Categories
Campus Life

Debt-Restricted, Campuses Seek Private Investment for New Housing

Universities are strapped for cash. Being debt-restricted by recession-paranoid governments, many schools are looking to alternative delivery models to meet the demand for housing stock across the country.

At the University of Toronto, housing stocks are low, and plans are underway to build a tower of a tower. Thirty-plus stories of student housing. Typically, more beds is met with much rejoice, but this is being met with caution. The plan is to have the tower managed privately, through a Public-Private Partnership, which involves the university relinquishing control over certain aspects of planning, management, and operation.

UBC faces a similar housing-crunch. While past UBC administrations have fought vehemently against the P3 model, advocating for its own UBC3 model (where the public partner is UBC, and the private partner is UBC), rumour has it that the current admin has been reassessing that stance to meet demands. (Sidenote: There’s great stories of Martha Piper shouting at senior ministerial staffers on this very issue. It worked.)

In light of numbers assessing the need for more dorms, the Campus Plan states UBC’s goal is to have 50% of its undergraduate population on campus. The Campus Plan does not answer how, and P3’s are the low-hanging fruit.

The Province will not likely be able to commit the money for the massive expansion. UBC had to exert considerable pressure on them for the debt needed to expand Totem Park by a few hundred beds. Image the The problem: Government doesn’t like having the million-dollar debt-loads on its books, when it won’t be seeing the black for some time, particularly given the recession. A P3 model gets around this problem. The debt isn’t carried by UBC, it’s on the back of hedge funds.

It’s still too early to see if this is a win for students. Private firms are concerned about one thing, their bottom line, while Universities are concerned about their reputation. Typically, private firms respond to demands because it effects their bottom line, but given the absurdly high the demand for student housing is, the inability for true low-/no-income rental competition in West Point Grey, and the simple appeal and added-value of being a student on campus, there’s plenty of opportunity for gouging.

And that gouging would fester in the regulation blackout of many campuses, UBC included. Educational institutions are given wide-range to run housing as they see fit, often exempted from the rules of the private market (see: 4b.) This is somewhat appropriate, because the bottom line matters less to Universities, who are more interested in providing a holistic, accommodating experience to their students (it is half of their business, after all.) For private firms, all that comes secondary to more profit, so students would need rent controls and other tenancy rights to protect their interests.

How these concerns are managed and negotiated at UofT will set the model for the rest of the country. At stake is how public our public institutions ought to be, and the role of universities in providing student life.

Categories
AMS

AMS Budget 2010/11 In Depth: Executive Cash Grab

The AMS’s 2010-11 budget is coming up for approval tonight, and it’s something councilors should be looking at very closely, as there are some concerning things in there.

First of all, the format used makes it difficult to figure out exactly what’s going on sometimes. There are no actual totals from last year included, and lines that have been eliminated from the budget (Block Party, Equity and Diversity, Safety Coordinator, Policy Analyst) do not appear in the document to let you know that they did in fact exist in last year’s budget.

Going into the content, it’s important to know that this budgeting process has been ongoing for a while now. Back in March, council overwhelmingly supported the principle of eliminating the structural deficit. And this budget has met that goal: nothing is coming out of unreplenished funds (savings, essentially) to make it balance.

However, how they ended up there is not exactly how they said they’d do it in March. At the time, they played the doomsday card in order to undertake the cutting/restructuring of some AMS Services, Equity, and Safety. And it wasn’t just the services that would be cut; other parts of the AMS would suffer too. The preliminary budget presented in March summarized the major cuts as follows:

Change in Prelim Budget Description Change in Actual Budget
– 22,000 Contribution to UBC Ombuds Office – 22,000
– 15,000 Safety Office – 15,000
– 12,000 Equity and Diversity – 11,300
– 6,000 AMS Ombuds Office – $5,500
– 42,000 Exec Offices + 28,000
– 11,000 SAC – 11,000
+ 24,000 Committee Chairs + 26,000
– 7,000 FirstWeek – 15,000
– 7,000 Welcome Back BBQ – 9,000
– 7,000 Block Party – 38,000 (eliminated)

For the most part, they stuck to the targets, with two glaring exceptions. At the time, they still planned to hold Block Party, albeit with a reduced budget. Instead, they unceremoniously dumped the entire event.

And then there’s that line that goes from a fairly large red number on the left to a fairly large green number on the right: Exec Offices. Rather than trimming their budgets by $42,000 as promised, it actually increased by $28,000.

Categories
AMS

AMS Council Agenda: July 14, 2010

First meeting in a month, but a relatively light agenda. Here’s a rundown of what’s coming up.

Presentations

Strategic Plan – Bijan Ahmadian
Budget Committee – Elin Tayyar/Ben Cappellacci

Vague titles, but you can guess what sorts of things will be in them. The presentation arising from the Final Report on Systemic Discrimination in the AMS was slated to happen this month but is not. The reason given by Ekat is “BECAUSE WE ARE EVIL”. That may have been a joke answer, with the real reason being that they didn’t want to have too many presentations on the agenda. However, using “keeping the meeting short” as a reason to leave things off the agenda should really be considered a joke as well.

2010-2011 AMS Budget

“BE IT RESOLVED THAT the 2010/2011 AMS Budget be accepted as presented.”

Dear Councilors: please scrutinize this budget in depth. If you have not read the budget in detail, abstain from voting on it. Voting on things you haven’t read through fails pretty much everyone.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet