I suggest that the proposal is amended to limit the rent at all AH to 1/4 the average graduate support stipend.

If operational costs are that high, then AH may just be plagued by the largest and most inefficient bureaucracy at the University, and that really is quite a feat!

This will have to come back up again in the Fall as it will eventually be voted upon as University policy.

I'm waiting on a text version of the final reponse proposal to come out so that I can post it here. In the meantime, if you are interested in housing issues consider joining tenantsunion-l, a listserv for graduate students interested in forming a tenants organization on campus. You can sign up for it at http://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/tenantsunion-l

Thanks!
Christine Rogers

I just got back from the GSA meeting in Bonner Hall. It looks like amended recommendations are going to pass. I want to make perfectly clear why I think the GSA is headed in the wrong direction with these proposals. I am not a GSA rep, just a grad student, but I have some strong opinions about this whole process. While I think the amended proposals are light years ahead of the initial ones, I think there are still very big problems. Since this is an open thread, I'm going to throw my opinion into the ring. I welcome responses to this.

The proposal is contradictory and confusing. Example: when the proposal states that “time limits” should be extended to one year beyond normative time for a degree but that, in order to clear apartments, people should be evicted before that point. Once the waitlist is emptied out, people who have been in mesa the longest will then be given un-renewable leases. This is unclear and contradictory. The stated goal of allowing people to stay for the normative time to complete their degrees is contradicted by the recommendations on how to get there.

The language around the “market equalization” of rents is also problematic. It is vague, unclear, and easily misinterpreted as trying to raise the rents of some “desirable” units to that of the la jolla “market.” It seems like supporters of the proposal have had to return to every website multiple times to insist that they are not proposing rent increases. I am going to suggest to those supporters of this proposal a simple explanation as to why you have to counter lots of people’s confusion ….Um, You are proposing rent increases.

This proposal recommends rent increases for some tenants because they supposedly pay less than they should, according to your “market” system, and then proposes to lessen the rent for others because they pay too much. The only counter to this is to maybe cap the rent increases at some percentage each year.

The GSA is proposing rent increases as part of a recommendation on how to make graduate and affiliated housing more accessible, plentiful, and in general, promote more community amongst graduate students. I’m baffled as to why supporters of the proposal fail to grasp opposition to this. If a union went to the negotiating table and suggested that some of their members should take pay cuts, of an unspecified amount to be decided by management, while other members could get minimal pay raises also to be determined by management, the betrayal of members interests would be clear. This is no different.

The fact that it is only a set of proposals makes this even worse. GSA has no real power to force management to accept any parts of this proposal. In effect, it only serves as a set of recommendations that are supposedly reflective of the wishes of the graduate student body. GSA had the opportunity to make a strong statement representing the interests of all graduate students. It could have said:
1. build more housing
2. make it better (ie the 3-4 room crap is no good)
3. Affilliated Housing needs to remain affordable and accessible to all students
4. Getting more people into housing earlier in their careers here is important to help foster campus community and aid in recruitment. Moving toward guaranteeing first year housing will help maintain the quality of this research institution.
5. Maintain all family/partner protections

These points would have been simple and clear. They would have reflected the interests of all students clearly to management. GSA instead chose to try and engage in policy recommendations that suggested things like discriminating against couples, and booting people out of housing. Why this decision was made, instead of taking the opportunity to clearly state a position and recommend to management priorities shared among the entire graduate student population is beyond me. I think GSA lost track of its priorities while trying to engage in management’s job. We as graduate students can have a seat at the table and can give our perspective on policies, but the GSA should not make recommendations that represent the interests of a small portion of the student body, and run counter to the interests of others. But hey, if tonight’s meeting was all politics, then the supporters of the recommendations may have won. Unfortunately GSA’s credibility may have lost.

