Have Lawrence or Douglas County officials ever OK’d or built anything too large? Are there any buildings, streets, water treatment plants, schools, jails, courtrooms, fairgrounds, parks, recreation facilities, hospitals or anything else that have proven to be too large for their intended use?

It is puzzling why Lawrence and Douglas County officials do not think in larger terms when planning for the needs of the ever-growing city and its residents.

Past Saturday columns

West 23rd Street offers an ideal example. At the time the former gravel road was surfaced, and eventually designed as a four-lane street, city, and perhaps county or state, officials did not have the foresight to acquire sufficient right-of-way to accommodate additional lanes to handle increased traffic in the years to come.

Likewise, city officials allowed retail businesses to build far too close to the street, making it doubly difficult to add lanes. Now the street poses a serious and dangerous challenge.

This week, Douglas County officials announced plans to expand the handsome, 5-year-old Douglas County Jail. Did county commissioners six, seven or eight years ago think they were approving designs for a jail that would meet the county’s needs for the foreseeable future? Or did they realize the jail would be at capacity within a relatively short time and didn’t want to spend the extra money to build a larger facility?

Granted, there is no easy, guaranteed formula for planning for future needs. In many situations, expansions must take place in a staged manner to meet the city’s changing needs for certain services, such as schools.

But in other cases, such as planning for utilities, parks, streets and the right-of-way to accommodate these services, many people have been too limited in their vision for the future.

Maybe it is understandable that the county jail needs to be expanded. Maybe it is a reflection of today’s society and the behavior of people rather than a criticism of those who planned the jail some years ago. But five years seems a very short time. It probably would have saved quite a few tax dollars to build a larger facility six years ago rather than paying much higher construction costs to expand the jail now.

Lawrence is going to continue to grow despite those who might want to curtail that trend. This being the case, city and county officials need to consider how to fill future needs rather than taking a far-too-limited short-range approach to planning.

¢

The resignation of Colorado University President Elizabeth Hoffman and the school’s many troubles, both academic and athletic, should prompt those deeply involved in higher education — at all schools, not just Colorado — to take a far tougher approach with university administration and university-related activities.

It is important that colleges and universities have the freedom to operate free of outside pressures or censorship, but, at the same time, taxpayers have a right to expect a certain, minimal level of performance by those in positions of leadership.

Earlier this week, President Hoffman announced she intends to step down from her office by June 30 or whenever a replacement is found. From a distance, it appears there isn’t much control on the Boulder campus, in the classroom or on the football field. There also is the almost-yearly decline in state fiscal support for CU.

The university is recognized for its excellence in numerous fields but also is known as a party school. Along with a rebellious faculty member, its athletic program is a disgrace, with alleged illegal use of slush funds, highly questionable entertainment for athletic recruits, athletic coaches who are accused of assaulting female trainers and other disturbing reports.

Why can’t someone crack down and clean house? Why didn’t the school’s regents demand changes? This has been going on for years. Deans and department chairmen are reviewed every five years at Boulder, just as they are at KU, but who was reviewing the president and taking a close look at how she was running the university?

For sure, it is far easier to fire a coach and his or her assistants or even expel a student athlete than it is to fire a teacher, chairman, dean or even a provost or president. But is the time coming when the public is going to become far more concerned about what happens on college campuses and the apparent reluctance of university officials to crack down, when these taxpayers will call for far closer reviews and censure by those who are supposed to oversee the institution?

It appears the situation at Boulder may have developed into the oft-cited analogy of a jail being run by the inmates.

Academic freedom is terribly important, and it must be protected, but there comes a time when the public has reason to wonder just what is going on, why university leaders do not exercise more control over the faculty and those in various departments such as the athletic department.

Going to a university to receive an education still is a privilege, not a guaranteed right, and there should be some controls on students. At nearby Oklahoma University, for example, athletic department officials have initiated a policy that the personal and law enforcement background of potential student-athletes must be checked before a scholarship is offered.

Will the time come when the backgrounds of faculty members will be checked, and, if so, by whom? How about much closer oversight of school administrators?

If not, what will college campuses look like in the years to come?