After several extensions, today finally marks the deadline for potential buyers of Circleville Farm to submit their proposals to the university.

The Penn State Board of Trustees was slated to vote on the sale of the 155-acre tract of farmland in November 2002, but delayed choosing a buyer after a storm of controversy erupted.

The university later pushed back the request for proposal period as well. The delay was so that "non-traditional" developers, such as community members who might create an organic farm, had time to raise enough money to bid on the land, Penn State spokesman Steve MacCarthy said.

A final decision on the sale, however, could still be months away. Dan Sieminski, Penn State's assistant vice president for finance and business, said a committee will now review the proposal. The issue will go before the Board of Trustees again only when the committee decides which proposal to recommend to the board. Sieminski said he did not know when this would be. When it does appear on the agenda, it is clear the board will not be able to take a quick vote and move on. The debate over Circleville Farm is about selling the land, but it's also a debate over Penn State's educational and conservation philosophy. No one believes this debate will be easily resolved.

The back story

The university has owned the tract of land for decades. Located west of the University Park campus in Ferguson Township, it was used for years by the College of Agricultural Sciences as a hands-on learning center. Circleville Farm was established as a student-run farm in 1984 to provide practical experience for undergraduate agriculture students.

But the use of Circleville began to change in 1989 when it was restructured from a student-run operation to a competitive grant system for faculty research projects, though student projects and courses still took place at the farm.

Slowly, however, these became less frequent. Though many students and faculty were upset when the farm was restructured, the College of Agricultural Sciences incorporated the farm into its curriculum less and less. Eventually, educational use of the farm slipped away entirely.

This dormancy prompted the university to look into selling the land. A request for proposals was issued on Sept. 26, 2002, and the Penn State Board of Trustees thought they would vote on the sale of Circleville Farm during their November 2002 meeting. But days before the meeting, a storm of controversy erupted over the land, causing the board to postpone the vote.

Tension mounts

Because the land was not being actively used by the College of Agricultural Sciences, the Board of Trustees was caught off guard by the outpouring of opposition when it put the land on sale.

Faculty, students and community members were upset both that the university was selling the land and that it did not allow much time for potential developers to submit proposals. Within days, the administration notified the board that the sale of the land was struck from the agenda.

The topic was discussed at the Nov. 25 meeting, however, in what turned into a heated debate noting a need for further discussion on a clearly controversial topic, the board moved to delay a decision.

The same day, more than 80 faculty and community members led a rally against the sale of the land. They gathered to publicize why they were against the sale and to discuss ways it could be saved. They emphasized the finality of selling the land and the need to explore all alternatives.

"A crisis of vision"

In the weeks that followed the November board meeting, faculty and community members were vocal in their opposition to selling the land. The group Friends of Circleville Farm was formed. They stressed the emptiness of the College of Agricultural Science's reasons for giving up the land.

But the university and the college say selling Circleville is the best option.

MacCarthy cited several reasons why it is no longer feasible for the College of Agricultural Sciences to own the land. He said the land's distance from campus makes it difficult for faculty and students to hold classes on the farm. He also said the distance makes it difficult to transport farm equipment to the parcel. And he said the soil is poor for farming.

MacCarthy also said the farm is isolated from the rest of the College of Agriculture's land, most of which is located east of campus, not west like Circleville. The college would rather have land that is contiguous, he added.

College of Agricultural Sciences Senior Associate Dean Paul Wangsness emphasized the large amount of community development that has sprung up around Circleville in the past several years. He said it is difficult to farm there because of how built up the area has become.

But biology professor and Friend of Circleville leader Chris Uhl said the development of the surrounding community is exactly what makes the farm so valuable. He called the university's reasons for wanting to sell the farm "inside the box arguments."

"Yes, this isn't good farm land for traditional farming. I wouldn't want to grow soybeans or corn there either. But it's because this land is in the middle of a community that makes it such a great opportunity," Uhl said.

Uhl believes the university and the College of Agricultural Sciences should keep the land to teach students about community and organic farming. This, he said, is the real future of agriculture. It is precisely because Circleville exists in a densely populated area that Uhl thinks it should be preserved. Communities will increasingly need to know how to sustain themselves. Students, as the future of farming, need to learn how facilitate this, he said.

