Large institutions—universities, hospitals, and nonprofit organizations—are referred to as anchors because of their permanence and their stabilizing physical and social ties to surrounding communities. Beyond fulfilling their respective missions to educate, heal, cultivate the arts, or provide other services, these “eds and meds” are proven economic engines. They employ large workforces, occupy and manage big pieces of real estate, purchase vast quantities of goods and services, attract investment through capital projects and research activities, and provide local constituents access to food, retail, and other amenities. In many instances, anchor institutions are the largest nonpublic employers in their cities. Indeed, HUD estimated that eds and meds employed more than 7 million people and generated $1 trillion in economic activity in 2009 (Brophy and Godsil 2009).

In some instances, a mutually beneficial dynamic evolves between an anchor institution and its community, creating economically sustainable commercial corridors, vibrant streets, and dense, diverse neighborhoods. Plenty of great college towns across America showcase this productive interplay. But in many other cases, especially in underserved urban areas, institutional and civic leadership must be more entrepreneurial, actively championing projects, programs, and policies to achieve these outcomes. This process, known as an anchor strategy, provides the framework that guides local efforts to work with institutions to capitalize on and maximize the impact of their presence.

In theory, the value of engaging anchor institutions to achieve positive neighborhood or community outcomes is self-evident: all parties benefit, and it’s a smart way to do business. But in practice, the community and its institutions must work together to redefine how to align and leverage their goals, economic interests, and activities to achieve a win-win outcome. This article explores why it is difficult to undertake meaningful anchor strategies that fundamentally change how the anchor and its community relate to one other. We also draw on some of the lessons learned from successful efforts in areas such as Philadelphia, Detroit, and Cleveland, where comprehensive civic engagement has become the norm at some of the country’s leading medical and educational institutions.

Parameters for Success

The important thing to stress is that individual tactics are necessary but insufficient to constitute a strategy. A strategy is a long-term engagement, implemented through tactics that evolve over time. In addition, anchor strategies involve partnerships with multiple organizations and people in the surrounding community—relationships that must also evolve over time to respond to community needs and goals designed to make the area more livable.

Effective and transformative anchor strategies have three fundamental features: they are place-based, institutionally embedded, and comprehensive.

The Advantage of Intermediaries

Many anchor strategies benefit from having strong local partners to shepherd the work. These intermediaries often buttress anchor staff capacity to pursue broader local engagement and benefits. A properly funded community development corporation (CDC) or community development financial institution (CDFI) with a local representative at its helm can be an effective intermediary.

Intermediaries are more nimble than large anchor institutions and thus able to negotiate among numerous partners and take actions unencumbered by bureaucracy. Most successful intermediaries are local organizations with long histories in the region, credibility within the community so that they are not seen as tools of the anchor or funders, and the ability to provide neutral ground for discussing and pursuing the anchor work. If the community is skeptical of a fully anchor-driven effort, a partnership with a local, trusted intermediary can provide legitimacy.

A local CDC’s ability to leverage an anchor-sponsored initiative in Detroit provides a good example. Midtown Detroit Inc. (midtowndetroitinc.org) manages Live Midtown (livemidtown.org), an employer-assisted housing program supported by Wayne State University, Henry Ford Medical System, and Detroit Medical Center. As MDI’s President Susan Mosey notes, “It is important to have local people shepherding this work on a day-to-day basis. This builds familiarity with the initiatives and creates the credibility and buy-in that the anchor strategies need to be successful.” Indeed, with MDI’s help, the anchor institutions’ financial commitment of $5 million over five years was matched by contributions from local funders and the state housing finance agency. This success spurred major downtown employers—including Quicken Loans, DTE, Compuware, and Blue Cross Blue Shield—to create their own $5 million Live Downtown program. Between the two programs, more than 1,600 employees have moved to midtown and downtown Detroit, reducing vacancy rates in the corridor to less than 3 percent (Welch 2014).

Place-Based

Place-based strategies have a specific and easily identified geography that the anchor directly affects, including the buildings, open spaces, gateways, and street networks that connect an institution to its community. Beyond the physical orientation of an institution are the places that its constituents—its employees, students, patients, clients, or visitors—live in and patronize. Strong mixed-use neighborhoods surrounding institutions support the street life that defines a vibrant district, encourage pedestrian activity, and create the residential density that in turn creates community.

An anchor’s “placemaking” activities—communally shaping public spaces to heighten their shared value—must engage tactically with other stakeholders to be considered strategic. Such tactics may include reinvesting in the neighborhood through housing construction and rehabilitation; supporting targeted commercial and retail development; improving public spaces and public safety; and strengthening local services such as schools, nonprofits, and community resources. These activities benefit the anchor in a number of ways and create a stronger neighborhood, thus increasing the institution’s attractiveness to potential clients (students, patients, and staff) and generating goodwill among residents and local officials.

Institutionally Embedded

An anchor strategy must be part of an institution’s DNA. This integration starts when leaders commit to their organization’s role as an anchor and communicate it throughout the entire organization. Leadership then follows through by committing significant amounts of time and resources across all institutional functions.

To be effective, anchor work usually requires changes in the organizational culture, such as altering the reward structure, adopting new mission statements and success metrics, and critically examining internal and external communications. Once internal programs, administrative units, facilities management personnel, and governing boards are all working together toward collective goals, an anchor strategy can begin to transform the surrounding community.

Comprehensive

Eds and meds touch their surrounding communities in a multitude of ways—by employing local residents, occupying vast physical footprints, educating or healing community members, and producing waste, among other impacts. In addition to placemaking, a comprehensive anchor strategy must address the following intersections.

Personnel

Given that anchor institutions are often a city’s largest employer, hiring decisions and the provision of employee benefits can have a profound impact on the social and economic fabric of the community. By increasing the percentage of workers drawn from within its footprint, the institution can simultaneously lift the neighborhood economy, provide jobs to those who may be un- or under-employed, and create goodwill among its neighbors. Employer-assisted housing is another critical investment in both personnel and the surrounding neighborhood (Webber and Karlstrom 2009). When employees can live closer to the anchor institution, it’s a win-win, reducing housing and transportation costs for workers while lowering turnover and absenteeism for employers.

Procurement

The purchasing power of large anchor institutions can be vast, with annual outlays for goods and services in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Capturing even a portion of the procurement stream for local companies can have a significant impact on the local economy. For example, the University of Pennsylvania was able to inject $57 million into the West Philadelphia economy with only 9 percent of its annual purchasing (ICIC and CEOs for Cities 2002).

The benefits of local procurement are obvious, but redirecting that process and realizing the benefits is not a trivial undertaking. For example, the anchor may incur substantial indirect costs for community outreach as well as training to ensure reliable supplies of locally produced goods and services. In addition, the existence of reliable, cost-competitive local providers is not a given. Moreover, large institutions may have highly decentralized purchasing processes, and getting each department to adhere to new policies can take time and effort (ICIC and CEOs for Cities 2002). Again, trusted local intermediaries can help to facilitate the shift to local suppliers.

