Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
An Open Letter to President Bollinger
PUBLISHED APRIL 24, 2008
Dear President Bollinger,
With the recent appointment of a new governor, there is renewed hope among many that the state will finally take strides in amending its abusive eminent domain laws. As such, I publish this open letter with the sincere hope that it will lead to meaningful dialogue between you and me. Over the past nearly four years, the institution that you head, Columbia University, and the family business of which I am president, Tuck-It-Away Self Storage, have been locked in battle. The outcome of this struggle will affect the future direction of many parties—my family, Columbia, and West Harlem. The stakes are huge.
The issue: the threatened use of eminent domain. You have asked the state to condemn any properties in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem that refuse to sell to you. Out of regard for my family, which has owned and operated four commercial properties here for almost 30 years, my answer has always been the same: I will not negotiate while the threat of eminent domain is hung over my head. That is not fair.
During this fight, you and I have never directly communicated, despite my request for a meeting with you. This request was turned down. Instead, it has only been through surrogates—lawyers, lobbyists, and journalists—that we have had any form of contact.
I am adamant in my opposition to the possible use of eminent domain so that Columbia can take others’ private property to help it build a new campus. This is not how eminent domain should be used. Columbia is a private institution of privilege—it is not a fire station, highway or, indeed, a public school.
If and when New York state (through an unelected public authority, the Empire State Development Corporation) commences formal condemnation proceedings against my family, I will fight back with all my ability. To help assist me, I have at my side the noted civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, a man who has taught me the difference between right and wrong, and how one needs to stand resolutely for the former against the latter.
Should I lose the battle to retain my properties, the state will take them against my will and hand them over to you. I will be paid a sum that either will be negotiated between the parties or, should no agreement on value be accomplished, will be decided by the courts. In all likelihood, the latter will occur, thus ensuring yet another drawn-out legal battle.
I feel that, in both cases—the actual condemnation as well as, should it be allowed to occur, the valuation—the United States Supreme Court could be ready to intervene. Since the controversial 5-4 decision Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, this country has come face to face with the hidden ugliness of eminent domain abuse. Fortunately, the extent of this abuse is no longer below the radar. In fact, perhaps on more than any other issue, national polls reveal virtual unanimity across party lines that eminent domain reform is needed. As of the end of 2007, 42 states have made changes to their eminent domain laws. In every single case, the result was greater protection of private property.
On the main issue—that of ownership of my properties—it just may be that I can prevail. I would then be able to operate and develop my properties alongside the campus you will still undoubtedly build, despite your insistence to the press that Columbia must have everything in order to go forward. A clear message will be sent to large institutions and corporations that the police power of our government is no longer available to the highest bidder, that one cannot merely lease these powers to evade and avoid the marketplace, and that “might is not right.”
So what will the courts decide? How long will it take? Needless to say, no one can know for sure. However, there is an alternative. If utilized, it would significantly reduce—if not eliminate altogether—the downside risks to all involved in a court battle. All that it requires is compromise. As I have already presented to state officials, as well as a senior officer in your administration, we could easily swap a few properties in Manhattanville, and thereby possibly negate the need for eminent domain while at the same time still give the University its much-desired contiguous campus. And there are even other ways to avoid the ugliness of eminent domain—they revolve around partnership. For instance, we can jointly own and build some of the new structures where my properties now stand (including student housing, something that is already in your plans). We can also discuss possible long-term leases—99 years, for instance.
President Bollinger, all that is needed is the courage to agree to meet with me and the wisdom to keep an open mind. Certainly it would be no more uncomfortable than your meeting last year with the Iranian president. If you do agree and a lasting compromise is forged, there may be no better lesson to teach your students, nor any stronger legacy to leave for future generations. I look forward to your taking my call.
The author is president of Tuck-It-Away, a regional self storage provider. He is also managing member of Rising Development Co., a real estate owner and developer, and the publisher of Rising Publications, a Westchester County community newspaper chain.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 35)
Post a Comment
there would be nothing better for the pres to do than compromise on the issue of land. In the long run the school will gain much more than trying to wrest control through immoral means of the remaining properties
If he was courageous enough he would have met with the owner of Tuck-it-away. Obviously, he isn't. But then again, what can you expect from an idiot that treats his GUEST badly. Believe it or not, we have stupid people like him on this earth.
I am shocked at the amount of negativity against this property owner. It is the schoolthat should face this criticism. This is nothing more than a naked land grab. Even with what columbia has already purchased they have More then enough land to build a campus.
