UC Santa Cruz to Close Arboretum with World Class Plant Collections

I went there many times when I was a student at UCSC and bought some amazing plants for my parents garden from them.

California is $60 billion dollars in debt. $60 BILLION. Does that mean nothing to you? We owe insane amounts of money because year after year no one is willing to make the cuts necessary to even balance our budget, much less pay off our debt. We borrow money from China, at interest!, to pay for the Arboretum. Why do we borrow money at all? We have to pay it back some day, and then it costs even more.

The Arboretum costs are not sustainable. It needs to pay for itself or be closed, and it has failed to find a way to pay for itself year after year. $60B means time's up.

Besides, that money has been coming from all over the state. Why should people in LA, or Redding, or Bakersfield, or even SF be forced to pay for something they do not use or enjoy? It's not our arboretum, it's your arboretum. Pay for it with local taxes - your own taxes! - if you love it so much. I've never even been there.

Does the English department make money? Does Forensic Anthropology or biology make money? Is there a double standard being applied here for Horticulture and Plant Biology?

From what I've heard over my years in the community, UCSC abd the Arboretum have had an "arm's length" relationship for a long time. Maybe the campus itself doesn't know how to manage an asset? The budget crunch is real, but it's not like they need this land as the only open space on campus.

To Chancellor George Blumenthal:

As a retired journalist who covered he UC Santa Cruz campus for many years for both the Watsonville Register-Pajaronian and the San Jose Mercury News it has been my observation that the mission of many of the already-forgotten bureaucratic slugs who succeeded founding Chancellor Dean McHenry has been to obliterate the memory of that great and unforgettable man the way that Josef Stalin eliminated memories of former comrades by merely cutting them out of photographs of Kremlin leaders reviewing annual May Day parades. Who can even tell you the names of, say, the second or the fourth UCSC chancellors without resorting to Google? Yet McHenry, the heart and soul of your wonderful City On The Hill, comes to mind immediately when anyone discusses campus history.

Now, according to sources quoted by columnist Bruce Bratton, the school's arboretum -- one of the most-delightful and interesting features of UC Santa Cruz in the eyes of McHenry and many others who were there at the beginning -- is being shut down. Sure, it's easy to point to budget problems when administrators close any worthwhile operation; but it seems to be in lockstep with other UC actions during the past three decades and more that seem aimed more at erasing from history the important creative legacy of the first chancellor than in saving a few pennies.

Your predecessors, for the most part, had no "good neighbor policy" toward the greater Santa Cruz community, which has included thousands of folks over the years who've visited, enjoyed and made good use of the arboretum. I believe, Mr. Blumenthal that you may be reaching for the same historical anonymity if not ignominy with which those men and women entered retirement.

Lee Quarnstrom La Habra CA

IMO, Lee is cherry-picking to prove your point.

Nobody remembers the second Chancellor. The second Chancellor, Mark Christensen? Could it be that nobody remembers him because he was a poor choice, young, and lasted less than two years? (Gee, who does that remind me of ? But we'll remember her because of her leap into history. But I digress...)

The fourth Chancellor, Robert Sinsheimer? More than memorable, and more than remembered. Sinsheimer Labs and the Human Genome Sequence more than cement him in the record books for UCSC and the world, respectively.

As for the Arboretum? It's been a financial boondoggle for going on 20 years now. If I'm not mistaken, the Arboretum was told from the day of its inception that it had a finite time frame of fiscal support before it would have to become financially independent. Colette ignored that reality and ran it like a private club for many years. No disrespect to the volunteers who put their love and toil into it; they did a fine job. But at the same time, they never accepted that they were there at the largese of the University and its wallet.

Flash forward to the mid-90s, and Greenwood told them it was time to fish or cut bait. Collette balked, and was soon gone. Enomoto was brought in to make the place self-sufficient, and he gave it a good effort. He started effecting revenue via Norries, he turned a largely unused room into a rentable conference space, etc. Things started looking better for the Arboretum, and they then hired Harder.

Flash forward to today. I'm supposed to feel sympathy for a Director who acknowledges that he's been running a quarter of a millon dollars in the red annually AND has the gall to say (essentially), "Well, they didn't point that out or complain to me about it until the last couple of years".?!? Puhleeze.