Policy

The relationship between anchor institutions and local or regional governing bodies is often complicated. As private institutions, anchors may feel that they do not need to answer to local government. Indeed, they may see local government as ineffective, inefficient, or obtrusive to executing their optimal business strategies. For their part, local and regional governments may view anchor institutions as free riders that consume public services and other public benefits while enjoying exemptions from property taxes—the main revenue source for local governments. To ease these tensions, some institutions have voluntarily provided “payments in lieu of taxes” (PILOTs) to compensate municipalities for this lost revenue (Kenyon and Langley 2010). But a successful anchor strategy will determine additional ways to promote mutually beneficial work that enhances the future of the institution while addressing local/regional policy issues. Wim Wiewel, president of Portland State University, has been especially clear on this point, citing his institution’s adoption of “Let Knowledge Serve the City” as its motto in the early 1990s. In his words, “We serve the metro area and we are proud of it.”

Planning

Someone has to coordinate these elements into a cohesive initiative. Large anchors have a great deal of in-house planning skill and regularly engage in long-term planning for their enterprises. When they decide to take on a strategy, anchors can utilize this skill to determine the best ways to engage with the community and local and regional stakeholders. In addition, working through the anchors’ strategic planning processes is a way to institutionalize the anchor strategy so that it outlasts the term of a president or CEO and becomes the normal way of doing business.

Understanding Anchor Institutions

A successful anchor strategy is neither created nor implemented in a vacuum. For any of the above activities to be part of a genuine anchor strategy, anchors must undertake them in strategic concert with other stakeholders in the area. For example, initiating an employer-assisted housing program or setting local purchasing goals can benefit employees or community residents, but these efforts are not part of a comprehensive anchor strategy unless they are connected to an overall, institution-wide approach to local engagement and interaction. To achieve this type of interaction, it is important to understand how anchor institutions work.

Large, nonprofit institutions such as eds and meds are fundamentally risk-averse and slow to change or take on new roles. Embarking on an anchor strategy thus entails a fundamental shift in the way anchor leaders think and how their organizations operate—something that may take time, involve important and difficult discussions or negotiations, and require strong leadership and incentives from both inside and outside the organization.

Universities and hospitals are anchor institutions not only because they are rooted in place and have a critical impact on the local economy, but also because they are big. With size come layers of bureaucracy, multiple players who need to participate in anchor work, and an inability to make quick, nimble moves.

Figure 1 depicts the typical structure of a university. At the top is the board of trustees, drawn from civic, industrial, and scientific leadership and generally composed of alumni or other school affiliates. Trustees interact with the campus intermittently and focus on managing the university’s reputational and financial risk. The president is typically an academic who may or may not have a background in management. Presidents concentrate on fundraising and managing the university’s reputation. Academics usually see universities as places for free thought, insulated from market and capital forces. They often view the administration with suspicion or skepticism. Administrators typically have accounting or management backgrounds and prioritize job security. These priorities and attitudes combine to create a culture that does not reward risk and punishes failure.

Hospitals have similarly large bureaucratic structures. The main decision-making bodies are generally the board and the CEO, both of which focus on minimizing institutional risk and handling finances responsibly and profitably. Administrators prioritize meeting the requirements of their positions and ensuring job security through institutional protection, while healthcare professionals such as doctors and nurses may focus on treating patients or conducting research while looking no farther than the borders of the hospital campus.

These cultures produce decisions that may seem logical for the institutions themselves, but they often do not align with community goals. For example, the university may build parking lots around the school, often at the edges of campus, to provide easy access for faculty, staff, and students. But doing so incentivizes employees and students to drive, curbing the chance that they will live in neighborhoods within walking distance and visit nearby shops. Parking lots also create an asphalt barrier that insulates the campus from the community. Similarly, the institution’s procurement policies may be based on getting the lowest price for the most predictable outcomes, meaning that they contract with large, often national vendors for their goods and services rather than with local providers. Finally, a university often locates open space, recreational facilities, and other amenities within its confines, allowing only limited interaction with community members. To change how these types of decisions are made, it is essential to alter the anchor leadership’s view of the institution in relation to its community and understand how to change ingrained habits and mindsets.

Promoting Community Engagement

There are a number of ways that local leaders, philanthropists, community groups, and other stakeholders can move an anchor institution toward a new role in the neighborhood.

Identify Champions

Leadership is often the key to a successful anchor strategy. The philosophy and approach of the chancellor, president, or CEO can determine whether an institution sees itself as an anchor, how it acts once it defines itself as such, and whether those actions are enduring. As Benjamin Kennedy of The Kresge Foundation advises, “Be opportunistic! Every single person at an institution doesn’t have to buy in—only the key people do. Your champions are the ones who will transform the institution and instill the anchor outlook.”

A strong leader committed to an anchor strategy can lay the foundation for meaningful community engagement and impact. The approach must be embedded within the senior administration and trickle down throughout the institution, so that staff members who are directly responsible for particular pieces of the strategy—such as human resources staff, procurement officers, and professors engaged in community research projects—understand their new priorities. This transition can be achieved in part through changing the reward structure and communicating strategically, by amending the vision statement, and regularly describing anchor work and accomplishments in internal messaging.

An anchor strategy has a greater chance of success if multiple parties actively echo support for it. Within the anchor institution, it can be immensely helpful to identify staff members who champion the idea of community engagement and work with local groups to devise mutually beneficial strategies. Outside the anchor, it is useful to recruit local leaders to push the institution to take on a new role. For example, local philanthropy in Cleveland and Detroit played a large part in coaxing institutions to come together to devise anchor strategies for their surrounding communities.

Explore Multi-Anchor Opportunities

If a neighborhood houses more than one anchor institution, multiple organizations can participate in the effort. This approach has proven highly successful in Cleveland, where hospitals, universities, and cultural organizations, along with local philanthropies, financial institutions, and the City of Cleveland, have joined together to implement the Greater University Circle Initiative.

Although a multi-anchor strategy adds complexity by increasing the number of people and organizations that must buy into the work, it can also magnify the initiative’s impact by bringing additional resources to the table and expanding the number of champions. Furthermore, the leaders of each anchor institution can encourage and reinforce each other’s work, while distributing perceived risk.

Identify Self-Interest

At a basic level, a hospital or university may undertake an anchor strategy because its leaders believe that improvements to the surrounding community would benefit the institution. For example, Dr. Wallace D. Loh, president of the University of Maryland, College Park, has focused on improving quality of life in the neighborhood because he was concerned that local conditions detracted from the university’s ability to attract and retain faculty and staff.

