Hacker News Reader

Comment by JKCalhoun | Hacker News Reader

It's offensive because it's someone dictating how student's should live. It besmirches any goodwill from the original act of philanthropy.

View on HN

Aren't the opponents equally dictating how student's should live?

Furthermore you are dismissing the fact that there still is a market, with choices.

I presume the "opponents" are the students themselves. They are the voice that matters I would imagine.

In essence, you could describe your stance as forcing all residents to pay a tax for a benefit that you deem is for their own good. In this case it’s windows, but would you support this stance for other reasons? What if it was that all rooms come with a large crucifix on the wall (wasting wall and floor space)?

Not at all. I'm calling philanthropy with strings attached barely philanthropy.

> dictating how

It's actually the opposite... It creates an option with different tradeoffs.

I’m sorry what? No matter what type of dorm that is built it’s dictating how students should live?!?

It’s a public university, and in my opinion the public should decide what to build… not unelected, unaccountable twits with a lot of money.

> should decide

Everyone with their own money. The university with its own, the donors with their own.

Munger's contribution would be 13% of the projected cost. And a public university's money belongs to the public.

Of course. Your note does not seem consistent with the parent points. Different parties will propose conditional contribution. Those who do not agree with the project will retract the participation. The public does not decide on Munger's money, Munger will not decide over the public money.

The parent post makes no sense: Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate.

> Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate.

Sure, this is a convenient way to look at this particular situation. Yet I google "strings attached donation university" and see many instances of this crap: Koch brothers, John Allison, etc. It's serious enough that Harvard recently issued a "Gift Policy Guide" discourage strings-attached giving. Ironically, only the elite private universities have enough cachet to make such a policy stick.

The schools are entirely free to just reject the donation.

Can they? I have seen politicians cut budgets whenever they smelled blood in the water, even when the idea was completely harebrained^1 . Just the offer existing may interfere with a proper building funded through public means.

^1 For some time German universities had to require higher fees from students, officially to provide an improved learning experience. Seeing that universities now had an alternative income source some states cut public funding, they didn't care about the specifics, the courts did, some universities ended up not heating their buildings during winter because they couldn't legally touch the money.

And what alternative would you propose? Whatever I finance, I will have to approve. This is a pretty solid principle.

What other «way[s] to look at this» are there? Point of view or practical proposal, I do not get what are the other options.

Raising taxes, primarily. Or at least force donations to public institutions to be no-strings-attached. Many years ago when I attended UCSB and this project was in its infancy, someone told me that UCLA has a long-term development plan where large donors can choose from a menu of pre-planned projects. Not sure how true that it, but much better idea.

But my more extreme view is that individuals should not be able to amass so many resources to begin with. It's absurd.

What! Just for 13% of the contribution he is getting his name on the building and able to detect architecture!

You meant to say "dictate" architecture, right? Well, it serves the university right for not building a dorm that was 13% smaller or cheaper. They obviously had that choice and decided to go with the donation option instead.

If it's the choice between this with no windows or one that's much further away or costs more, the choice isn't to do with the windows, but putting up with the lack of them.

There's more options for the students to live than this singular building.

There's nothing hindering students from renting an apartment, they don't have to use the 200$ million building.

There are actually many UCSB students living in hotels due to a severe housing shortage.

Availability, cost. We live in a housing shortage and an era of housing exploitation.

I don't live in the US and don't know the local market, but a quick google says you need at least $2000 a month to get a basic apartment in Santa Barbara: https://www.apartments.com/santa-barbara-ca/. Who has that kind of money, especially combined with a full time education?

Your elitism is showing.

Well, in theory increased supply will lower the rents in the surrounding area.

No one will be forced to live there, but that location is a much better alternative than homeless or not.

So instead of attempting to deliver cheaper dense housing for 5000 students close to campus, we should make a windowed one that houses 3000 and tell the other 2000 to go to Sacramento and start lobbying for new state laws? Or do we instead try to get solutions at multiple scopes and not let perfect be the enemy of good.

> There's nothing hindering students from renting an apartment

The ridiculous expense because of the acute housing shortage in SB. Which building the largest dorm in the country would help alleviate.

> they don't have to use the 200$ million building

1.5$ Billion Building

Reply on news.ycombinator.com