SOME THINGS improve with age. Access to on-Grounds housing at the University isn't one of them. For the most part, housing is as good as it gets first year. That's backwards -- housing should get better as students gain seniority.
The option of privatizing University housing could help provide better housing for upperclassmen more efficiently and less expensively. Public universities in Maryland have already gone to privatizing dorms. The University should explore the possibility of doing the same.
John Evans, director of accommodations for the Housing Division, said in a personal interview that housing officials have begun to talk about the possibility of dorm privatization. "We haven't taken any action on it yet, he explained, "but there's definitely interest." Administrators should continue to explore this promising option.
There is some relatively nice University housing for upperclassmen. There's just not enough of it. The past two years have seen huge waiting lists for housing -- any housing. And it's been even more difficult for students to get their first-choice area. Plus, even the best housing for students after first year is typically farther away from everything, with rooms that are about the same size or smaller than those in the Alderman Road dorms.
The University could improve the options they offer in the way of upperclass housing. But an outside company could do it better. That's why privatizing dorms is an option worth exploring.
Privatization involves contracting with a private development corporation to provide housing. The university leases land to a real estate corporation, which then supervises all aspects of the building and running of the apartment complex. It acts as the landlord, collects rent directly from students, and is responsible for maintenance.
There are a couple of reasons why a private company is better equipped to run University housing. Privatizing the dorm system opens up the provision of housing to a corporation whose primary job -- unlike a university -- is making customers happy. The link between tenants and landlord in a private situation is direct. This gives the company a strong incentive -- money -- to provide good service to its tenants. That will encourage more luxurious facilities and top-quality maintenance service since such a company stands to be financially hurt by a large number of unhappy students.
This isn't as true of housing provided by a division of a large university because the link between students and housing officials isn't as direct. The incentive to provide good service to students is weaker because unhappy tenants threaten a large, wealthy university much less. This means there's less pressure on a university housing office to provide good service.
Rent control is also better in a private system. Unlike the University housing monopoly, which has very few checks on prices, a private system fosters free competition among companies hoping to get contracts. The cost to students is determined by a nonprofit oversight foundation. Competition among contractors keeps rent low for students.
The great thing about this hybrid public/private system is that students can have the advantages of private landlords while still retaining the benefits of university housing. Students on Grounds remain on the University computer network and retain access to common study areas and to University mail and utility systems. They still have the protection of University police patrolling their residential area and the availability of resident staff as a support resource.
Plus, this keeps students out of off-Grounds housing, where they're not wanted. Many city residents and homeowners dislike having students in private residential areas because they're often noisy, messy, hard on property and keep strange hours -- all of which decreases property values.
First-year students would still need to live in University-maintained dorms, but there's no reason housing for upperclassmen couldn't be turned over to a private contractor.
Under such a system, students win by having nicer housing, lower rent and a more responsive, more accountable landlord with a greater direct incentive to serve their needs. At the same time, students retain the same safety and support services of University housing.
The University wins because it keeps students on-Grounds and has a better relationship with city residents. Homeowners win by getting students out of their neighborhoods. Who isn't better off? As planned, no one.
Granted, the economic ramifications and logistical problems of privatization aren't yet fully known since it hasn't been around for very long. It's possible it won't work as well as intended. But a private dorm system is a possible solution to the need for a better provision of housing for upperclassmen. The University should take steps in that direction.
(Bryan Maxwell is a Cavalier Daily associate editor.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 13 hours agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 2 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