Anchor strategies have other, more indirect benefits. While a university or hospital may make unilateral decisions about what happens on its own land, it can also face issues that require support from outside forces, including local government and community residents. Creating strong and longstanding relationships with local leaders through anchor work can help the organization win support for future plans. By thinking holistically about their relationship with the surrounding community, anchor leaders are often encouraged to reconceptualize their basic goals of educating or healing. Dr. Lucy Kerman, vice provost, University and Community Partnerships at Drexel University, sums it up this way: “Anchor work must be aligned with the university’s self-interest, and be rooted in the appropriate role of the institution. We may not be directly creating affordable housing or running a school, but we are partners in a system that creates mixed-income opportunities and provides strong educational opportunity.”

Bring Resources to the Table

Of course, it may all come down to resources. Financial incentives encourage institutions and their partners to take on anchor work, strategize about their role in the community, meet regularly with stakeholders, and invest in anchor activities. For their part, local stakeholders may see the opportunity to engage the anchor institution but lack the ability or tools to get involved without new funding.

In Detroit, for example, the anchors came to the table for many reasons, but one key factor was the financial resources offered by the two partners that brought them together: the Hudson-Webber and Kresge Foundations. Their capital kick started the conversation and continues to undergird the work today. By offering matching money for specific tactics, the foundations incentivized the anchors to commit their own funds. Today, the anchors not only support specific initiatives but also provide operating resources to Midtown Detroit Inc., the neighborhood planning and development organization that supports and staffs much of the anchor work. In this way, philanthropic resources seeded the initiative while helping to create the infrastructure necessary for its successful implementation and sustainability.

Connecting Strategy to the Community

At first glance, community needs and goals—good schools, safe streets, amenities and services, job opportunities, public spaces, and housing—do not correlate directly with an anchor’s outputs. Indeed, if an institution generates successful graduates, high-quality health care, and top-notch research, it concludes that it has done its job as both a local and a global citizen.

But by aligning community goals with an institution’s inputs—faculty, staff, patients, students, visitors, real estate, goods and services—anchor strategies can connect the institution’s mission to community aspirations. Hiring local residents for institutional jobs enhances an anchor’s economic impact within the community, aiding local households as well as the overall area. When institution staff members shop, live, and dine in the neighborhood, it stimulates the local economy. Using the framework of the five Ps, anchor/community engagement can advance community aspirations from goals to outcomes.

• Placemaking. Both the community and institution can benefit from thoughtful implementation of an institution’s real estate programming, which can promote an open campus with active edges and limit uses such as parking or storage. Improving the condition of blocks surrounding the university or hospital, opening up access to public spaces, and focusing on issues such as street lighting or storefront improvements all make for a safer and healthier environment for residents, prospective students and patients. The inputs that could play a role in this process are faculty, staff, students, patients, visitors, and real estate. The community goals that can be affected include safe streets, amenities and services, job opportunities, public spaces, and housing variety.
• Personnel. By hiring locally, an anchor strategy provides job opportunities for area residents. As the employment rate rises, the community will become safer, benefiting both residents and the anchor institution. The main input in this case is staff.
• Procurement. The anchor institution can bolster the local economy by contracting with local vendors, creating job opportunities, safer streets, and more amenities and services. The anchor can also generate positive public relations regarding its local outreach. Again, staff is the main input.
• Policy. By directing its research and teaching prowess toward local issues, the anchor can help to meet community aspirations for good schools, improved public safety, job opportunities, and health care, thus bolstering its own reputation in the region. To accomplish this, the anchor can tap staff, faculty, students, and visitors for activities such as service learning, health care outreach, and experiential teaching.
• Planning. Crafting all of these efforts into a cohesive mission requires that leaders of anchor institutions link each input with community aspirations. An anchor can also provide planning talent to help build concurrence between its own plans and the plans of the neighborhood or municipality. The lead input in this case is staff, with anchor employees working together to identify how various strategies align with community goals in order to create win-win propositions.

Conclusion

A place-based, institutionally embedded, and comprehensive anchor strategy can have significant impacts on a local and regional economy. But building and implementing such a focused strategy takes a great deal of time and patience. Putting all the elements together—getting the partners involved, convincing them of their self-interest in undertaking anchor work, identifying strong leaders and using them to change the ethos of their institutions, identifying intermediaries and ensuring they have the capacity to play their roles, lining up financial incentives—requires the commitment and coordination of many moving parts.

In many cases, the anchor work is based on trust, often among groups that have not worked together in the past. Building these relationships involves in-person contact and the development of strong alliances. Furthermore, this effort must occur within the context of working with large anchor institutions. Those who wish to work with anchors to change the way they do business must understand how and why institutions act the way they do, and how they make decisions. When all these components come together, anchor strategies can transform the community, the region, and the anchor itself.

About the Authors

Beth Dever is an independent consultant working for the Ford Foundation. Omar Blaik is CEO and George Smith is vice president of U3 Advisors. George W. McCarthy is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

References

Brophy, P., and R. Godsil. 2009. “Retooling HUD for a Catalytic Government: A Report to Secretary Shaun Donovan.” Philadelphia: Penn Institute for Urban Research.

Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) and CEOs for Cities. 2002. “Leveraging Colleges and Universities for Urban Economic Revitalization: An Action Agenda.” Boston: ICIC and CEOs for Cities.

Kenyon, Daphne A., and Adam H. Langley. 2010. Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Balancing Municipal and Nonprofit Interests. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Webber, H., and Mikael Karlström. 2009. “Why Community Investment is Good for Nonprofit Anchor Institutions: Understanding Costs, Benefits, and the Range of Strategic Options.” Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Welch, Sherri. 2014. “Midtown Detroit Expands Boundaries for Housing Incentives.” Crain’s Detroit Business. April 28.

No es casualidad que la Universidad de Kenyon, en Gambier, Ohio, aparezca en gran cantidad de listas de los más hermosos campus universitarios de los Estados Unidos. Cuando el obispo Philander Chase fundó esta universidad en la cumbre de una colina arbolada en el año 1824, su visión era lograr un entorno rural sereno que promoviera el pensamiento serio y la buena conducta. Durante 189 años, la universidad y todos aquellos que han pasado por ella han valorado este entorno. Los ritmos atemporales que presenta el paisaje permiten obtener vistas agradables que alimentan el espíritu en cada estación, y tanto los estudiantes como el cuerpo docente utilizan las hectáreas rurales adyacentes al campus para realizar trabajos de campo relacionados con diferentes disciplinas, desde la sociología hasta la química, pasando por la biología. Aun mucho después de graduarse, los exalumnos de la universidad recuerdan el campus, los campos y bosques circundantes y el curso serpenteante del río Kokosing, un pintoresco río del estado de Ohio. Como parte integrante de la experiencia en Kenyon, es precisamente este entorno el que atrae el interés de los posibles estudiantes y sus padres, ya que implica mucho más que un conjunto de hermosos bienes naturales: representa el pasado, el presente y el futuro para Kenyon.

