University Apartments Residents' Action Committee Building Community in the Hawkeyes |
Documents:
UARAC letter to Regents objecting to housing office demolition March 12, 2004:
University Apartments Residents’ Action Committee 152 Hawkeye Ct. Iowa City, IA 52246
March 12, 2004
Board of Regents, State of
Iowa Re: Temporary relocation of the Housing Services Building (University Apartments office) Dear Iowa Board of Regents, The residents of Hawkeye Court and Hawkeye Drive are deeply troubled by the facts that have emerged regarding the proposed Kinnick Stadium renovation and subsequent permanent relocation of the Klotz Tennis Courts and temporary relocation of the Housing Services Building. Please consider the following points: 1. The Housing Services Building has not exceeded its useful life. In the March 2004 memorandum to the regents: “A presentation of the schematic design for the Kinnick Stadium renovation project G.D. 4a,” on page 23, under “Project Scope”, it states that “Both structures [Housing Services Building and Hawkeye Storage buildings] have exceeded their useful lives; the University plans to relocate the existing functions and raze the buildings to accommodate the construction project. (The building demolitions would require Board approval.)” Please do not approve these demolitions. While the University Apartments and Hawkeye Storage buildings may have outlived their useful lives, the Housing Services Building is an independent structure of a different type, i.e. a newer steel building that appears in good shape, internally and externally. If and when new student apartments are built, there exists no apparent reason why the Housing Services Building could not continue in its current capacity as the apartments’ office. Although there may be a need to permanently relocate the Housing Services Building when new apartments are built, there is currently no design that calls for such a move. 2. If the Housing Services Building is to be relocated, Athletics and Recreation Services should pay the relocation costs since the direct cause is the renovation of Kinnick Stadium and relocation of Klotz Tennis Courts. These projects benefit Athletics and Recreational Services, not University Apartments. In the same memorandum, on page 24, under “Anticipated Cost/Funding,” it states “Approximately $12 million [to fund Hawkeye Recreation/Athletics Facilities Complex, Phase 2], to be funded from recreation building fees, Athletic Department gifts and earnings, and parking revenues. The sum of $1 million is included in the project budget for Kinnick Stadium renovation options B, C, D and E for the relocation of the Klotz Tennis Courts. The University has advised the Board Office that the total cost to relocate the Klotz Tennis Courts is approximately $1.7 million.” It does not specify that $500,000 will be paid by the tenants of University Apartments. “Athletic Department gifts, earnings, and parking revenues” and other resources from Recreation Services should pay for this project. Costs for the stadium renovation should not be shifted to low-income residents of University Apartments, who will receive little benefit from the future luxury suites at Kinnick Stadium, unless the additional Athletics revenue frees up the $500,000 in the University Apartments budget now earmarked to accommodate the Kinnick Stadium renovation. 3. Current rent is over-priced by $60 per month if University Apartments can budget for a $500,000 temporary office without increasing rent accordingly. Moreover, $500,000 is too expensive for a temporary office. At the March 2, 2004 meeting between Residence Services management and tenants, Business Manager Scott Seagren presented the 2004-05 University Apartments budget. Included in the budget was $500,000 for the temporary relocation of the Housing Services Building. This will cost each apartment unit $60 per month. Since rent will be increased $5 per month next year for cost increases that do not include a temporary office, the ability of University Apartments to afford this expense is a mystery. This fact indicates that the current rent is either inflated by $60 per month or that rent has been increased unnecessarily over years so that a surplus has been created to enable such a large expenditure given the total University Apartments annual budget is $3.7 million. We also question the amount of money for a temporary office; $500,000 seems excessive. Residence Services could rent trailers or convert the bottom floor and basement of one of the Hawkeye Drive buildings into a temporary office. 