county was repeated in a letter the university sent to the county in July 2018, which threatened to sue if the Affordable Housing Impact Fee and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances were passed. The letter calls the ordinances “unlawful” and claims that they unfairly single out Stanford among all other developers in the region. The county passed the ordinances anyway, in late September 2018.

Now, the university is pursuing a different angle to avoid the ordinances: a Development Agreement with the county, which, if successful, would replace current regulations (see sidebar).

Stanford proposed a DA in July 2018 and outlined the voluntary contributions they were prepared to make toward affordable housing, known as “community benefits.” The university emphasized in their proposal that much of these benefits could be front-loaded, which increases their value. However, an analysis done by the county found that, even accounting for the higher value of benefits that are provided earlier, Stanford’s proposal in total falls $75 million short of the contributions required under the Affordable Housing Impact Fee and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinances. The Board of Supervisors noted this discrepancy in an Oct. 16 hearing and determined that the current DA proposal does not provide any “community benefits.”

Palter told Stanford Politics that the sizeable shortfall—more than 40 percent of the $169 million (adjusted for net present value) required by the ordinances—represented the county’s “initial calculation.”

“We didn’t really have a time before that hearing to do our own calculations to see if we agree,” Palter said. “But I think that’s part of the discussion, is how does the value of providing upfront housing get incorporated into this discussion. They gave some initial thoughts about that, and I think that’s going to be part of our continued conversation.”

To Knox, the current DA proposal “feels like a similar pattern.”

“Stanford is trying to undercut the amount of things that they could do as far as mitigating impact with housing and transportation,” Knox said.

However, as much as the ordinances were a win for SCoPE, some members acknowledge that, at least in theory, a DA could address community needs with greater immediacy.

“We are in an unprecedented housing crisis,” Yerrapotu said. “We can talk about the economics of what is ideal, but if we wait too long, there won’t be anyone left to fight for.”

The County Board of Supervisors has informed Stanford that it will not enter into a DA that offers less than what the ordinances currently require. Palter told Stanford Politics that the university would still like to pursue a DA, but Yosuico isn’t convinced.

“It’s going to be a really short timeline,” Yosuico said. “The county is getting tired of this GUP. They want to move it through. They’ve already passed two ordinances, and they’ll have the conditions of approval.”

A Development Agreement could not be voted on until after the final Environmental Impact Review, which is scheduled for December 2018. Stanford, according to Palter, does not yet have an updated DA. Since the county plans on finalizing the General Use Permit in June 2019, Stanford may not be able to make a deal with the county in time.  

“A

n institution like this—that has so much money and wields so much power and influence—shouldn’t be able to just unilaterally make decisions and do things, or wield the power that it does over the people that it does,” Nissen said, when asked why he’s a part of SCoPE. “And there should be some sort of push back against that.”

On the question of whether SCoPE is a check on Stanford’s power, Nissen said, “[We] would hope to be,” and laughed.

Power—who has it, who doesn’t, and what it looks like—is the issue at the core of a debate that can quickly become obfuscated and alienating in its own complexity. Stanford’s threat to sue the county over the Affordable Housing Impact Fee and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was written by Barbara Schussman of Perkins Coie LLP, a law firm which counts Google, Microsoft, and Amazon among its clients. SCoPE sees Stanford, like these tech companies, as a force that contributes to, and should be held responsible for mitigating the housing crisis in the Bay Area. At a teach-in this year, SCoPE members emphasized Stanford’s nearly 10 billion dollars of offshore investments, as well as profits made by Stanford through the leasing of land for the Stanford Shopping Center, to drive home the point that Stanford is, “at the end of the day, a business.”

Palter said the university stands by the letter, although it’s unclear if Stanford intends to pursue legal action against the county if the Development Agreement falls through.

“Obviously, Stanford has a lot more financial capital than we do, and they have people whose full-time job it is to work on this issue, whereas we’re using our free time as students to do this, which is already limited,” Knox said. “So we really have to be able to do high-impact things that are visible and also help get people organized.”

This discrepancy doesn’t leave SCoPE members feeling hopeless. Instead, Knox said she often feels “super motivated that we’re able to do this work even though it’s not our full-time job.”

The roots of the Bay Area housing crisis are numerous and the culpable institutions countless, from the legacy of Proposition 13 and the restrictive zoning practices of suburban communities to the growth of the tech economy. The students of SCoPE can’t bring an end to the region’s socioeconomic strife, but they might give Stanford the push it needs to become a more active part of solutions, and mitigate its contribution to the crisis.

“We have our policy proposals, and we have this process, and we just push as hard as we can through the process to get as close to the proposals as we can,” Nissen said. “And whatever comes out of that I think we’ll be happy with.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article (and the version in print) incorrectly referred to the Pilipino-American Student Union as the Filipino-American Student Union.

---

Roxy Bonafont, a freshman studying English, and Emily Lemmerman, a senior studying Sociology, are staff writers for Stanford Politics.