En la década de 1820, Chase adquirió originalmente unas 1.600 hectáreas para la universidad y el pueblo de Gambier, además de otras 1.600 hectáreas adicionales, lo que representó una inversión total de US$18.000. No obstante, en los cinco años siguientes a su fundación, Kenyon comenzó a vender las hectáreas en las que había invertido debido a las dificultades económicas que estaba atravesando. Para principios de la década de 1970, los terrenos de la universidad se habían reducido a menos de 300 hectáreas.

Hacia la última década del siglo XX, era evidente que la universidad no podía dar por hecho su encantador entorno natural. En primer lugar, el propietario de un inmueble ubicado sobre el río Kokosing directamente enfrente de la entrada a Kenyon anunció sus planes para establecer un parque para vehículos recreativos. La universidad compró la propiedad por una prima significativa y, posteriormente, compró unas 90 hectáreas adicionales con el fin de detener las propuestas de desarrollar un distrito de negocios a lo largo de la autopista estatal que conduce a Gambier. Al mismo tiempo, el crecimiento y el desarrollo estaban modificando el paisaje en amplios sectores de la zona rural del condado de Knox. A medida que aumentaba la cantidad de subastas de granjas, ventas de terrenos, subdivisiones realizadas de manera atropellada y desarrollos comerciales, quedó claro que debían tomarse medidas al respecto.

La Philander Chase Corporation al rescate

En 1995, la universidad se encontraba en la primera etapa de una campaña de 5 años para recaudar fondos que comprendía una meta de 1 millón de dólares para la “adquisición de terrenos con el fin de preservar el entorno que [la universidad] tanto aprecia”. La primera donación para la preservación provino de un exalumno que, en 1997, visitó el predio un soleado fin de semana de primavera. Después de caminar hasta la cumbre de una colina que daba al valle del río Kokosing para ver el entorno que Kenyon deseaba proteger, este exalumno transfirió 1 millón de dólares a la universidad. Hacia fines de la campaña, en el año 2000, la universidad había recaudado más de 3 millones de dólares, es decir, había triplicado la meta establecida para preservar el espacio abierto.

Esta campaña demostró que los exalumnos y otros donantes consideraban el tema de la conservación del suelo muy importante en sus listas de donaciones benéficas y que la protección de los terrenos alrededor de la universidad continuaría atrayendo la lealtad y las donaciones de los exalumnos de Kenyon. Al mismo tiempo, los programas estatales y federales estaban comenzando a brindar un financiamiento significativo para la conservación del suelo. Debido a que la universidad no reunía los requisitos para recibir dicha asistencia, resultó crucial establecer una entidad especial.

Recuadro 1: Catalizadores de la conservación

La historia de la Universidad de Kenyon en cuanto a la protección de las granjas y campos circundantes al campus universitario representa un caso ejemplar de una institución académica que cataliza medidas de conservación de paisajes a gran escala. Como tal, esta historia es sólo una entre más de una docena de casos compilados por el Instituto Lincoln en un libro que se publicará próximamente, “Catalizadores de la Conservación”, editado por James Levitt, fellow del Instituto Lincoln. Levitt comenta que “este libro nos dará una idea de las prácticas llevadas a cabo por universidades, facultades y organizaciones de investigación independientes en todo el mundo, que van más allá de su misión de enseñanza e investigación para aplicar su reconocida experiencia en la conservación del suelo, que, en muchos casos, se realiza literalmente ‘in situ’”.

Lo que resulta extraordinario en estos casos no es sólo su impacto sino también la amplitud el alcance de la diversidad organizacional y geográfica que representan. Las organizaciones académicas y de investigación están catalizando estas iniciativas mucho más allá de la base de operaciones de Kenyon en Gambier, Ohio, hacia lugares tan remotos como Australia, las islas caribeñas de Trinidad y Tobago y el bosque boreal canadiense. Las iniciativas, por lo general, abarcan una amplia gama de intereses que representan a los sectores público, privado, sin fines de lucro, y académico y de investigación, e involucran una gran variedad de disciplinas de las ciencias naturales, las ciencias sociales, los estudios profesionales y las humanidades. El estudio y la divulgación de las buenas prácticas en cuanto a la conservación del suelo a gran escala son el tema central de dos proyectos actuales del Instituto Lincoln y sus contrapartes en la iniciativa conjunta formada a tal fin con la Red Profesional para la Conservación de Paisajes a Gran Escala (www.largelandscapenetwork.org) y la Red de Catalizadores de Conservación (www.conservationcatalysts.net).

En el año 2000, la universidad creó la Philander Chase Corporation (PCC), una entidad sin fines de lucro independiente, con una misión simple: “Preservar y mantener los terrenos agrícolas, los espacios abiertos, los lugares pintorescos y los paisajes característicos que rodean a Universidad de Kenyon y a Gambier, en Ohio”. La estructura de organización de la PCC, consistente en un directorio formado por 15 miembros, es única entre los fideicomisos de suelo. La PCC es una organización de categoría 501(c)3 y Kenyon College es el único miembro, según las disposiciones establecidas en la ley de entidades sin fines de lucro de Ohio. Aunque la organización es una entidad que funciona por separado a instancias de su directorio, Kenyon College es la organización de control y ratifica la elección de los directores de la PCC. Tanto el presidente de Kenyon como el presidente del directorio de la PCC son, ex officio, miembros respectivos del directorio de la otra organización.

Uno de los objetivos de la PCC consiste además en evitar que los futuros directorios vendan hectáreas y en mejorar las relaciones entre la universidad y la ciudad. Aunque las interacciones entre Kenyon y la comunidad en la que está emplazada no presentaban mayores problemas, existía cierto grado de fricción, ya que, aun cuando la PCC funcionaba bajo los auspicios de la universidad, los residentes de la ciudad en general percibían a la PCC como una entidad por separado que comenzaba desde cero.

Asistencia de los socios locales

Tal como se sugirió anteriormente, la PCC tuvo la suerte de recibir el financiamiento en un momento especialmente oportuno, ya que sus intereses coincidían y se superponían con iniciativas similares que se estaban gestando en el estado de Ohio y en el condado de Knox, lo que brindó el marco y las estrategias que, posteriormente, ayudarían a la PCC a llevar a cabo sus tareas.

En 1996, el gobernador de ese entonces, George Voinovich, estableció una comisión bipartidaria denominada Unidad Especial para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas de Ohio, formada por representantes del gobierno, del sector empresarial, del sector académico y del sector agrícola. En junio de 1997, esta unidad especial informó que, en los 45 años anteriores, se habían perdido más de 2,8 millones de hectáreas (el 33 por ciento de los terrenos agrícolas de Ohio) para su utilización en actividades no relacionadas con la agricultura. Dos recomendaciones específicas prepararon el camino hacia medidas de conservación más amplias: la creación de la Oficina para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas, perteneciente al Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, y una declaración de principios en la que se establecía el compromiso del estado de proteger sus terrenos agrícolas productivos de una recalificación para usos no agrícolas que sería irreversible.

El estado anunció, además, la creación de un programa de Subsidio en Bloque para el Desarrollo Comunitario de 10.000 dólares con el fin de apoyar los planes municipales de “preservación de terrenos agrícolas”, lo que desembocó en la creación de la Unidad Especial para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas del Condado de Knox en el año 1988. Me desempeñé en la unidad especial de este condado, donde me encomendaron “evaluar el estado de la producción agrícola en el condado, analizar alternativas para el desarrollo sin planificación y presentar recomendaciones para la preservación de los terrenos agrícolas del condado de Knox”.

En el año 2000, el electorado estatal aprobó la creación del Fondo Limpio de Ohio, un programa de bonos de 400 millones de dólares destinado a preservar las áreas naturales y los terrenos agrícolas, proteger los arroyos, generar oportunidades de recreación al aire libre y revitalizar áreas urbanas mediante la recuperación de terrenos contaminados abandonados para un uso productivo. Este fondo (que el electorado renovó en el año 2008) dedicó 25 millones de dólares al Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio, administrado por el Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, para ser utilizados durante un período de cuatro años.

Otro desarrollo clave a nivel del condado que se dio en esos momentos fue la creación del Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek, un fideicomiso de suelo privado sin fines de lucro que trabaja junto con los propietarios para conservar los terrenos agrícolas, los corredores fluviales, las áreas protegidas de acuíferos y cuencas, los hábitats de vida silvestre, los bosques y otras áreas particularmente sensibles desde el punto de vista ecológico de la región central de Ohio, entre la que se cuenta el condado de Knox.

Desde sus inicios, la PCC determinó que, para lograr el éxito, sería fundamental crear buenas asociaciones de trabajo, por lo que entabló relaciones con los encargados de elaborar políticas a nivel del pueblo, la ciudad, el condado y el estado. Desde los Comisionados del Condado de Knox hasta el Distrito de Conservación del Suelo y el Agua, pasando por la Comisión de Planificación Regional, la PCC estableció y ha mantenido relaciones productivas. También resultó de vital importancia que, en mi carácter de director gerente de la PCC, fuera también un participante activo en varias de estas organizaciones.

Estrategias de preservación de la PCC

En medio de este entorno dinámico, la PCC comenzó a funcionar. Antes de la creación de la PCC existían varios informes y numerosas recomendaciones a nivel municipal, pero la PCC actuó como uno de los primeros catalizadores para tomar medidas en todo el condado. Al estar en consonancia con la filosofía de la PPC de ayudar a los demás, el Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio recientemente establecido brindó la oportunidad perfecta para que la PCC se relacionara con la comunidad agrícola local con el fin de ayudarlos a proteger sus tierras de los proyectos de desarrollo perjudiciales.

Según el Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio, los propietarios de terrenos no podían solicitar derechos de servidumbre directamente, sino que un condado, pueblo, municipio o fideicomiso de suelo debía solicitar dichos derechos en nombre de los propietarios. Poco tiempo después de publicarse las pautas en el año 2001, dos agricultores locales solicitaron a la PCC que actuara en calidad de auspiciante local. El estado recompensaba a los solicitantes que con-stituían terrenos más grandes al unir propiedades adyacentes, por lo que los agricultores reclutaron a sus vecinos y se organizaron para asistir a talleres auspiciados por la PCC con la ayuda de la Oficina para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas. Durante el primer año del programa, la PCC ocupó el tercer lugar entre las fuentes más grandes de solicitudes en todo el estado. Sólo se financiaron 24 solicitudes, y la PCC recibió uno de los derechos de servidumbre tan codiciados.

Al año siguiente, la PCC se las ingenió para ayudar a aumentar los puntajes de los agricultores en la parte expositiva de las solicitudes. Los solicitantes auspiciados por la PCC obtenían puntajes altos en las preguntas objetivas, pero la mayoría obtenía puntajes más bajos que otros solicitantes del estado en las cinco exposiciones. Por lo tanto, le pedí al presidente del departamento de Lengua inglesa de Kenyon (reconocido como uno de los mejores del país) que reclutara a unos 20 estudiantes para que ayudaran a los agricultores a escribir sus exposiciones. Los estudiantes se reunieron con los agricultores en sus hogares, los entrevistaron y los ayudaron a elaborar exposiciones persuasivas. Este trabajo conjunto tuvo un éxito rotundo. Los agricultores disfrutaron de poder conocer a los estudiantes de Kenyon, a los estudiantes les encantó visitar las granjas y conversar con los agricultores y, en los años siguientes, las solicitudes de los agricultores obtuvieron los puntajes más altos en las exposiciones.

Las propiedades bajo protección permanente cercanas a la granja de un solicitante obtenían puntos adicionales, por lo que la PCC obtuvo de la universidad un derecho de servidumbre de conservación en el Centro Medioambiental de la Familia Brown, de 153 hectáreas. En forma similar, la PCC pidió al Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek que solicitara un financiamiento a los Fondos Limpios de Ohio con el fin de adquirir un derecho de servidumbre sobre terrenos de propiedad de la PCC. El resultado fue positivo para las tres partes involucradas: la PCC obtuvo dinero en efectivo por la venta de los derechos de servidumbre y conservó la propiedad de los terrenos; el Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek recibió el derecho de servidumbre; y los solicitantes de derechos de servidumbre agrícola obtuvieron puntos adicionales.

La PCC impulsó los puntajes de los solicitantes locales aumentando también los aportes que igualaran a la cantidad de subsidios estatales. Ohio financia solamente el 75 por ciento del valor total de los derechos de servidumbre y el 25 por ciento restante debe provenir del propietario o de alguna otra fuente. Si los solicitantes deciden voluntariamente pagar más del 25 por ciento (lo que reduciría la obligación del estado) el estado otorga entonces puntos adicionales a dichos solicitantes. Así, mediante el uso de su propio dinero y persuadiendo a los Comisionados del Condado de Knox de que aportaran unos 300.000 dólares para apoyar el programa, la PCC logró que muchas más solicitudes se tramitaran con éxito.

Con el correr de los años, la PCC también aumentó los puntajes de los solicitantes cuyas propiedades reunían los requisitos para lograr la designación de “Granjas Centenarias” por parte del Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, mediante la cual se honra a las familias que demuestran haber sido propietarias de sus tierras en forma continua por al menos 100 años. Las Granjas Centenarias recibieron puntos adicionales y, gracias al impulso y la guía de la PCC, 5 de las 18 Granjas Centenarias del condado de Knox solicitaron con éxito derechos de servidumbre y lograron conservar sus tierras.