So let's keep it real. IMO, this isn't about the University actively trying to eliminate Dean's legacy, nor is it about an uncaring corporation with no heart. Rather, I view it as a self-absorbed clique that, though doing fantastic things, hasn't been realistic about what it needs to do to pay its own bills to do those fantastic things. And in an era where the Uni. is cutting dozens of jobs and dozens of programs, that is a necessity. I don't view the Arboretum as any more victimized nor any more sanctified than any of the many other worthy programs that are suffering in this economic downturn.

Painting it as " aimed more at erasing from history the important creative legacy of the first chancellor " is hype that I won't swallow.

Interesting post. I'm not sure I believe some of your claims, but your post does all hang together. Sounds like you maybe are older than me or just paying attention to this issue longer than I have.

I agree with the notion that the Arboretum seemed to be run as sort of a private club under Collett, at least towards the end of his tenure.

I also remember the squawks of outrage when Enomoto was brought in. Yet my impression is much similar to yours; he didn't gut the place, and he took steps to make the place more viable and open.

Where we part paths is on the current situation and Daniel Harder. I've met the guy a couple times at events. He seemed to be a serious hard-working guy, also trying to bring in more people and revenue to the Arboretum. In a conversation I had with him, he expressed some frustration at how costly it was to get anything done through the U's official channels. Remember the infamous $30K dog run? Obviously this is just my subjective opinion and I don't have the whole picture.

In my opinion, in spite of the current desperate financial times, the U needs to find a way to make this work and keep the place running. The music series at the Arboretum during summer 2008 was a great idea. They need more events to draw folks in, and take more steps to tie the place into the academic activities of the campus. they are still too isolated, both from the community and from the main campus.

I'll stand by my historical representation of the Arboretum's history. And as good as Colette was in his time, he has sadly slipped into a strange space. (Cases in point: an email he sent out to hundreds claiming that Denton was a porn actress, and a blog posting he made claiming that mountain lions were rampant in the area, and that's why everyone carries a wooden staff when they hike in the Pogonip.).

I'll also stand by my opinion on Harder. I've met him too. I think he's a great guy. Personable and intelligent and passionalte and well-intentioned.

But as a director of the arboretum, making over $100,000 per year, to make a statement that essentially was "I didn't think it was a problem that we were losing $250,000 a year because they didn't specifically tell me it was a problem"....? Reprehensible.

I agree that the University is a place where projects cost too much to complete; it's a beaurocratic mess. BUT, Harder signed on for that mess, and seems to have no problem taking a handsome salary to oversee the mess.

So when you say that"the U needs to find a way to make this work and keep the place running."? My resonse is that they did. They hired Harder at $110K per year to make it work and keep it running.....and he hasn't accomplished his task.

Keep it Real

I think we are real close here. I'd heard some rumors about Collett, but wasn't going to say anything more specific, and heard it was attributable to a medical situation. And I agree with you on Enomoto.

What you say makes sense, but it is predicated on knowing what the terms of Harder's job description and duties are, and knowing what he did or didn't do. And I don't think either of us is in a position to know that. I'm not. If the standard job duties for arboretum managers include bringing in some percentage of revenue to support the enterprise, then I'd guess that was understood by both parties and understood.

I did some research today and from just a little bit of browsing, see other university arboretums have some institutional support, but also lean on outside donations. Of course, any rational person looking at the state's financial implosion over the last two years ought to be re-assessing their assumptions of how things are.

What I'm saying about "making it work" is partly about Harder, but is also about the Arboretum continuing. I'll assume you are 100% correct. I still think the U needs to figure out a way to preserve the arboretum through the current crisis, and figure out a way to put it on whatever solid footing needs to happen.

Good discussion!

A good discussion with civil disagreement; what a concept! *s*

Nobody ever suggested that Denton was a porn actress. I did ask why feeding Google the name the University announced yielded nothing but porn sites. Weeks passed before the University could believe that it was misspelling her name. She thought it was funny, but some sore heads still try hard to keep their heads sore. Nobody ever told Collett to make the Arboretum pay its way, for it ran a surplus every year. Yes, Collett did point out that mountain lions were rampant. Now, at last, genuine scientists are tracking them. (It would be nice if their locations were posted on the Web.) Yes, 10 years ago my cancer had spread, but my nose told me to throw my cancer medicine away; the radiation specialist never showed; and I was right. Leave Bossie the Cow alone, and you might instantly recover. Yes, mountain lions do horribly stink, and that's how you know where they are!