seems i was misinformed about the point of this proposal. i guess the point of this document is not to be debated for months and months amongst the whole graduate student community until consensus — i've heard that in fact the point of this document was just for the council meeting tomorrow. in this case "it needs to be modified so that at least part of it is targeted at other students" isn't really necessary. sorry

Gabriela Chavez
SIO rep

Students @ SIO Response to GSA Changes to Affiliated Housing
13 June 2007

The students of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Students @ SIO) recognize that the primary concern for Graduate and Professional Students (GPS) regarding housing is that it should be economical and abundant. Efforts by the Graduate Student Association (GSA) to improve the graduate housing situation at UCSD must focus on increasing the availability and affordability of housing for GPS in a manner that is not detrimental to graduate student quality of life. We applaud the recent initiative shown by the GSA to improve the housing situation for GPS, and we agree that changes to the current Affiliated Housing system are needed for the benefit of all GPS. While we agree with some of the policies suggested by the draft proposal, some of the ideas included in the draft GSA proposal circulated recently, as well as the style of the document itself, must be changed to represent our views. The following document summarizes the points on which we agree with the draft and offers specific changes to improve the document.

The three actions proposed in the draft document are to 1) ‘Create additional affordable housing for graduate students through both traditional and nontraditional means’, 2) `Develop a more cohesive, fair, accessible, and sound housing policy that allows for designed growth for the future’, and 3) `Actively establish a strong community within existing affiliated housing.’ We agree with each of these goals and place emphasis on the first two. The establishment of a better community would be nice, but is of secondary importance given the current shortage of affordable graduate housing at UCSD.

We recommend the following changes under `Action 1’ of the draft document:
1. The paragraph regarding the One Miramar parking structure and the building of future housing without included parking (lines 131-142) should be stricken from the document. Personal transportation is a necessary part of life in San Diego. The vast majority of GPS have personal vehicles as indicated by the number of vehicles currently parked in Mesa and other complexes. Furthermore, the One Miramar deck is complete, so there is no point to debating it now.
2. We emphasize that three and four bedroom apartments are NOT more desirable for all single GPS. One bedroom and studio apartments are also not necessarily preferred by married GPS without children. Lines 149-153 should be replaced with a recommendation to build a mix of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments according to demand. Demand should be established by surveying all GPS. While the quantity of graduate housing must be increased, quality of life should not be sacrificed to make room for more housing.