4. The move of the Housing Services Building is unnecessary if the tennis courts are built where they were originally planned. The March 2004 Kinnick Stadium renovation memorandum details changes to the Hawkeye Recreation/Athletic Facilities Complex, Phase 2— Tennis, Recreation and Sports Activity Fields. These changes are also troubling. The original plan did not utilize land now occupied by University Apartments or Residence Services. Now, instead of building a combined indoor aquatic and tennis facility on the land immediately adjacent to the Karro Hall of Fame, the university proposes to build tennis courts on the space occupied by the Housing Services Building, tenant garden plots, and tenant activity field, and build a soccer field and a field hockey field on the land formerly slated for the indoor aquatic and tennis facility. Based on the map on page 46 of the memorandum, this is considerably more land than was originally allotted for Phases 1-3 of the Hawkeye Recreation/Athletics Facilities Complex. The Klotz Tennis Courts should be relocated to the land between the Hall of Fame and the Women’s Soccer Stadium as was planned originally albeit now the aquatic facility would be absent. Although the new plan calls for this space to be used for soccer and field hockey fields, there is already ample space for soccer and field hockey at the Hawkeye Recreation Fields, Women’s Soccer Stadium, and Grant’s Field. Thus, the Housing Services Building would not need to be moved. 5. Allowing Athletics and Recreational Services to utilize University Apartments land in the Far West Campus sets a precedent that is detrimental to the best interests of the student body. Removing University Apartments installations to accommodate Recreation Services and Athletics will set a precedent in the Far West Campus that would not be in the best interests of the student body. As regents, you must weigh the utility of low-income housing for students against recreation and athletics facilities, which would not be used nearly to the extent of the current apartments. Based on page 16 of the March 1, 2004 Memorandum, “Governance Report on University Residence Systems,” University Apartments are at full occupancy and are expected to be at full occupancy through 2009. Moreover, the units are utilized for most of the hours in the year. If the new recreation facilities are like the Hawkeye Recreation Fields, students use them sporadically and seasonally. If new tennis courts are built in the proposed location, Hawkeye Drive would be surrounded by Recreation and Athletics facilities. If Hawkeye Drive is demolished, the proximity of these facilities would make it less likely that the apartments would be replaced at the current location and since there is limited university land for apartments, this would reduce the total number of possibilities for new apartments. 6. The $500,000 budgeted for a temporary housing office could be better spent on wireless Ethernet for the academic and research needs of the residents. Residents think that the $500,000 slated for the temporary housing office could be much better spent on wireless Ethernet for the apartments. ITS researched five options for providing high speed internet to University Apartments, with wireless Ethernet being the most cost-effective. Scott Seagren quoted costs of $475,000 for installation and $104,100 each year for the service. Residence Services will survey residents to see if they are willing to pay $31.51 extra per month for this service. This monthly fee could be greatly reduced, possibly eliminated, if the $500,000 budgeted for the temporary relocation of the Housing Services Building goes toward internet instead. The many research assistants and post-docs who live in the apartments could be much more productive in their work for the university. These students and professionals waste much time waiting on a low-speed connection, as well as time in the commute to campus which might otherwise be unnecessary with high speed data access. Thank you for your attention in these matters. Sincerely,
Jacob Wedemeyer President, UARAC
cc:/David Skorton, UI President cc:/Phillip Jones, UI Vice President for Student Services cc:/Von Stange, Director of UI Residence Services cc:/Helen Baker, Manager of University Apartments cc:/Scott Seagren, Business Manager of UI Residence Services cc:/Nate Green, UISG President cc:/Lindsay Schutte, UISG President-Elect
Dean Phillip Jones' reply to the Regents on office demolition March 26, 2004:
Office of the Vice President for Student Services and Dean of Students
The University of Iowa 249 Iowa Memorial Union Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1317 319-335-3557 Fax 319-335-3559 vp-student-serives@uiowa.edu www.uiowa.edu/~vpss March 26, 2004 Greg Nichols, Director Board of Regents, State of Iowa 11260 Aurora Avenue Urbandale, IA 50322-7905 Dear Greg: I am providing you information in response to a letter sent by Jacob Wedemeyer, who lives in Hawkeye Court at the University of Iowa. What he discusses is important to the University of Iowa; therefore, I want to respond promptly to you and the Board and to our student leaders on each of the principal issues in his letter. 