Unfortunately for Nick, not many people are terribly concerned about the fact that his property may be secured by CU via eminent domain. The fact is that the residents and politicians feel it's for the greater good. Loosely similar and with due respect, in war time officers have had to sacrifice soldiers' lives while others have given their lives willingly to save entire countries and their fellow countrymen......and as painful as it may be to swallow, it's terribly difficult to defend against that arguement.....it doesn't suffice to say "it's mine". That area is dead and stands no chance without major development. Furthermore, in many situations there's a tipping point and pinpointing the fulcrum is crucial in avoiding the souring of the state of affairs. Nick, you seem to be a resourceful person so just get the best deal you can reasonably secure and move forward before things sour. Show the community that you really care by negotiating in earnest (CU should do the same) and agreeing on a reasonable arrangement.....let CU move forward with it's plan to expand which will ultimately help the Harlem community....perhaps you underestimate the benefits of seeming to have supported the whole CU expansion.
I think a number of the comments are missing a very simple point. The issue Mr. Sprayregen wrote about has nothing to do with “what socially redeeming benefit Mr. Sprayregen’s business provides”, “the size of his piggy bank” or “making out like a bandit”. For the record, his business employs individuals that live in the area, as well as provides storage facilities to numerous individuals, including Columbia students. Additionally, I for one would think that the pediatrician’s office that is located in one of the properties provides an extremely important socially redeeming benefit to the neighborhood.
The issue boils down to a private institution, Columbia University, potentially using eminent domain for its own benefit, not to build for example, railroads, highways or power plants, and a request to directly speak to the man running that private institution.
I’d like to see what all of those (who choose to remain “anonymous”) who wrote extremely personal, angry responses directed at Mr. Sprayregen would have to say if you built up a family business over a thirty (30) year period, and Columbia, or any other private institution, decided they were going to take it from you. Just for arguments sake, what if you didn’t want to sell your business, would you appreciate it if people chose to call you “greedy”, make “piggy bank” references or accuse you of “spreading lies” while attempting to protect your interests.
Eric Weissman
I would fight to protect my interests, of course. At the same time, I would adhere to my principles. This means I wouldn't try to use my neighbors as pawns in my own struggle by making them think my adversary threatens their lives, health, homes, etc. There's a difference between saying it's OK for Mr. Sprayregen to fight against Columbia (which it is) and blindly approving of whatever tactics he decides to use.
whoever criticizes mr s for desiring to get as high if a price as he possibly can. Especially as he does not want to sell as a first choice, are really ridiculous. By taking that position u are therefore also basically saying that mr s I'd anyone else like himin the same position. Should merely do WHAT? Lie down and accept whatever us offered? Or maybe just try a little bit and then give up? I would love to see any of you, if in the same position, bot doing exacty the same thing - protecting the interests of your family to the best of your ability. Shame on you!
whoever criticizes mr s for desiring to get as high if a price as he possibly can. Especially as he does not want to sell as a first choice, are really ridiculous. By taking that position u are therefore also basically saying that mr s I'd anyone else like himin the same position. Should merely do WHAT? Lie down and accept whatever us offered? Or maybe just try a little bit and then give up? I would love to see any of you, if in the same position, bot doing exacty the same thing - protecting the interests of your family to the best of your ability. Shame on you!
In re the person who questions the amount of social redeeeming quality in nicks business, I say shame on you. That us your opinion. And it is irrelevant here. That type of thought leads others to only condemn in predominantly lower income areas as opposed to, say, park ave and 57 st.
What those who are critical of mr s is that your feelings about him are irrelevant. The sole issue is the inappropriate threat of eminent domain by cu
A lot of valid points have been made from both sides. However, the truth of the matter is that Mr. Sprayregen as the owner of the properties in question should have full discretion in his negotiating power with CU. Many comments are posted pointing out that Mr. Sprayregen is only holding out as a tactic to get the maximum payout possible. However, I am pretty sure that he was quite wealthy prior to this matter becoming an issue.
Moreover, calling Mr. Sprayregen a liar is far-fetched. The public is not as informed as it should be indeed. If it was, the outcry against a private institution attempting to forcefully take over another will be far more outrageous that what has been up to date.