He also said organic, locally grown food is what people want. By keeping Circleville Farm, Penn State students and faculty could provide this to the community.

"Selling the land is such a crisis of vision by the university. It shows a certain ignorance. They're reacting in such a traditional way. They're not looking where society is going," he said. "If we want to survive with dignity in the future, we need to be teaching these methods."

Wangsness said the sale of Circleville did not exclude this area of education from the curriculum.

"Sustainable agriculture is part of our educational plan. Circleville is just not the place we want to do it."

Focusing on philosophy

As the university continues in its self-proclaimed "Master Plan" campaign of campus expansion, many question whether this is the right way to go about improving education at Penn State.

Political science professor James Eisenstein, another Friend of Circleville, does not think it is unrealistic to expect a large institution such as Penn State to take a philosophical approach to Circleville.

"It not a matter of being unrealistic; it's about being grounded in our mission. And our stated and much promulgated mission is teaching, service and research," Eisenstein said. "Education should not be a profit-making enterprise. We're supposed to provide services to society. It's not unrealistic to be philosophical. If it were, it would mean we could say, 'We're losing money on education, so let's not do this anymore.' Penn State is a well-round institution. We offer majors that not many people take. This is another area we have to further."

Uhl also thinks the Friends of Circleville can prevail.

"What gives me hope is that Penn State is extremely concerned with image. If we can create enough public concern, then I think we have a shot."

Three-to-one

Ever since the controversial Board of Trustees meeting in November, the university has made it clear it is considering all alternatives to selling the land to a residential developer.

Eisenstein was encouraged by this effort, calling it "tremendous progress" on the part of the university.

"If alternative proposals are considered seriously and the process is well-done, and they can show there is a real need to sell to a residential developer -- that it fits with the university's mission -- then that's OK," he said.

Despite the university's pledge to consider alternative proposals, MacCarthy said there are clear advantages to selling to a residential developer.

"The Circleville land is so valuable that if we sell to a residential developer, we can buy three acres of farm land closer to the other College of Agriculture land for every one acre of Circleville land. The possibility of that three-to-one ratio will be hard to resist," MacCarthy said.

Uhl, however, said he does not accept this "three-to-one" justification, calling it a "diverter."

"I don't really buy that," he said. "When that new land gets infringed on, they'll sell it too. And in speaking to several faculty members in the College of Ag, I'm not sure they even want that much more land."

Wangsness said the sale of the land is flexible. He said if people wanted to buy it for community farming purposes, the proposal would be seriously considered.

MacCarthy said selling to residential developers seems like the most viable option at this point.

This viability, however, hinges on one main factor -- zoning. Currently, the land is agriculturally zoned, meaning for a developer to build houses, the Ferguson Township zoning board would have to approve a change to residential zoning. It is unclear at this point whether they would agree to do so.

"I suspect that [the zoning board] would probably oppose it," Cassandra Schmick, director of planning and zoning, said.

Circleville's future

Zoning is just one consideration potential buyers submitting proposals had to contend with.

The university stipulated in February that all potential buyers, including residential developers, must set aside a Y-shaped, 36-acre easement for conservation land in their plans. Sieminski said other environmental concerns, such as water drainage, had to be included in the proposals as well.

When making their recommendation to the board, Sieminski said the review committee would also consider the price potential developers are willing to pay the university.

Uhl said the price criteria could be an obstacle for the Friends of Circleville Farm, who submitted their proposal today. Their proposal revolves around the university retaining the property, making the question of price "moot," Uhl said, because there would be no bill of sale.

Though Uhl said the Friends' proposal stresses the value of keeping the land, he also said the request for proposal, the document in which the university specified its criteria to potential buyers, was geared to developers.

"The [request for proposals] was pretty clear that the university imagines the best use of the land is for development. It was really going out to people who want to buy it," he said.

Uhl also said one of the Friends of Circlville's main objectives is to get the university to see the farm as an opportunity, not a problem.

As the review committee decides on its recommendation, it remains to be seen which perspective the university will adopt.