1. The Housing Services Building has not exceeded its useful life. As part of an overall master plan for the area dedicated to University Apartments, recreation fields and courts, and athletic facilities, a plan has been contemplated for several years to remove an obsolete power plant building that has been used for storage by Residence Services. The power plant building is the structure that has exceeded its useful life. For accuracy, I would correct the statement in the March, 2004 memorandum to the Regents (G.D 4a, p.23) that “Both structures have exceeded their useful lives.” The Housing Services Building is still a useful structure though it is an older building nearing the end of its useful life. The depreciated value of the Housing Services Building will be reimbursed to the Residence System when the building is razed. The Housing Services functions must be relocated to another structure in the process of developing a replacement for University Apartments. It is correct that interim arrangements must be made, but at a cost that will be subsequently less than the estimated $500,000. The removal now of the old power plant and Housing Services Building is necessary to relocate the outdoor tennis courts. The plan is in accord with the area master plan approved by the University of Iowa’s Campus Planning Committee comprised of faculty, staff, and students and is in accord with the Student Services Master Plan that is based on a neighborhood concept. In the University Apartments neighborhood, there would be an affinity among housing, community services (yet to be developed) and recreation fields and courts. 2. If the Housing Services Building is to be relocated, Athletics and Recreational Services should pay the relocation costs since the direct cause is the renovation of Kinnick Stadium and relocation of Klotz Tennis Courts. Tenants of University Apartments will not pay any part of the relocation of the tennis courts, and no costs for the stadium renovation are being shifted to Residence Services. 3. Current rent is over priced by $60 per month if University Apartments can budget $500,000 for a temporary office without increasing rent accordingly. Moreover, $500,000 is too expensive for a temporary office. A temporary office priced at $500,000 is too much as described above. University apartments are not over priced and there will not be any financial penalty borne by apartment tenants as a result of the transition we are going through for the long-term benefit of students. Indeed, I am considering even removing the 1% rent increase that was earlier proposed to the Board. The $500,000 figure was estimated as the cost of building a temporary facility that had amenities similar to the current structure. This type of temporary facility is not necessary, and we are looking at a less expensive temporary solution for the University Apartments offices, maintenance operation, and tenant storage. We have resisted using apartments for office space because of high demand for them; and would prefer not to use livable apartments for storage, but we may need to reconsider that temporarily. 4. The move of the Housing Services Building is unnecessary if the tennis courts are built where they were originally planned. As noted on p. 22 of G.D. 4a of the March docket, the Hawkeye Recreation/Athletic Facilities Complex, original Phase 2 project was deferred by the University because it proved not to be financially feasible. Another factor was the strong preference shown through student focus groups, recreation program staff, and student leadership for recreation facility in a more central campus location that would include aquatic programs. The current master plan for the west campus makes efficient, coordinated use of the land for more land intensive activities and provides for future expansion for apartments if and when the need arises. Tennis and field activities are included within this plan for the west campus. A depiction of that master plan is enclosed. 5. Allowing Athletics and Recreational Services to utilize University Apartments land in the Far West Campus sets a precedent that is detrimental to the best interests of the student body. Contrary to the assertion, the addition of outdoor and indoor tennis courts, and play fields will enhance the quality of life for residents of University Apartments. There will be more activity space for individual fitness activity and team sports ranging from soccer to rugby, as well as other domestically and internationally popular recreational activities. The addition of athletic facilities for women’s field hockey and soccer provides an opportunity for residents to view intercollegiate sports in the convenience of their neighborhood. The west campus master plan includes very ample space for expansion within the planned zone for housing, if that is needed. 