Staff editorial: Wild, wild East Campus

The university's East Campus development project — the largest construction project to come to College Park since the shaping of McKeldin Mall during the Great Depression — has hit another road block. More than three years in the making, the plan to redevelop the 38 acres of university-owned land near the intersection of Paint Branch Parkway and Route 1 into shops and restaurants faces an uncertain future, as the $40 million needed to jump-start the project may be unattainable.

East Campus has faced setbacks before. First, the university encountered protests from some students and faculty when word broke that the mail center, bus depot and other facility buildings would be relocated to the Wooded Hillock behind Comcast Center. Then the project was put on hold indefinitely in February when developers failed to shore up adequate funds for the $900 million project. Eight months later, developer Foulger-Pratt/Argo pulled out of the project, forcing the university to come up with the $15 million the developer had originally promised to pay for relocation costs.

East Campus has turned into an example of the times: a multi-million dollar construction project with colorful and appealing concept drawings failing to become reality because of a poor economy and the unavailability of credit.

University officials have agreed to buy FP-Argo's East Campus site plan and work with multiple developers on the project. But developers cannot break ground on the site until the university buildings currently there are moved, which cannot be done without money. And there doesn't seem to be a concrete plan for  how the relocation costs will be paid.
To say the least, the situation has gotten complicated.

Although East Campus may take much longer than expected to complete, the administration must put forth a realistic and straightforward plan now to ensure the project remains feasible.

Their vagaries about the project's future does not send a good message to the General Assembly, who will ultimately decide whether to fork up more money for the project. The state legislature has already approved $5 million of a requested $25 million for relocation costs. The likelihood of the legislature allocating another $20 million when the state already faces a $2 billion deficit seems slim. State Sen. Jim Rosapepe (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's) also pointed out that the project legislators funded last year doesn't seem to exist. FP-Argo's departure has changed the logistics of the project dramatically. Where there was once a single developer, there is now a patchwork.

There is even the possibility the university won't be able to spend the $5 million already approved. An amendment in the state budget requires the consent of the College Park City Council before any of it can be spent. A council stocked with environmentally friendly members concerned about the destruction of the Wooded Hillock could put a hold on the project.

If East Campus is going to come to fruition any time soon, university officials need to get out ahead of these problems. The vagueness of their statements and what appears to be a lack of direction will not convince many lawmakers.

The development of East Campus is essential if College Park is to become the real college town officials on both sides of the university-city divide have always dreamed of. Having the Birchmere music hall, a five-star hotel, and upscale shopping and dining in one location can do a lot to improve the image of the city.

But without a detailed plan on how the university will proceed, East Campus could become nothing more than a dream and a few sketches of what might have been. Administrators overseeing the project must explain to members of the General Assembly and city council that economic downturn has led to changed circumstances but that the benefits provided by the eventual completion of East Campus will far outweigh the costs of getting the project off the ground. If we are to see progress, legislators must be convinced.