We support the development of revised housing priority policy to provide housing for first-year students, but we take issue with some of the details presented for creating the necessary housing opportunities. We recommend the following changes under `Action 2’ of the draft document:
1. Criticism of the SHORE program should not be included here, particularly with subjective comments like the reference to `sometimes random methods’ on line 209. To emphasize the GSA’s position of lobbying for all students, we suggest the following replacement for lines 206-212: `While current university policy does provide first-year housing to some students as a recruitment tool through the SHORE program, the GSA believes that first-year housing should be available to all incoming GPS. The SHORE program would subsequently become obsolete.’
2. Encouraging the University to control costs related to running the housing program is an important stance for the GSA. It is not clear that GSA has the either the information or the experience necessary to make specific budget and payroll recommendations regarding Affiliated Housing.
3. The use of one-year leases starting in summer will be problematic for GPS who complete their studies at other parts of the academic year. PhD students complete their studies at all parts of the year. A student could then be burdened with filling a lease for a considerable amount of time, or with finding housing for a relatively short period of time. Neither of these situations is optimal. We recognize that professional programs may be more highly structured so that students in those programs complete their studies at the end of the academic year. We suggest that maximum lease terms be tied to the normative time to degree as discussed below. The option for students to leave leases with 30-day notice at any time during the year should be retained, and will help to spread turnover throughout the academic year. Furthermore, it does not seem that turnover time for Affiliated Housing is a problem, so the proposed advantage of one-year leases over the current month-to-month contracts is not clear.
4. We agree that economical housing should not be an incentive for students to delay graduation, and that time limits on residency in Affiliated Housing are necessary. Current policy allows students to remain in Affiliated Housing for one year beyond the normative time to degree. This policy does potentially reward delayed graduation. Setting the maximum tenure in Affiliated Housing at one year less than the normative time to degree will result in students being forced out of housing in the midst of writing their dissertations. This is unacceptable. We recommend that GPS not be allowed to remain in Affiliated Housing after the expiration of their normative time to degree. Lines 322-324 should be changed to read: `At steady state the GSA would like to see GPS guaranteed housing through their normative time to degree.’
5. GSA should recognize the timescales required to adjust the housing system at UCSD to accommodate all students for the necessary amount of time. The key factor to changing the system is the acquisition of more graduate housing and will require several years. Implementing short-term policies such as those discussed in line 328-341 only further complicates the housing system. Such complications should be avoided. We also note that changes to rent structure and leasing policies will occur on timescales of a few months. All suggested policies should include timescales for their implementation and evaluation.
6. We reiterate that one-bedroom and studio apartments are not necessarily preferred by married/partnered GPS without children. There are too few one-bedroom and studio apartments to require married/partnered GPS to reside only in these apartments, and such a policy would unfairly limit married/partnered GPS from Affiliated Housing. We see no compelling reason to offer preferential housing to couples without children, but also no reason to deny spouses/partners that are not GPS to serve as roommates. Lines 343-349 should thus be stricken.
7. Lines 349-351 should be stricken. Conversion to one-bedroom apartments reduces bed space and there is currently no evidence that 3-bedroom apartments are preferable.
8. We agree that differences in rent between housing complexes are not proportional to the value of those apartments. Unfortunately, the plan for equalizing rents throughout Affiliated Housing is unsound. The plan to adjust rents based upon `desirability’ of properties is flawed because desirability is very strongly correlated with rent. More economical apartments are more desirable to GPS. Furthermore, the University will not reduce rents of existing apartments. With the current shortage of housing, there are no properties with fewer applications than openings. Rents will be equalized only through increasing rents of economical areas. This is of no benefit to GPS. Setting limits on the rate of increase of rents could effectively equalize prices if rents in more costly apartments are kept from increasing as rapidly as the rents of more economical apartments. We reiterate that GSA should be advocate for the lowest possible rent in all cases, as this is the primary concern of GPS. Lines 374-378 should be stricken or wholly revised.

We further believe that the draft proposals can be more effectively presented. The document should present proposals regarding changes to graduate housing in an objective manner and avoid any statements that are not representative of all GPS. The complete omission of quantitative results from the Graduate and Professional Student Experience Survey is a major failing of the current draft. Statements regarding GPS preferences should be backed up by results from the GPSES or removed from the document. For instance, lines 3-4 state `the lack of an inclusive residential community affiliated with UCSD’ is the ‘most pressing issue for graduate students’. Backed with analytically interpreted survey results, this is powerful statement. Without those results it is ineffective and/or incorrect. Similarly, the statement on line 96 about the current state of housing being `terrible’ must be stricken unless it is truly representative of the views of all GPS for whom GSA lobbies. Also, since this document is raising so many issues that can’t seem to be resolved in a timely matter, maybe it would deserve to be put on hold until another survey can be done to evaluate qualitatively the GPS preferences (on things such as if having housing during the first years or the last years is preferred) and before any major changes are done.

Text of Proposal to be Deleted: (Please specify line numbers)

307 providing housing to incoming GPS and those at the beginning of their career. We
308 believe that the preference given to students with children should be continued in
309 recognition of the extra difficulties presented to these students in the interest of
310 maintaining accessibility.

Text to be Inserted: (Please specify line numbers)

307 providing housing to incoming GPS and those at the beginning of their career. We
308 believe that the preference given to students with children should be continued and 309 further that similar preference should be given to international students or students 310 with international spouses lacking a work visa in recognition of the extra difficulties 311 presented to these students in the interest of maintaining accessibility.