A la vez que ayudaba a los agricultores locales a proteger sus propiedades, la PCC también se dedicó a crear un parque del condado. Con dinero generado por la campaña de recaudación de fondos de la universidad y otras donaciones posteriores se adquirieron tres propiedades por un total de 82 hectáreas, que luego se revendieron, sujetas a las restricciones contenidas en las escrituras respectivas. Una de estas propiedades, la granja Prescott de 68 hectáreas, ubicada entre Gambier y Mount Vernon, resultó ser muy importante para Kenyon, ya que allí se origina el arroyo Wolf Run, que desemboca en el río Kokosing y pasa por el Centro Medio-ambiental de la Familia Brown. Una empresa de Pensilvania dedicada a los desarrollos ya había comprado terrenos justo enfrente de la granja Prescott, en donde tenía la intención de construir 225 viviendas. Antes de que esta empresa desarrolladora pudiera adquirir también la granja, la PCC la compró a 626.000 dólares.

Un año más tarde, la PCC aceptó revender la granja al Distrito del Parque del Condado de Knox con la condición de que dicho distrito obtuviera subsidios estatales para adquirir la propiedad y establecer el primer parque del condado de Knox. Dado que los fondos otorgados por el estado requerían que el distrito también aportara sus propios fondos (una suma de dinero que el distrito no poseía), la PCC ayudó a convencer a la Fundación Comunitaria de Mount Vernon y a los Comisionados del Condado de Knox para que donaran los terrenos de su propiedad que eran adyacentes a la granja, a fin de satisfacer el requisito de fondos aportados por el distrito. El plan funcionó. El distrito del parque obtuvo el financiamiento y adquirió la propiedad de la PCC, el condado de Knox logró crear el nuevo Parque Regional Wolf Run de 116 hectáreas, y la zona de nacimiento del arroyo Wolf Run quedó protegida de los proyectos de desarrollo.

Aunque ciertos casos de éxito ocurrieron sin financiamiento alguno, muchos de los logros fueron el resultado directo de la disponibilidad de dinero. Además de las donaciones de exalumnos y amigos durante dos campañas impulsadas por la universidad, la PCC se aseguró de recibir fondos adicionales provenientes de fuentes estatales, federales y del condado, que superaron los 2,1 millones de dólares. La noción original de que los exalumnos y otros donantes podrían estar interesados en “preservar la naturaleza en la experiencia de Kenyon” demostró una vez más ser correcto.

Universidades y facultades como catalizadores de la conservación

La PCC, tal como se ha desarrollado, es un modelo que presenta la estructura legal y las herramientas necesarias para actuar como un catalizador efectivo de medidas de conservación. Para el año 2013, la PCC había comprado un total de 93 hectáreas que administra y alquila a los agricultores; había facilitado la creación de 35 derechos de servidumbre que abarcan 1.700 hectáreas; y, junto con el Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek, había protegido un total de 2.730 hectáreas en el condado de Knox. Del total de 137.190 hectáreas del condado, la cantidad restante de 66.640 hectáreas sin proteger supone una enorme oportunidad para la comunidad conservacionista del suelo local.

Aunque se están llevando a cabo medidas conservacionistas de grandes proporciones tanto a nivel nacional como internacional, las actividades de conservación locales cumplen una función invaluable y tienen mucho que aportar a las actividades a mayor escala. Según el Censo de la Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelo de 2010, los 1.723 fideicomisos de suelo activos que funcionan en los Estados Unidos han logrado conservar, en conjunto, un total de 19 millones de hectáreas. Existen 7.500 instituciones educativas terciarias en los Estados Unidos. Si solamente el 10 por ciento de dichas instituciones se involucrara en la conservación del suelo utilizando un modelo similar al de la PCC, esto representaría un gran paso adelante del movimiento conservacionista.

Cada institución que adoptara el modelo de la PCC tendría su propio entorno de características únicas. No obstante, el modelo puede aplicarse en forma amplia, ya que cada elemento que formó parte de la creación de la PCC es absolutamente replicable en cualquier institución educativa del país.

La Philander Chase Corporation comenzó a funcionar en un tiempo en que existía una creciente preocupación en torno a la erosión del paisaje rural que se fue dando con cada operación realizada. El objetivo era local, ya que estaba relacionado con Kenyon College y sus alrededores. Sin embargo, la experiencia y los objetivos de la PCC pronto fueron compartidos por agencias aliadas y con intereses coincidentes del condado de Knox y otros lugares, lo que posibilitó la existencia de oportunidades de mayor envergadura. Esta experiencia demuestra que lo que ocurrió aquí puede darse en cualquier otro lugar.

Sobre el autor

Doug Givens fue el director gerente fundador de la Philander Chase Corporation. Givens también se desempeñó como presidente del Comité de Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas, perteneciente a la Comisión de Planificación Regional del Condado de Knox, y fue miembro de la Junta Asesora para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas de Ohio. Además, Givens fue fideicomisario fundador del Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek y presidente del Fondo Brown. Actualmente, Givens se desempeña como vicepresidente, director y miembro del comité ejecutivo de Scranton-Averell Company (un holding de bienes raíces), como director de Bradford & Carter Company (una empresa dedicada al desarrollo inmobiliario) y como director de la Fundación George B. Storer. Trabajó en la oficina de desarrollo de Kenyon College durante 28 años y se jubiló en calidad de vicepresidente en el año 2000. Givens obtuvo su título de grado y su maestría por la Universidad de Indiana, y se doctoró en Derecho por el Kenyon College. 

Recursos

A Place with a View for the Future. www.kenyon.edu/x44947.xml.

Knox County, Ohio. 1998. Knox County Comprehensive Plan: Focus 2100 Advanced.

———. 1999. Knox County Farmland Preservation Taskforce Report.

———. 2003. Cost of Community Services Study.

Land Lords. https://orgsync.com/35905/chapter.

Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. 1997. Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force Findings and Recommendation: Report to Governor George V. Voinovich. Ohio Issue 1. Environmental Bond Act. 2000.

Owl Creek Conservancy. www.owlcreekconservancy.org.

Philander Chase Corporation. www.kenyon.edu/philanderchase.xml.

Philander Chase Corporation Articles of Incorporation. www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=200013300715.

Rural Life Center, Kenyon College. http://rurallife.kenyon.edu.