6. The $500,000 budget for a temporary housing office could be better spent on wireless Ethernet for the academic and research needs of the residents. The temporary housing office is discussed earlier with the relevant facts. Residence Services is aware that internet service is as valuable for students in apartments as for students in residence halls. This will be a part of the planning of replacement apartments; however it would not be justifiable to install high speed internet access in the current apartment complexes with the very limited life span remaining or without unacceptably high charges to students, or without shifting the cost to students in residence halls. The University will select a consultant next week to assist us in determining how best to replace the Hawkeye Court residential complex. The study will analyze the alternatives and issues surrounding the development of 300 to 350 affordable housing units in 1, 2, and 3 bedroom configurations. Students will be directly involved in this process. The results of this work will be shared with the Board and Board office and will be accomplished yet this year. I anticipate bringing a request to the Board to hire consultants in late summer or early fall. After a study has been completed, residents of the apartments, as well as representatives of Student Government, Association of Residence Halls, and International Students and Scholars Office will be consulted in the planning process. Please share this with the members of the Board, as they were recipients of Mr. Wedemeyer’s earlier correspondence to which this responds. If there are any other questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely,
Phillip E. Jones Vice President for Student Services and Dean of Students
cc: David Grady, Assistant Vice President and Director, University Life Centers Nate Green, UI Student Government (UISG) Scott King, Director, International Students and Scholars Joshua Larsen, Chair, Recreational Committee Harry Ostrander, Director, Recreational Services David Skorton, University of Iowa President John Soper, Association of Residence Halls (ARH) Von Stange, Director, Residence Services Doug True, Vice President, Finance and University Operations Jacob Wedemeyer, Hawkeye Court Resident Attachments: 2 Comprehensive List of Grievances Grievances of the residents of Hawkeye Court and Hawkeye Drive March 2003 Here is a list of 60-70 complaints regarding the University Apartments. Some of these problems have quick, easy solutions. Others might require more energy, but are still solvable. The vast majority of our grievances, however, stem from poor planning, neglect, and the original cheap design and construction of the apartments. These latter problems require much more energy to solve than the university is currently willing to invest. We urge the university to take action to resolve these problems.
1) Rising Costs --Rents · exponential annual increases: 1bdrm in Hawk Ct: $285/month in Fall 1997 à $400/month in Fall 2003 2 bdrm in Hawk Ct: $336/month in Fall 1997 à $445/month in Fall 2003 2 bdrm in Hawk Dr: $410/month in Fall 1997 à $535/month in Fall 2003 --Energy · No insulation, high energy bills for small apts $150+, summer and winter --Cable · No choice, not optional · No Int’l channels like BBC World · Grad students don’t watch much cable --Phone · university monopoly on phone jacks · high international rates set by university --Implicit Costs · lost time in commute · pests in household furnishings after residence ends · damage to furniture and other belongings caused by mold, condensation on walls · gasoline · parking costs downtown/campus · Unrented units increase costs, university does not promote them --Budget Transparency/Accountability · new graduate assistantship considered for Univ Apts Office when calculating rent increase for 2003-2004; indications that the position will not exist despite Regents’ approval of rent increases · Did the large rent increase for 2002-2003 pay for cable service like apartment officials claimed to justify the huge increase? or Do dorm residents pay for Univ Apts cable like business manager Scott Seagren said? · Every year, Residence Services should publish a clear budget with specific reasons for rent increases, what the new revenue will be spent on 2) Condition of the Units Interior --poor air quality: · extremely high humidity(cold apt) or extremely low humidity(furnace on): condensation and mold(cold apt) vs dry eyes, nose bleeds, sore throat (warm apt) · To reduce the mold, Apartment literature discourages humidifiers, indoor plants, steaming or boiling foods, hanging laundry inside · no central air-conditioning: cinder block apts bake in summer, humidity uncontrolled · no stove exhaust fan · cigarette smoke/odors seeping through floor/walls of neighbors --pests: · roaches, termites, spiders --paint --leaky faucets, toilets, showerheads --leaks from bathrooms above · woman lost a piano · man lost 50 books --dirty space b/t fridge and wall --lack of closets/storage --acoustics: noise transmitted between apts --hot water runs out; can’t fill up the bathtub --poor lighting: two 60 watt bulbs in living room --apt management prohibits residents from making improvements at residents’ expense Exterior: --new paint job last summer done very poorly --no outside faucets/hoses --removal of recycling opportunities --poor drainage of grounds, surrounded by wetlands, floodplain, creek, drainage canal, golf course pond à leads to high mosquito population à lots of children outside à fear of West Nile Virus 3) Lack of Transportation Poor Access to Campus/dependence on Car --Walking/biking: · 45min-1hr walk on unlit trail through woods behind athletic track · no pedestrian/bicycle crossing across Mormon Trek under railroad bridge --Cambus: · 2-way commute = 30 min(minimum) to 2 hours with wait times included · service every