On Sunday, the Janesville Gazette published a story on a proposed joint technology park between the city and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.
Arguments in favor of the part include new jobs for researchers, but far more so, a way to offer businesses a reason to locate in Whitewater. The principal argument against is likely to be the cost of the venture, estimated at eleven million dollars.
See, City, university proposing technology park for a solid summary of the proposal.
Eleven million dollars seems like a lot of money, but it may not be the biggest obstacle a university-connected technology park in Whitewater would face.
Missing in the proposal is a serious acknowledgment of the cultural opposition that the university finds within our city. Candidly, we’re scarcely one city at all – we’re a city with a campus inside, a campus variously scorned, suspected, ignored, and only occasionally embraced.
This is our condition now, with the university committed, fundamentally, to a teaching mission. We have had little success with harmony now, and yet our municipal administration proposes a significant program with little awareness of how poorly received the plan may be.
(When some university officials ignore these challenges, I am reminded of the difference between being a class in oneself and a class for oneself.
I see also that, in the Gazette, Randy Marnocha, vice chancellor for administrative affairs at UW-Whitewater, talks of the benefits of the proposal. I am nonetheless reminded that the same administrator saw benefit in a joint municipal-university court. See, Joint Court Could be Just the Ticket. I saw no gain in a joint court, as it was legally impermissible. An unfeasible plan brings no benefit – see my post on the joint court, Whitewater Common Council Meeting for 9/2: The Joint Court Proposal.)
We have a municipal administration that calls for a technology park with a necessary university connection, yet seriously suggests that re-zoning to accommodate students in one part of the city requires greater restrictions elsewhere.
The idea of a net gain in students off-campus is just intolerable to a loud minority – and the administration appeases rather than enforces to satisfy this constituency.
(No one sensible questions a right of quiet enjoyment; does anyone sensible think that the city’s approach has been the right one?)
I would not oppose a tech park, if it were funded soundly. (That’s a big condition, as it should be.) I would, however, be surprised if the changes that a technology park would bring to the city would be well-received by those few who enjoying being big fish in our small, still pond. A large expansion of a professional, technology-industry class within the city would have a profound influence on life here. I would welcome it, but others would not react so favorably.
Some of our present leaders – no matter what they think of themselves – would be held to a much higher standard if we had a large tech-economy. One need only look to cities with thriving upper-middle class tech professionals to see that the business as usual approach here would be intolerable to them. What passes for a clever municipal approach just wouldn’t work.
Unlike a small, obstinate, native faction (perhaps a thousand of fourteen-thousand), no one coming to a technology park will be sold on the idea that it’s reasonable to defer to Whitewater’s peculiar standards.
A technology park is unrealistic in a city with a loud minority already ill-at-ease with its campus. A proposal like this ignores our current culture, and for that reason alone will likely prove unviable. There are barriers greater than money in our way.