It is no accident that Kenyon College, in Gambier, Ohio, appears on so many lists of America’s most beautiful campuses. Since Bishop Philander Chase founded the college on a wooded hilltop in 1824, he envisioned a serene rural environment that would promote serious thought and good conduct. For 189 years, the college and those who have found their way to it have valued this setting. Timeless rhythms in the landscape afford views that please the eye and nourish the spirit in every season, and students and faculty members use the rural acres adjacent to the campus for fieldwork in a variety of disciplines ranging from sociology to biology and chemistry. Long after graduation, alumni remember the campus, the surrounding fields and forests, and the twists and turns of the Kokosing State Scenic River. Integral to the Kenyon experience, it is this environment that captures the interest of prospective students and their parents. More than beautiful natural assets, they represent the past, present, and future for Kenyon.

In the 1820s, Chase originally purchased 4,000 acres for the college and the village of Gambier plus an additional 4,000 acres as an investment for a total of $18,000. Within five years of its founding, however, Kenyon began selling the investment acreage in response to financial difficulties. By the early 1970s, the college’s land holdings had dwindled to fewer than 750 acres.

By the final decade of the 20th century, it was clear that the college could not take its charmed setting for granted. First, the owner of a property on the Kokosing River and directly across from the entrance to Kenyon announced plans to establish a recreational-vehicle park. The college purchased the property for a substantial premium and soon thereafter bought an additional 225 acres in order to quash proposals for a business district along the state highway that leads to Gambier. Concurrently, growth and development were changing the landscape in broad swaths of Knox County’s rural countryside. As farm auctions, land sales, pell-mell subdivisions, and commercial developments accelerated, it became clear that action was required.

Philander Chase Corporation to the Rescue

In 1995, the college was in the early stage of a five-year capital campaign that included a $1 million goal for “land acquisition to preserve the surroundings [the college] so cherishes.” The first preservation gift came from an alumnus visiting one sunny spring weekend in 1997. After walking to a hilltop overlooking the Kokosing River valley, to see what Kenyon needed to protect, he wired $1 million to the college. By the end of the campaign, in 2000, the college had raised more than $3 million—three times the goal for open space preservation.

The campaign showed that alumni and other donors ranked land conservation high on their charitable giving list, and the protection of land around the college would continue to enlist the loyalty and charity of Kenyon alumni. At the same time, state and federal programs were beginning to provide meaningful funding for land conservation. Because the college was ineligible to receive such assistance, the establishment of a special entity was crucial.

In 2000, the school formed the Philander Chase Corporation (PCC) as a separately incorporated nonprofit entity with a simple mission: “To preserve and maintain the farmland, open spaces, scenic views, and characteristic landscapes surrounding Kenyon College and Gambier, Ohio.” With its own 15-member board of directors, PCC’s organizational structure is unique among land trusts. It is a membership 501(c)3 organization, and Kenyon College is the sole member under provisions of Ohio nonprofit law. Even though the corporation is a separate entity operating under the direction of its board, Kenyon College is the controlling organization and ratifies the election of the corporation’s directors. The president of Kenyon and chair of PCC are ex officio members of one another’s boards.

PCC also serves to prevent future boards from selling off acreage and to improve town-gown relations. While interactions between Kenyon and the surrounding community were not a major problem, there was some friction; although PCC functioned under the college’s auspices, local residents generally perceived it as a separate entity with a clean slate.

Aid from Local Partners

As suggested above, PCC was lucky to have been founded at an especially opportune time, when its concerns coincided and overlapped with similar initiatives taking shape in the state of Ohio and in Knox County, providing the framework and strategies that would later help PCC carry out its work.

In 1996, then-Governor George Voinovich commissioned a bi-partisan Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force consisting of representatives from government, business, academia, and agricultural interests. In June 1997, the task force reported that in the previous 45 years, more than seven million acres (33 percent of Ohio farmland) had been lost to nonagricultural uses. Two specific recommendations set the stage for broader conservation efforts: the creation of an Office of Farmland Preservation within the Ohio Department of Agriculture and a policy statement declaring the state’s commitment to protect its productive agricultural land from irretrievable conversion to nonagricultural uses.

The state also announced a $10,000 Community Development Block Grant program to support local “farmland preservation” plans, which led to the formation of the Knox County Farmland Preservation Task Force in 1998. I served on the local task force, charged with “evaluating the state of agricultural production in the county, exploring alternatives to unplanned development, and making recommendations for the preservation of the farmlands in Knox County.”

In 2000, state voters approved The Clean Ohio Fund, a $400 million bond program to preserve natural areas and farmland, protect streams, create outdoor recreational opportunities, and revitalize urban areas by returning contaminated brownfields to productive use. The fund (renewed by voters in 2008) dedicated $25 million, to be spent over a four-year period, to the Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program administered through the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

Another key county-level development at that time was the establishment of the Owl Creek Conservancy. A nonprofit private land trust, the conservancy works with landowners to conserve farmlands, stream corridors, aquifer- and watershed-protection areas, wildlife habitats, woodlands, and other ecologically sensitive areas of central Ohio including Knox County.

From the beginning, PCC determined that good working partnerships would be essential for success, and so it forged ties with policy makers at the village, township, county, and state levels. From the Knox County Commissioners to the Regional Planning Commission to the Soil and Water Conservation District, PCC established and continued to nurture productive relationships. It was also critical that, as the managing director of PCC, I was an active participant in many of these organizations.

Box 1: Conservation Catalysts

The story of Kenyon College’s protection of the farms and fields near its campus is an exemplary case of an academic institution catalyzing large landscape conservation. As such, it is one of more than a dozen narratives being compiled by the Lincoln Institute in a forthcoming book, Conservation Catalysts, edited by Lincoln Institute fellow James Levitt. He reports that “the volume will give us a picture of the practice of universities, colleges, and independent research organizations around the globe that are going beyond their research and teaching missions and applying land conservation expertise, in many cases quite literally, ‘on the ground.’”

What is remarkable about these cases is not only their impact, but also the span of organizational and geographic diversity they represent. Academic and research organizations are catalyzing these initiatives well beyond Kenyon’s base in Gambier, Ohio, to places as widespread as Australia, the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Canadian boreal forest. The initiatives often encompass a broad range of interests representing the public, private, nonprofit, and academic/research sectors and involve a wide variety of disciplines in the natural sciences, social sciences, professional studies, and the humanities. The study and sharing of best practices in large landscape conservation is the focus of two ongoing efforts of the Lincoln Institute and its joint venture partners, the Practitioner’s Network for Large Landscape Conservation (www.largelandscapenetwork.org) and the Conservation Catalysts Network (www.conservationcatalysts.net).

PCC’s Preservation Strategies

Amid this dynamic environment, PCC began its operations. Before its establishment, there were reports and numerous recommendations at the local level, but PCC was an early catalyst for countywide action. In keeping with PCC’s philosophy of helping others, the newly established Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program provided the local farming community to help them protect their land from adverse development.