Some may be right in saying that this matter will soon be quickly forgotten once everything is said and done, however, how can we condemn Mr. Sprayregen for a stance he has every right to take? This issue is not as complicated as everyone is making it out to be. The reasons why many states have amended its Eminent domain policies are precisely because of the abuse CU is threatening Mr. Sprayregen with. Now, if anyone wants to call my comments uninformed, stupid, partisan or whatever other malignant unproductive adjectives, you should go right ahead, then we'll see who really is acting with ignorance.
I, for one, do not fault Mr. Sprayregen for opposing eminent domain, regardless of whether he is doing it on principal or as a negotiating tactic. What I do fault him for is telling lies to the community in order to build up unwarranted fear and resentment -- especially if the reason he is doing so is to pressure Columbia rather than to benefit the neighbors whose passions he is inflaming.
A lot of games are being played here on both sides. Simply put, it seems to me that Nick is smelling defeat....too much talk and back peddling. I might have felt for the guy but he has lost all credibility, and trying to deceive Harlemites into thinking that he's fighting for them was shameful and rediculous. Nick, you should have kept it simple,"I'm a business man who has operated in the neighborhood for approx 30yrs and big bad Columbia is trying to pull the rug from under me". Quick question though: Why have most other businesses in the area been able to negotiate deals and you haven't? What's so different about your deal? Anyway, disregarding the resulting community benefits of this project and going up against the ever so powerful Columbia, the politicians, and Harelm residents who are backing this project seems futile.....arrogant? Maybe, but soon it won't matter as this issue will be but a faint memory.....in all fairness, Nick enjoy your spoils - you know you're going to make out like a bandit. COLUMBIA ALL THE WAY!!!
Can anyone tell me what redeeming social benefit Mr. Sprayregen's business provides to the citizens of Morningside Heights? Basically, he provides a service to store people's possessions... probably middle class people who don't even live in the neighborhood. His business does very little to give back to the area in which it is situated.
I'm not mudslinging, but I suggest that Mr. S's goal is to hardball CU to get the most advantageous monetary settlement for himself - nothing more, nothing less.
Case in point, Columbia built "The School" at 110th Street, on what used to be a single story "taxpayer" building. CU provides scholarships to neighborhood children. I admit, the school is currently over-enrolled, and the amount of faculty children, I believe was higher than expected, but nonetheless, CU provides schooling to neighborhood children. Further, the D'Agostinos grocery store was relocated in the new building. Can Mr. S. point to a similar benefit to the area as that? I suspect not. I'm sorry, but I would rather see a academic building that also can house locals and businesses that actually serve people, than a bleak warehouse.
As for eminent domain, if Columbia was planning to destroy viable businesses, and displace citizens, that would be another issue, but I don't really think that is the case.
As for personal disclosure, I am a CU alum, and am not related to Mr. S - but have lived in the Morningside Heights area for 24 years.
A. Peck
i would like to hear from bollinger directly if he intends to meet with mr. sprayregen. personally, i hope that he has the guts to do so. personally, i think prezboll will chicken out.
does anyone know if mr. sprayregen will keep the student body up to date on his attempts?
bio lab 3s do not belong being built in a place such as manhattan. pure and simple. not in this day and age. the fact that some do exist does not take away from this fact. the issue of that of columbia greed and columbia short-sightedness.
lets also understand that the proposed campus/biohazard labs sit directly over an earthquake fault-line. this is lunacy.
let the school build a campus - fine - but their bio-haz. labs should be elsewhere.
i hope the lawsuit the mr. sprayregen filed is successful on this matter.
The fault line under Manhattanville is tiny. The biggest earthquake it could generate would be about magnitude 2.5 or maybe 3.0. The entire state of California is subject to much stronger shaking than someone standing directly on top of this fault would ever feel, yet California has tall buildings and sophisitcated labs (including those at UC-Berkeley, which is literally on top of the massive Hayward fault) that are in no danger of failing in such a quake. Why? Because engineers know how to deal with faults vastly larger than the one near 125th Street. Tens of thousands of quake-resistant buildings near major faults around the world are proof of this. The idea that there is something about this particular fault which makes it dangerous when much larger ones are not is ludicrous.
once again, after reading comments that are critical of mr. sprayregen, i am struck by the following truth -
regardless of what one feels, thinks or believes about the aforementioned person, the real issue is the threatened use by columbia of eminent domain. pure and simple.
in my mind, it is an inapproproate and abusive use for columbia as it is a private institution.
i think that the true legacy of the manhattanville expansion will be the incredible loss of much of west harlem through this forced dislocation of its people, businesses and character.