She gave you a laugh-off and "it was no biggie" when you saw her and apologized. In her mind and comments to others? You dissed her and it was game over from the day the email was sent.

Dear "Polite Reply",
What is your game? Are you actually that mixed up?

Because of threats by Greenwood and her associates to destroy the Arboretum if I didn't quit, I had resigned from the directorship (and had stayed clear of the Arboretum) for years before Denton arrived. Like many people, I quickly heard that Denton was intelligent enough to know that prospective underlings would try the attack dog game. She was annoyed that her bureaucracy took weeks to learn how to spell her name. She blamed them, not me, for the resulting craziness.

Unlike many UCSC administrators, Denton tried. (It would be difficult for a stranger to UCSC to know that a dog run would cost $30K.) I never formally met Denton but recognized her when she was hiking in the woods. She was one of the few UCSC chancellors to venture outside. Once, when I talked to her about some gun shots (she didn't have a clue that I had ever worked for the campus), she set out through the forest to the campus firing range and shut it down.

Growing up in Santa Cruz I spent a decent amount of time at UCSC before I attended. I was under the impression and illusion that UCSC was this incredible liberal, unique, socially/environmentally conscious machine which crafted amazingly talented individuals who successfully contributed their knowledge and skill to society after they graduated. When I enrolled last Fall quarter, I quickly and clearly saw that this is not the case on so many levels.

I was under the impression that UCSC valued its well established departments such as Community Studies and Environmental Studies (Two departments which have earned the U so much of its front page liberal popularity recognition world wide). I also thought UCSC (including the administrative part of the bureaucracy) was front line in protecting and conserving its fragile and diminishing coastal redwood ecosystem which they have "so carefully" built a college campus in. This is not the case either. My first experience with the UC in environmental protection was the U and law enforcement ripping out the tree sitters against the LRDP on the first day of spring break 09'- while no students were around to protest- within the hour cutting down the the 20-30 redwoods in front of the Science and Engineering library, and arbitrarily arresting my good friend who was walking through the construction zone. (I witnessed police tackle him. Some way to treat a student or client as we are often referred to, who pays money for the entire U). I understand the need for a new Bio-med facility or any new facility for that matter which requires the sacrifice of a few redwoods, but ultimately it will be 120 more acres of redwoods for thousands more students which seems to more than less- ecologically atrocious, unsustainable, and "most importantly" against the UCSC image of an eco-conscious, small intimate learning environment where its all "tofu and tie-die."

Now as far as The God damn ARBORETUM. I just don't understand why it would close. I do understand that it has ALL to do with money and keeping certain peoples' salaries in the six figure range. But if we cut departments entirely like Community studies, or slash funding to the Environmental studies department, or pay UC employees unlivable wages, or cut student financial aid and raise affordable family student housing rent costs, or phase out the trailer park, or encroach on the UCSC farm with cheap faculty track homes, and finally get rid of the Arboretum, I just don't see the point in even trying to attend the U. It should just become a military Research and Development base. After all, if the U gets rid of all the things that made it worthwhile in the first place, such as the Arboretum or a well accredited department, whats the point of attending? It seems all too much like the State Parks issue we are flailing under right now, which comes down to valuing economics and market-based dollar-security over the security of our environment or other unquantifiable valuables such as social programs or AN ARBORETUM.

My advice to anyone considering attending a UC is to research it extensively and weigh the pros and cons in a T-chart to clearly see that it's not worth YOUR precious TIME and a BA or BS doesn't (even from this prestigious UC) mean shit anymore. Go to trade school or a community college or travel before you decide to waste a bunch of time at an institution which will most likely leave you at the same job you had before college after you graduate.

Sorry to have to voice my experience at UCSC as such a negative one. But the fact is, it is my experience which has shaped my opinion. With one exception; all the professors I have had are great and truly care about their work which extends far beyond the realm of profit, but to that of real success which cannot be measured by dollars. I only wish they had more leverage in how the UC is run and to keep the Damn Arboretum functioning.