Under the Ohio Agriculture Easement Purchase Program, landowners could not directly apply for easements; a county, township, municipality, or land trust had to apply on their behalf. Shortly after the guidelines were published in 2001, two local farmers asked PCC to act as their local sponsor. The state rewarded applicants who formed larger blocks with nearby properties, so the farmers recruited their neighbors and rallied many of them to attend workshops hosted by PCC with help from the Office of Farmland Preservation. In the program’s first year, PCC was the third largest source of applications statewide. Only 24 applications were funded; PCC received one of the coveted easements.

The following year, PCC ingeniously helped raise local farmers’ scores on the essay portion of the application. PCC’s applicants scored highly on the objective questions, but most scored lower than other applicants statewide on the five essays. So I asked the chair of Kenyon’s English department, renowned as one of the nation’s best, to enlist about 20 students to assist farmers in writing their essays. Students met with the farmers in their homes, interviewed them, and helped them craft compelling essays. The effort was a rousing success. The farmers enjoyed getting to know Kenyon students, the students loved visiting the farms and talking with the farmers, and in following years their applications earned top essay scores.

Permanently protected property in close proximity to an applicant’s farm garnered additional points, so PCC secured a conservation easement from the college on the 380-acre Brown Family Environmental Center. In a similar manner, PCC asked the Owl Creek Conservancy to apply for Clean Ohio Funds to purchase an easement on PCC-owned land. The result was a threefold win: PCC received cash for selling the easement and continued to own the land, the Owl Creek Conservancy held the easement, and agricultural easement applicants received additional points.

PCC boosted local applicants’ scores by increasing its local match of state subsidies as well. Ohio funds only 75 percent of an easement’s total value; the remaining 25 percent must come from the landowner or another source. If applicants volunteer to pay more than 25 percent, lowering the state’s obligation, the state awards “bonus” points to the applicant. By using its own money and persuading the Knox County Commissioners to contribute nearly $300,000 to support the program, PCC ensured more successful applications.

Over the years, PCC also raised the scores of applicants whose property qualified for the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Century Farm designation, honoring families who demonstrated continuous family ownership for at least 100 years. Century Farms received extra points, and, with encouragement and guidance from PCC, five of Knox County’s 18 Century Farms successfully applied for easements and conserved their land.

While helping local farmers protect their properties, PCC helped create a county park at the same time. Using money generated by the college’s fundraising campaign and subsequent gifts, three properties totaling 202 acres were purchased and then resold subject to deed restrictions. One of these properties, the 168-acre Prescott farm between Gambier and Mount Vernon, was especially important to Kenyon as the source of Wolf Run Creek, which flows into the Kokosing River and through the Brown Family Environmental Center. A development company from Pennsylvania had already purchased land across the road from the Prescott farm and planned to build 225 homes there. Before the developer could purchase the farm as well, PCC bought it for $626,000.

A year later, PCC agreed to resell the farm to the Knox County Park District only if the district obtained state subsidies to acquire the property and establish Knox County’s first park. Because state funding required matching grants—money the district did not have—PCC helped persuade the Mount Vernon Community Foundation and the County Commissioners to donate land they owned adjacent to the farm to satisfy the matching fund requirement. The plan worked. The park district got the funding and purchased the property from PCC, Knox County had a new 288-acre Wolf Run Regional Park, and the source of Wolf Run was protected from development.

While some successes happened without funding, many of the accomplishments directly resulted from the availability of money. In addition to donations from alumni and friends during two college campaigns, PCC secured additional funding from state, federal, and county sources in excess of $2.1 million. The original notion that alumni and other donors might be interested in “preserving the nature of the Kenyon experience” proved to be correct again.

Colleges and Universities as Conservation Catalysts

PCC, as it has developed, is a model with the legal structure and tools needed to be an effective conservation catalyst. By 2013, PCC had outright purchased 230 acres that it manages and leases to farmers, facilitated the creation of 35 easements encompassing 4,216 acres, and, with the Owl Creek Conservancy, protected a total of 6,746 acres in Knox County. Of the county’s 339,000 total acres, those remaining 164,666 unprotected acres provide a tremendous opportunity for the local land conservation community.

While large landscape conservation is taking place nationally and internationally, local conservation activities have a valuable role to play and a great deal to contribute to grander-scale activity. According to the Land Trust Alliance 2010 Census, the 1,723 active land trusts operating in the United States had collectively conserved 47 million acres. There are 7,500 post-secondary educational institutions in the United States. If only 10 percent of these institutions engaged in land conservation using a model similar to PCC’s, it could be a major step forward in the conservation movement.

Each institution where the PCC model might be adopted would have its own unique environment. Nevertheless, the model is widely applicable; every element that led to the formation of PCC is eminently replicable at any educational institution in the country.

The Philander Chase Corporation began at a time when there was growing concern about the deal-by-deal erosion of the rural landscape. The goal was local: it related to Kenyon College and its environs. But PCC’s experience and aims were soon shared by overlapping and allied agencies in Knox County and beyond, leading to and suggesting larger possibilities. This experience demonstrates that what happened here can happen elsewhere.

About the Author

Doug Givens was the founding managing director of the Philander Chase Corporation. Givens also served as chair of the Farmland Preservation Committee of the Knox County Regional Planning Commission and member of the State of Ohio Farmland Preservation Advisory Board. He was a founding trustee of the Owl Creek Conservancy and president of the Brown Fund. Mr. Givens is currently the vice president, director, and member of the executive committee of the Scranton-Averell Company (a land holding company); a director of the Bradford & Carter Company (a real estate development company); and a director of the George B. Storer Foundation. For 28 years, he worked in the development office at Kenyon College, retiring from the vice presidency in 2000. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Indiana University and received a doctor of laws degree from Kenyon College. 

Resources

A Place with a View for the Future. www.kenyon.edu/x44947.xml

Knox County, Ohio. 1998. Knox County Comprehensive Plan: Focus 2100 Advanced.

———. 1999. Knox County Farmland Preservation Taskforce Report.

———. 2003. Cost of Community Services Study.

Land Lords. https://orgsync.com/35905/chapter

Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. 1997. Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force Findings and Recommendation: Report to Governor George V. Voinovich. Ohio Issue 1. Environmental Bond Act. 2000.

Owl Creek Conservancy. www.owlcreekconservancy.org

Philander Chase Corporation. www.kenyon.edu/philanderchase.xml

Philander Chase Corporation Articles of Incorporation. www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=200013300715

Rural Life Center, Kenyon College. http://rurallife.kenyon.edu

For most of its history the American university has been treated as an enclave—a scientific and reflective ivory tower removed from the subjective turmoil of the city. More recently the university has come to be viewed by many public officials and analysts as a driver of overall urban development.

One of the longest standing debates in community economic development is between “place-based” and “people-based” approaches to combating poverty, housing affordability, chronic unemployment, and community decline. Should help go to distressed places or distressed people?