You say ' I am struck by the following truth ... will be the incredible loss of much of west harlem" - - Seriously... You really took the time to wright this dribble. It's clear you've never been over there. What's "true" about any of your statements?
First, it's a small section of Harlem and it is even a small section of West Harlem. It is underutilized and could be used as the poster child for blight.
"this forced dislocation of its people, businesses and character." More Harlemites will live there after the campus is built than before, more Harlem businesses will exist there after the school is built, and to the "character" comment - please - that place has NO HARLEM CHARACTER - it's a wasteland - it's an insult to Harlemites to say that section of West Harlem represents Harlem's culture.
While you may argue that private institutions should be able to benefit from the use of eminent domain, the Supreme court has ruled differently. The expansion of Columbia's campus will benefit Harlem and future CU students and should be pursued even by the use of eminent domain.
Nick,
To quote from the above:
"I will not negotiate while the threat of eminent domain is hung over my head. That is not fair."
However, not too long ago, you were trying to become a major player in the NYC real estate scene by negotiating with Columbia WHILE the threat of eminent domain was still over your head. To quote from a December 2007 article in the NYTimes...
"In recent weeks, Mr. Sprayregen said, he has talked with the university about trading his buildings inside the expansion zone for university property outside the zone. Columbia would not comment on Thursday about those discussions."
Your point about eminent domain is perfectly valid, but I'd skip the self-righteous horse-poop. Columbia just hasn't met your price yet.
Nick,
You're just greedy. While you try to extort additional money from CU you are hurting current and future CU students and Harlemites who will greatly benefit from the new campus and schools. You will lose your court case and I hope, in the end, you will realize you have wasted everyone's time and your parents money.
let the word get out loud and clear -
www.biohazardonhudson.com
let freedom ring!
Classic fear-mongering. Stop this nonsense regarding biohazard. These type of labs exist all over NYC.
classic fearmongering
to the last commentor - i can tell you already - boll will refuse to talk to the column writer. prezbo is is weak and can only stand tall when standing behind his beloved ivy league tower.
i know this column about condemnation but i am more concerned about all the bio hazard stuff i hear about. regardless of the amount and regardless of the placement of the hazardous material - above or below ground - i truly truly think that this school has no business erecting a biiohaz. level 3 lab in manhattan. if they want to build a school - fine with me - but they should move the labs upstate somewhere.
just on this one issue alone i will not be giving any donations to the school - ever!
someone should start getting this news out to the alums spread throughout the country.
even better - lets target the people who sit on the board of trustees of this institution. Bollinger should be fired and sent packing.
BSL-3 labs are commonplace at universities and hospitals across the country, in urban and rural areas alike. They are regulated heavily to ensure their safety, and I don't believe any has ever caused even a small problem outside its own walls. Even minor problems inside those walls are uncommon.
The heavy-duty hazards are studied in BSL-4 labs, of which there are very few. Columbia doesn't have one, and neither do any of the other Ivies. Only a handful of universities do, and most of them keep those labs far from population centers and from their campuses. Putting a BSL-4 lab in an urban area (as Boston University is doing) would be lunacy, and I would oppose Columbia if it tried to build one anywhere near the city. But Columbia has publicly pledged not to do so. Given how uncommon BSL-4 labs are and how few of Columbia's peers either have or want one, this pledge is easy to believe.
Worrying about BSL-3 labs is much less reasonable. Worrying about Columbia's planned lab in particular but not about those at NYU, Rockefeller, Weill-Cornell and other institutions in the city makes even less sense. I wouldn't be surprised if there is such a lab at CCNY (though I don't know one way or the other). My sense is that even if there were few people would speak out against it, since most of the people complaining about Columbia's proposed labs seem to be more anti-Columbia than anti-lab.
i feel that the comments that are critical of the writer of the column are unfair. they are nit-picky and overal personal. the fact remains that eminent domain abuse is rampant across the country.
last time i looked we still live in america. private property is just that - private. columbia has a reputation for being belligerant and bellicose to those who have opposing views. this is obviously continuing in the present context.
i very much hope to hear what the response is from mr. bollinger when mr. sprayregen calls on him. if he were a fair man, given that he is attempting to take the property away from a family that does not want to sell it - he should at the very least accept the invitation from mr. sprayregen and then be "man" enough to tell him to his face that he will resort to eminent domain if the state allows him to.