hour after 7p and on weekends · No service before noon on weekends · Reduced service during breaks · late buses = mass tardies for students, TAs, and RAs · you miss the bus, you’re out of luck for another 30 min or 1 hour · Inequitable service: · Hawkeye Lot to Hospital route w/o stops in Hawkeye Ct/Dr · Dorms serviced by 5 routes w/ shorter time intervals. Dorms are within walking distance of campus bldgs · no Iowa City or Coralville bus service: residents have to take Cambus to campus in order to catch a city bus to go grocery shopping, and then repeat the process to go home. --Driving: · denial of day parking permits to residents of University Apts --Telecommuting: · slow, unreliable, remote internet phone connection · no high speed internet: cable, dish unavailable for internet b/c of UI monopoly 4) Lack of Recreation --absence of sidewalks: · baby strollers, pedestrians, kids in the streets · no sidewalk connecting Hawk Ct. and Hawk Dr. · university can build a new road(w/o sidewalk) between the Hall of Fame and the Hawkeye Lot but not a complete sidewalk between Hawk Ct and Hawk Dr in 37 years. This new road cut across the old soccer field in Hawk Dr. · improvements of Hawkeye Lot: sidewalks, landscaping, resurfacing of lot but no such improvements in the Apts --no access to recreation fields: · Fenced in Hawkeye recreation fields with locked gates and signs, “Trespassers will be prosecuted” · Improvement to Rec Fields, new lighted fields, shows money available for recreation improvements, but not for residents of University Apts --Lack of fitness facilities
5) Emotional/Psychological Issues · lack of social activities · disputes with neighbors · isolation · feelings of neglect/disregard because internationals · “rat in a cage” feeling · ghetto concept: low-income population fenced in/ isolated from the rest of the university community/city · fear of reprisal, afraid to speak out: especially int’ls unfamiliar w/ rights
6) Disparities between rest of Residence Services and Univ Apts · Technology: no high speed internet connection, and no chance of it according to director · Cambus · Fitness Facilities · laundry: no laundry in HC · Amenities · Conversion of Parklawn to freshman dorms · extensive renovations
7) Family Issues --Child Care: · university child care located along Melrose near hospital; parents take their toddlers on Cambus in all seasons—why not have the child care on site in University Apartments? --Lack of housing for large families w/ 5+children: · 3 br apts in IC/CV= $800 · non-renewal of leases for families w/ 4 children who have a 5th baby during the semester --Water quality: · Nitrates bad for babies, but no flouride in bottled water, flouride tablets require prescription from dentist --Public School Tuition/School bus costs: · included in rent, divided b/t all residents with or without children · misleading apartment literature tells residents the university pays these costs
8) Lack of Services · no Laundry in Hawk Ct. · no Grocery, convenience store, café · no common room · no Information Technology Center (computer lab)
9) More checks needed on Abuse of Authority by Apartment Officials · Inspections with vague reasons like health: state clear reason for entering and inspecting apts, what is the qualification of the “health inspectors”? · Threats of eviction/not renewing lease to force cooperation(example unavailable—resident afraid to be named) · Going beyond the contract(example unavailable—resident afraid) · Negative/disrespectful Attitude of University Apt officials · non-fixes to problems; send maintenance to tell residents nothing is wrong · misrepresenting information to residents: Who really pays for the cable? Who pays for the public school tuition of children? · Grievance/Hearing Procedure needed
10) No Official System of Resident Input in Policy Decisions and Operations · No official system of input; one tenant survey in three years with biased questions like “Is maintaince prompt?” (No questions like: Do you want to pay more for same-day maintenance service?) · The new graduate assistant position for 2003-2004 for University Apts should be filled by an international resident of University Apts · Current Directors out of touch with residents: director assumed there was a Cambus stop near a grocery store: no such stop exists, access to grocery stores a major problem
University Apartments Residents Action Committee March 2003 To Whom It May Concern,
We, the undersigned, would like to call to your attention the unsatisfactory situation that exists in the University of Iowa Apartments. Like tuition and fees, rent at these apartments is increasing, while living conditions are deteriorating. In order to provide an affordable, safe, and inviting home for the diverse body of students living in University housing, we would like to propose the following:
1. Rent must be kept low. The tenants of Hawkeye Drive and Hawkeye Court include international students and/or students with families, students with disabilities, and other low-income residents. These groups of non-traditional and traditional students face special financial difficulties. They have a higher cost of living than traditional students, and most have fewer sources of financial aid. Low-cost student housing is a vital service to these students, who bring so much diversity to the University of Iowa. Many of the residents would be unable to attend college without affordable housing. 2. Transportation to and from University Apartments must be improved. There are many potential solutions to this problem. Increasing Cambus service by running Hawkeye Express all day and/or adding additional routes is certainly within the University’s power. It has also been suggested that, with the rent increases, the University might contract the Iowa and Coralville City bus systems to run routes to Hawkeye Court and Hawkeye Drive, and provide residents with bus passes for the duration of their leases. 3. The condition of the apartments and grounds should be improved. While we realize that the University apartments were “built cheap,” there are some basic issues like mildew, pests, and insulation that are serious concerns to the tenants, and effectively addressing these issues would measurably increase the quality of life here. Residents are also concerned about the lack of sidewalks and the lack of access to the recreational facilities on the property. 4. Services like cable TV, high-speed internet, and calling plan should be optional. An insufferable monopoly exists over Hawkeye Drive and Hawkeye Court phone lines and cable service. This results in an unnecessarily high phone bill, a cable bill (included in the rent) for graduate students who rarely watch TV, and makes high-speed internet access absolutely impossible. In order for residents to have greater control over the services they use, the University of Iowa must let them contract the providers that they choose, for the services they want.
There are many more concerns, and many more proposed solutions that we would like to discuss. We, as a body of students that adds much diversity and academic excellence to the University, ask you to meet with our representatives and help us take action to improve our learning experience at the University of Iowa. Sincerely,
University Apartments Residents' Action Committee: Jacob Wedemeyer Alejandra Menchaca María Ortíz Xiaohong Shen Fida Khan Jen Gerbyshak Chaminda Hettige Sujith Perera Navdeep Sidhu Nor Hashida Abd Hamid Josué Jean-Francois
Supported by: COGS/UE-Local 896 UI Asian American Coalition
cc:/ Iowa Board of Regents cc:/ President David Skorton cc:/ Vice-President Phillip Jones cc:/ President-Elect Nate Green, UISG cc:/ Maggie Van Oel, Director of Residence Services cc:/ Helen Baker, Manager of University Apartments cc:/ Scott Seagren, Business Manager of Residence Services cc:/ Diana Davies, International Center cc:/ Brian McClatchey, Cambus Manager cc:/ Harry R. Ostrander, Director of Recreational Services cc:/ Steve Fleagle, ITS-Telecommunications cc:/ Marc Franke, ITS-Campus Services cc:/ Daily Iowan
University Apartments Residents Action Committee March 2003 Petition for affordable, quality student apartments We, the undersigned, would like to call to your attention the unsatisfactory situation that exists in the University of Iowa Apartments. Like tuition and fees, rent at these apartments is increasing, while living conditions are deteriorating. In order to provide an affordable, safe, and inviting home for the diverse body of students living in University housing, we would like to propose the following: 1) Rent must be kept low, 2) Transportation to and from University Apartments must be improved, 3) The condition of the apartments and grounds should be improved, and 4) Services like cable TV, high-speed internet, and calling plan should be optional. There are many more concerns, and many more proposed solutions that we would like to discuss. We, as a body of students that adds much diversity and academic excellence to the University, ask you to meet with our representatives and help us take action to improve our learning experience at the University of Iowa.
UI misinforms Regents Banking Committee on May 22, 2003: The following is taken from the minutes of the May 22, 2003 meeting of the Regents Banking Committee. Doug True, UI Vice-President for Finance and University Services, answers regent questions on number of tenants and cost of rent with the following figures: approximately 450 apartment units [actually 694 units] and $350/mo for 2-bdrm [2-bdrm in Hawkeye Ct = $445/mo; 2-bdrm in Hawkeye Dr. = $535/mo]. VP True minimizes the number of residents by avoiding the question with an untrue fact about the number of apartments. He is off by 244 units. He misrepresents the actual cost of rent by $95 or $185/mo depending on one's apartment complex. While UI officials cannot know all the facts and figures about the university, they should refrain from making inaccurate estimates that serve their position when faced with questions. These minutes are taken from the Regents' website: http://www2.state.ia.us/regents/Meetings/BankingMemos/03Memos/jun03/503bank.pdf ... Regents Becker and Neil said they did not remember receiving a grievance.