Summary of Arguments in Favor of Amendment: (text past this page shall be transferred to the further arguments section)

I would hope that this is fairly straight forward. International students, particularly those in departments which do not guarantee summer funding also face “extra difficulties”. Not only are they not allowed to work, they also often face drains on their time and money due to their status.

Text of Proposal to be Deleted: (Please specify line numbers)

345 benefit to the GPS community would be greater if only other GPS were allowed as
346 qualified roommates in multiple bedroom apartments not occupied by GPS with children

Text to be Inserted: (Please specify line numbers)

345 benefit to the GPS community would be greater if only other GPS were allowed as
346 qualified roommates in multiple bedroom apartments not occupied by GPS with children or spouses who cannot work due to legal or medical reasons.

Summary of Arguments in Favor of Amendment: (text past this page shall be transferred to the further arguments section)

See arguments above.

Text of Proposal to be Deleted: (Please specify line numbers)

415 Goal 4: Revise current social constriction policies
416
417 Current social policies in the housing properties are unnecessarily restrictive, in
418 particular quiet hours and alcohol possession. While administrators have traditionally
419 appealed to the presence of families for these policies, many families themselves find
420 themselves overly constrained by their single neighbors due to the policies. To
421 accommodate these concerns the GSA proposes that quiet hours and alcohol possession
422 policies be restricted on the basis of location. Specifically we request that in the
423 Mesa/One Miramar area the more restrictive policies be applied to the eastern part of the
424 Mesa structure and the northern buildings in One Miramar, expanding the size according
425 to demand.

Text to be Inserted: (Please specify line numbers)

None

Summary of Arguments in Favor of Amendment: (text past this page shall be transferred to the further arguments section)

I think it is unrealistic that this or any other proposal will fix this problem. The more people have spoken out about this issue, the more it sounds to me like something that is not likely to be fixed by such a change. People do not fit into the categories offered here. The overwhelming majority of GPS will want reasonable quiet hours (which may in fact be a bit later than current standards) on most nights, and will want to have the occasionally loud night. I have never heard of an apartment complex not having such difficulties. The solution seems to me to be basic consideration and patience. I worry that if such areas were in fact instituted, the situation would actually worsen since I think it is the case that no one would fit perfectly into either box and I am afraid that having such labels might actually decrease levels of consideration and patience. For example, even those living in the “quiet area” are at some point during the years they live there likely to be louder than their neighbors prefer. Since they are in the in the “quiet area” this is likely to be dealt with with greater impatience. The non-quiet area is also likely to cause problems since even those living in that area are likely to want some limitations and others living there may interpret the designation as a license for more regular, louder, and later noise than is expected or acceptable to their neighbors. There are a variety of ways that housing differs. Elsewhere in this proposal the goal of allowing students more choices with regard to size and amenities was expressed. I think the further choice suggested in this section complicates the matter in a manner that is not likely to be of real benefit to anyone and thus actually degrades the overall efficacy of choice making.

Text of Proposal to be Deleted: (Please specify line numbers)

149 one bedroom or three/four bedroom apartments. The GSA believes that future
150 development should focus on one bedroom apartments to house GPS couples without
151 children and three/four bedroom apartments that are more desirable for single graduate
152 students.

Text to be Inserted: (Please specify line numbers)

149 one bedroom or three/four bedroom apartments. Though research on the actual
150 preferences of GPS is important before committing to plans for new structures, the 151 GSA believes that future development should focus on one bedroom apartments to 152 house GPS couples without children and three/four bedroom apartments that are
153 more efficient for single graduate students.

Summary of Arguments in Favor of Amendment: (text past this page shall be transferred to the further arguments section)

It seems to me that three and four bedrooms and significantly less desirable. Three or four singles sharing one shower, one refrigerator, etc. is less comfortable than two. While it may certainly be necessary to build more high density housing, and it is probably likely that such housing would be preferable to none at all, I think it is important that we do not just argue it is preferable. Given the option, we should try to have housing constructed which would make GPS most comfortable.

thanks,
Amanda

Similarly, CURRENTLY the proposal is written to inform and to convince the administration; however, it needs to be modified so that at least part of it is targeted at other students.