Rick Sprayregen, wise council would have told you not to represent yourself or your legal case in a public forum. Whatever amount the court decides to award you under the city's right of eminent domain, you can be sure that you will not be forced to smash your piggy Swiss bank account in order to make make ends meet.
what does the size of mr sprayregen's piggy bank have to do with right and wrong?
he owns the property.
he has done nothing illegal.
he should not be coerced into giving it up.
Mr. Weissman's concerns are reasonable but his conclusions are mistaken. I am not employed by Columbia, nor do I receive any money or other benefits from it. I have no connection to it other than being a graduate of the College who has been active in alumni affairs for many years. The reason I didn't post my identity is that I don't want people on either side of this issue to start writing me directly and expecting responses. I'm simply unwilling to be drawn into a debate for which I have too little time.
I also happen to be a lawyer, so I would be familiar with the Kelo decision even if Columbia weren't planning to expand. Mr. Sprayregen's claim that my Kelo analysis is merely my opinion is odd, since I am a lawyer and he isn't. Lawyers aren't always right, of course, but when a lawyer and a layperson disagree about what a case says the odds are quite good that the lawyer is right. That isn't a particularly good argument, though, so I invite those who are curious to run a Google search of "kelo domain blight" and see what other legal experts have to say about whether the case will significantly effect the use of eminent domain in blighted areas. The large majority of them share what Mr. Sprayregen claims is only my opinion.
The reason I know so much about the details of Columbia's plans is simply that they interest me -- as does much of what goes on there. That's why I frequently read Spec and other CU-related websites, including Mr. Sprayregen's and those of various opponents of the expansion plan. The critics have several valid points to make, but they also frequently resort to fearmongering and outright lies in order to sway the opinions of people who aren't well-informed about what Columbia wants to do. It's little wonder that they react angrily to someone like me who does know what is planned and who is willing to call them on their lies.
How did I see this article so soon after it was posted? Mostly, it was luck. I subscribe to a daily Google news search for articles about Columbia, and last night's results included this article. I did not realize how recently it had been published when I posted my comments; in fact, I thought I was belatedly responding to an article from yesterday's paper until I looked again just now and saw the responses by Mr. Sprayregen and Mr. Weissman.
In his reqponse, Mr. Sprayregen tries to discredit my claim that Columbia hasn't asked the state to take any property by quoting from a document he obtained via FOILl, but that document shows that he is wrong and I am right. The quoted excerpt says "Columbia has requested that the New York State Urban Development Corporation...CONSIDER the condemnnation of portions of the Property not under Columbia Control and the transfer of title...to facilitate development by Columbia". Asking the UDC to consider condemning property is a far cry from asking it to actually do so. This is not an issue of semantics; legally these are distinct steps in a lengthy process. As I originally explained, all Columbia has done is request an analysis (it has also paid for it, as the law requires). Columbia has taken the first step, and the document describes it in a way that vaguely makes it sound -- again, only to those unfamiliar with the facts -- as if they had actually sought condemnation. Mr. Sprayregen's claim that the language he quoted undermines my position and supports his is just another example of the tactics I described in my original comment.
Mr. Sprayregen says that "Alum's third and fourth paragraphs have nothing to do with eminent domain - the subject of my column - so they are irrelevant to any discussion of my opinion piece." He has missed the point entirely. Those paragraphs aren't supposed to be about eminent domain. Rather, they are about Mr. Sprayregen's credibility in this debate. His response doesn't even try to support the claims I identified as lies, and doesn't deny that he knew they were lies when he published them. To me (and to the rules of evidence), proof that someone is willing to lie in order to make a point is very relevant to whether their other statements should be trusted -- especially where those statements are designed to protect the same interest as were the earlier lies.
"Asking the UDC to consider condemning property is a far cry from asking it to actually do so." No, sir, I think it is not. You yourself submit that Columbia's request is one "distinct [step] in a lengthy process." The "step" and "process" need not exist if Columbia did not have a specific intent in mind when submitting said "step." Your use of "steps" implies a linear progression. You must ask yourself: if Columbia is taking steps, what is it taking steps towards? The answer is that it is taking steps towards the (ab)use of eminent domain. Mr. Sprayregen's central claim is that Columbia should NOT consider eminent domain if they wish to negotiate fairly. You must engage him on this point instead of denying the fact that Columbia is even considering the use of eminent domain.