Regent Becker suggested acknowledging the concerns in the Board meeting and Vice President True stated that University officials would be glad to provide the Board MOTION: Regent Neil moved to receive the grievances and MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF RESIDENTS OF UNIVERSITY
APARTMENTS APPROVED AT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING, MARCH 2003 October 9, 2003 UISG President Nate Green's Letter in Support of Residents Dear University of Iowa Community, There is no doubt that the University of Iowa has one the most beautiful, well-maintained central campuses in the country. This commitment to providing an enriching atmosphere for educational success is part of what sets Iowa apart. But there is a “second campus”, a community of students that has largely been overlooked. The residents of the University Apartments, both Hawkeye Court and Hawkeye Drive, add much diversity and academic excellence to our university. It is essential that these students are provided adequate, low cost housing; they depend on it. If the university cannot afford to provide an affordable, safe, and inviting living environment for these students, I fear we compromise what it truly means to be a public academic institution. There are four main areas of concern that must be addressed: 1. Rising Rent With tuition and fees increasing over 50% over the last three years, the University Apartment tenants, many of whom are international students, students with families, non-traditional students, students with disabilities, have been put in a very difficult situation, especially given the higher costs of living and fewer financial aid resources available compared to most traditional students. The low-cost housing that the University Apartments provide is essential for these students, and in many cases is their only option. Please consider: · A renewed commitment to ensuring that the University Apartments are affordable for the low-income students who depend on them. · Strictly inflationary University Apartment rent increases, no higher. 2. Increased Transportation Because of the University Apartments’ considerable distance from the central campus and because many residents are unable to afford cars, Cambus service is the primary means of transportation for many. This problem is exacerbated by the ineligibility of residents for campus parking permits (despite living twice as far from campus as other students allowed permits). Part of this problem was solved when UISG was able to secure Cambus service on campus until 1 a.m., but students are still often left stranded on weekends and during breaks when service is significantly reduced. Consider:
3. TV, Internet and Phone Because University Apartment students are provided cable service, regardless of need or use, all residents are forced to pay for the service via rent obligations. Phone bills are higher than many times needed because students are forced to operate under the University’s phone plan. High-speed Internet is an issue that is being looked at, but currently there is really no viable option for students. Please consider: · Allowing residents a choice when adding services that they may or may not want to use or pay for. · Seeking out low-cost means for providing Internet service as an option for residents (i.e. through use of existing cable if possible). 4. Conditions The University Apartments were built many years ago and originally meant to simply be a temporary solution to a growing student population. It is thus understandable that the current residents have been forced to endure many of the hardships associated with older buildings, such as mildew, pests, and poor insulation and ventilation. These and many other factors contribute to very undesirable living conditions and exorbitant energy bills. Additionally, residents are not offered access to sufficient recreational facilities. Action is already being taken to repair damaged sidewalks. The University should be commended for such responsiveness but is urged to consider:
5. Long-Term Plan It is understandable that with recent budget cuts, it may be difficult to secure an immediate plan for replacing the University Apartments. Nevertheless, a long-term plan for the future of low-cost University housing must be formulated. Residents have gone far too long living in poor conditions, and a clear vision and articulated timeframe for improvements, both short and long-term, is essential. Consider: · Developing a short and long-term strategic plan for addressing the current residential problems. · Replacing the current University Apartments. · Replacing them very soon; it is long overdue. The preceding issues and concerns cited have been expressed to me first-hand by many University Apartment residents and personally witnessed in tours of the existing facilities and individual apartments. These are all valid concerns and the short explanations provided certainly do not even begin to describe the entirety of many of these problems. If and when changes are initiated, it is imperative that actual residents be included in any decisions, on both short and long-term issues. The overarching message that this letter attempts to set forth is the need for change. It is needed…now. Sincerely,
Nate J. Green President UI Student Body cc:/President David Skorton, Dean Phillip Jones, Jane Holland, many more...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||