I do have a suggestion, though:

The proposal is too long. Because of this, the justifications for it are not getting widely read. This is being discussed on email lists and people are hearing that someone proposed allowing the university to raise rents and to kick older students out of housing, and not hearing the reasons. Few of the people who hear that will take the time to read a proposal as long as this (and I don't blame them). I've heard it described as "difficult to read". As a comment in this thread indicated, people hear scary things, don't read the proposal and don't find the explanations buried in it, and then suspect that GSA is either crazy or is in cahoots with the dark and devious forces of the administration.

If the proposal has to be this long, then there should be a SHORT executive summary for grad students that concisely motivates the scarier parts, and an FAQ that goes along with the proposal.

Similarly, the proposal is written to inform and convince the administration; part of it needs to be targeted at other students.

A few clarifications. First, all of these ideas are going to be, at most, advisory to the administration of housing. They are fairly conservative, and we have no intention of undergoing dramatic and sudden changes. In fact, we go to lengths to assure students through this year that have made decisions on the basis of the availability of housing (such as your husband) that those commitments will be honored. Now, to answer your questions, assuming in all cases that our proposals are not changed from their current form, and that they are adopted in whole by the housing administration (this is very unlikely, but it is our goal that housing would adopt them):

1) Under our proposals the rental rate would be on a per apartment, and not per person basis.

2) You will have priority for next year certainly, and under our proposal parents would retain their preference.

3) Rent will not be increased to market rate. We anticipate moderate rent increases for Mesa and Coast to bring rent relief to students in other Affiliated Housing properties. Under no circumstance would rent approach market values.

4) As of now your daughter's special needs do not play into it. Under our proposal there would be consideration (significant rent reduction) given to single parents, international students whose spouses cannot legally work, and students with disabled partners. We may amend in a section to allow further consideration for special circumstances like yours, and if adopted by housing this would mean a reduction in rent beyond what you are expecting to pay.

There are many unknowns here, and I wish that I had more confident answers to give you. One of the things that we are fighting for is certainty for future graduate students, so that the housing situation is predictable and students know when they make the decision for graduate school what financial obligations they will be capable of supporting. I hope this helps assuage some of your fears. We're trying hard not to let anyone slip through the cracks while still creating as many opportunities as possible for grad students.

Doug

I'm the spouce of an incomming grad student for Sept 2007. I just happened to come on and check out the Mesa boards and saw all of the commotion. We have two very young children, one of whom has special needs, thus requiring me to not work outside the home. We had requested to live in Mesa back in February, and the rep at the time said it shouldn't be a problem… now I'm scared!

I can't quite make heads or tails out of this, and I know it's a bit up in the air until the next meeting. Can someone please clarify:

1. Will the rent be per person, with myself (as the non student spouce) having to pay more? What about the rates for our children?

2. Will we still have priority b/c we have children?

3. If the rent is "market rate" we can't afford that, does that mean my husband either has to commute (not cost effective) or NOT ATTEND graduate school???!

4. Does my daughter's special needs play into this at all?

Thanks anyone for ANY advice or clarification, it's greatly apprciated.
Kind Regards,
Christine Rogers

I'm the spouce of an incomming grad student for Sept 2007. I just happened to come on and check out the Mesa boards and saw all of the commotion. We have two very young children, one of whom has special needs, thus requiring me to not work outside the home. We had requested to live in Mesa back in February, and the rep at the time said it shouldn't be a problem… now I'm scared!

I can't quite make heads or tails out of this, and I know it's a bit up in the air until the next meeting. Can someone please clarify:

1. Will the rent be per person, with myself (as the non student spouce) having to pay more? What about the rates for our children?