So, you're right. Perhaps Mr. Sprayregen's claim that Columbia "asked the state to condemn any properties in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem" is not entirely true. Rather, he should have said "Columbia has taken the necessary steps required for the state to condemn any properties..." In this way, it becomes both a matter of semantics and formal legal posturing instead of a matter of truth and justice. Which do you think should be the focus?
Mr. Sprayregen's central claim is that Columbia should take the threat of eminent domain off the table. Your argument supports the claim that Columbia is on the road towards eminent domain use. It seems to me that - at least in this regard - you two are arguing the same point. You simply assume the best, and he assumes the worst. The difference is easily explainable when one considers what each has invested in the matter. Mr. Sprayregen's family business is at stake while you, in all due respect, haven't even the time to commit to an online discussion of the issues.
In response to the earlier comment by “alum”, please let us know why you chose to not post your identity. In my opinion, by you failing to do so, it leads me to believe, and likely other free thinking individuals, that you are either a Columbia employee or a representative of Columbia in some capacity (i.e. a legal representative, public relations, etc.).
My belief about your identity is further fueled by my opinion that your response was likely written in advance, as you seem to possess way too much “information” about this situation to have put this response together so quickly. In particular, your comments with regard to “the *total* amount Columbia plans to use for all new science and engineering facilities on the new campus combined”. I find it hard to believe that you had this information casually at your fingertips as you penned your rapid response.
Finally, your level of anger at Mr. Sprayregen seems to be at a much level higher than a mere “alum”. It comes across as someone with a much greater personal stake in this matter. Additionally, name calling and further mudslinging is really not a helpful tool in furthering an amicable resolution to this matter.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am Mr. Sprayregen’s brother-in law.
Eric Weissman
In reference to the comments posted below by "alum", (made virtually as soon as - if not prepared before-hand - this column was even posted on-line), I state the following:
Alum takes issue with my statement about what Columbia has asked the state to do. I hereby quote directly from a "secret" agreement (that only saw the light of day due to a FOIL request) dated July 30, 2004. This agreement was signed by both Columbia and the state and is on Columbia letterhead. It states in part,
"Columbia has requested that the New York State Urban Development Corporation...consider the condemnnation of portions of the Property not under Columbia Control and the transfer of title...to facilitate development by Columbia".
Alum's second paragraph is his opinion only.
Alum's third and fourth paragraphs have nothing to do with eminent domain - the subject of my column - so they are irrelevant to any discussion of my opinion piece. (I do however thank Alum for making reference to the web site - www.biohazardonhudson.com).
Finally, in regard to Alum's final paragraph, the smugness and feelings of superiority that are in evidence here match exactly with those of the administration. Nothing more needs to be said.
Nick Sprayregen.
Columbia has not "asked the state to condemn any properties in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem" belonging to owners who are unwilling to sell. It may make such a request in the future, but it hasn't yet. So far all it has asked the state to do is analyze whether the use of eminent domain would be appropriate -- and even then, only in a specific, 18-acre portion of Manhattanville.
Additionally, Kelo v. New London will not be as helpful to Mr. Sprayregen as he claims to believe. If his properties are condemned it will almost surely be because the area is blighted. The Kelo decision wasn't about blight, and prior Supreme Court cases have made it very clear that governments can condemn blighted property and sell it to someone who will put it to productive -- though not necessarily public -- use. The validity of those decisions was not affected by Kelo.
Of course, none of this matters to Mr. Sprayregen because he would rather tell convenient lies than face inconvenient truths. To take but one example, he claims on his website (www.biohazardonhudson.com) that "30% of the space [in the proposed new campus] will be for biohazard chemical laboratories (use/storage)". 30% of 6.8 million square feet is over 2 million square feet -- the *total* amount Columbia plans to use for all new science and engineering facilities on the new campus combined. The proposed biosafety level 3 labs -- the only ones which can fairly be called "biohazard" -- will occupy just a few rooms and will probably have less than 5,000 square feet between them. That's less than one-tenth of 1% of the total.
Mr. Sprayregen also claims that the biohazards will be in the underground "bathtub" and thus could be spread by flooding. In reality, though, these tiny labs will be well above ground and immune to flooding.
Is it any wonder that Mr. Sprayregen has not been able to meet personally with President Bollinger? Does he think that if he had a significant dispute with Microsoft he would get to hash it out across a table with Bill Gates? That's not how things work in the real world -- especially for people who are willing to spread lies to an uninformed public in order to promote their own interests.
Post new comment