2. Will we still have priority b/c we have children?

3. If the rent is "market rate" we can't afford that, does that mean my husband either has to commute (not cost effective) or NOT ATTEND graduate school???!

4. Does my daughter's special needs play into this at all?

Thanks anyone for ANY advice or clarification, it's greatly apprciated.
Kind Regards,
Christine Rogers

I'm the spouce of an incomming grad student for Sept 2007. I just happened to come on and check out the Mesa boards and saw all of the commotion. We have two very young children, one of whom has special needs, thus requiring me to not work outside the home. We had requested to live in Mesa back in February, and the rep at the time said it shouldn't be a problem… now I'm scared!

I can't quite make heads or tails out of this, and I know it's a bit up in the air until the next meeting. Can someone please clarify:

1. Will the rent be per person, with myself (as the non student spouce) having to pay more? What about the rates for our children?

2. Will we still have priority b/c we have children?

3. If the rent is "market rate" we can't afford that, does that mean my husband either has to commute (not cost effective) or NOT ATTEND graduate school???!

4. Does my daughter's special needs play into this at all?

Thanks anyone for ANY advice or clarification, it's greatly apprciated.
Kind Regards,
Christine Rogers

I'm the spouce of an incomming grad student for Sept 2007. I just happened to come on and check out the Mesa boards and saw all of the commotion. We have two very young children, one of whom has special needs, thus requiring me to not work outside the home. We had requested to live in Mesa back in February, and the rep at the time said it shouldn't be a problem… now I'm scared!

I can't quite make heads or tails out of this, and I know it's a bit up in the air until the next meeting. Can someone please clarify:

1. Will the rent be per person, with myself (as the non student spouce) having to pay more? What about the rates for our children?

2. Will we still have priority b/c we have children?

3. If the rent is "market rate" we can't afford that, does that mean my husband either has to commute (not cost effective) or NOT ATTEND graduate school???!

4. Does my daughter's special needs play into this at all?

Thanks anyone for ANY advice or clarification, it's greatly apprciated.
Kind Regards,
Christine Rogers

I'm the spouce of an incomming grad student for Sept 2007. I just happened to come on and check out the Mesa boards and saw all of the commotion. We have two very young children, one of whom has special needs, thus requiring me to not work outside the home. We had requested to live in Mesa back in February, and the rep at the time said it shouldn't be a problem… now I'm scared!

I can't quite make heads or tails out of this, and I know it's a bit up in the air until the next meeting. Can someone please clarify:

1. Will the rent be per person, with myself (as the non student spouce) having to pay more? What about the rates for our children?

2. Will we still have priority b/c we have children?

3. If the rent is "market rate" we can't afford that, does that mean my husband either has to commute (not cost effective) or NOT ATTEND graduate school???!

4. Does my daughter's special needs play into this at all?

Thanks anyone for ANY advice or clarification, it's greatly apprciated.
Kind Regards,
Christine Rogers

As I've mentioned in some places, I am very glad to see the new version of this proposal. It is a remarkable improvement over the prior version, and those involved in coming up with the new draft (to my knowledge, Rob Martin, Sabrina Starnaman, and especially Doug Jorgesen) are to be highly congratulated.

I have only one small suggestion for improving the proposal, and my presumption is that its absence is more or less just a mistake. I think the time limits have been given a thorough rationale, and the priority of making the time limits reasonable in the long run is comforting. My only concern is that in the present proposal, unlike prior versions, there are no exceptions to the time limit. In the prior version, there was an exemption for parents, which I think should be stated explicitly in this version as well. I think it would also be valuable to include a process where people in particularly dire straits can apply for a 1-year extension of their time-limit.

I've tried to include all of this in a fairly short amendment. Since the amendment is very much in line with the spirit of the proposal, the argument I've provided makes copious references to other parts of the proposal. Hopefully, the general idea isn't too controversial. Please let me know if you have any concerns, recommendations, revisions, etc.

Text of Amendment:

Submitting Council Member: ??
Author Email Address: ude.dscu|nworbttam#ude.dscu|nworbttam

Text of Proposal to be Deleted: (Please specify line numbers)

None

Text to be Inserted: (Please specify line numbers)

[342] - To protect students students in particularly difficult situations, AH should institute a process by which students can apply for a one-year extension of their lease once the time limit has passed, if they can demonstrate sufficient financial need or other circumstances that would make living off-campus unworkable. All student parents should automatically receive such a waiver.

Summary of Arguments in Favor of Amendment: (text past this page shall be transferred to the further arguments section)

The primary argument for this amendment is that it is in the spirit of the proposal itself, and most of the reasons can be found in the proposal: The university should continue its commitment to parents [307-308], that students with children have particularly high difficulties [309-310], that many students would be unable to pay the increase in rent that they would undoubtedly face moving off-campus [402-403], and that the university should nevertheless do its best to accommodate these students to ensure a high-caliber and diverse student body [404-406]. It is important not just to think of these students in need when they are in AH space, but about what might happen to them if they were required to leave.
In recognition that parenting, certain medical conditions, unusual financial difficulties, and a host of other possible unanticipated issues could cause time limits to unduly burden an admittedly quite small portion of the student population, a system should be put in place to protect these students, one that would be run in a fair and sensible way. The number of students with such needs is sufficiently small that the goal of replacing the wait-list with guaranteed first-year housing should not be adversely affected.Further Arguments for Amendment X:

Problematic Scenarios

Parents face great difficulty in finding new housing that singles do not face. The types of communal housing situations that most single grads would pursue (i.e., picking several other grad students as roommates and going in together for an apartment) is unavailable to them, since for the most part it is not feasible for a family to share an apartment with others. A further problem arises from the school districting in San Diego, since parents are already loathe to have to move their children from one school to the other because of the difficulties for the child, and many of the places which would be entirely adequate places for single students to live has entirely inadequate public schools. These students currently benefit from UCSD's placement in the high-quality schools of UTC (because located in a district with high property values). Comparable places lack housing that a GPS could afford.

Students with certain medical conditions and disabilities would potentially be faced with severe difficulties based on the increase in rent and commute. While the GSHIP program proves mostly adequate for single students in normal health, students with pre-existing or continually expensive conditions aren't covered nearly so well, and so may face serious financial drains. Those living in housing are no doubt familiar with members of our community for whom even getting from Mesa to campus comes with some difficulty, which would be multiplied several-fold when moving off-campus. The availability of several medical facilities on and near campus is also of much-needed help to such students.

Students with unusual financial burdens, such as particularly low stipends or particularly high costs beyond the students control, would potentially suffer greatly if forced to move off-campus. The proposal affirms that it is unreasonable to expect students to pay more than 40% of their income in rent [407], and the attendant increase in quality of life is a stated goal of the proposal [408-9]. One could easily imagine scenarios in which a student made to live off campus would be forced to pay a significantly higher percentage of their effective income. Careful judgment is necessary in these cases to distinguish legitimate burdens in need of aid from illegitimate ones, but the possibility of legitimate cases justifies the inclusion of protections.

I'm just going to add the new draft to the opening thread post since the previous draft isn't relevant any more anyway.

You can like or dislike the idea, but the idea is *not* to just raise rents for the fun of it. It's *not* to equalize Mesa rents with the open market. Your rents probably won't be going up at 10%/year or whatever.

Also sounds like the next draft is out. I'll attach it to this page (I guess you click on "files" to see it). Haven't had a chance to read it yet.

2. Time Limit: We need to see the impact of the OneMiramar project on the student list in order to assess this. Current residents are funding the One Miramar by the recent rent increase which will have a positive impact in shortening the waiting list. Applying time limit to the current residents would be a punishment for a good deed.

I also need to give you a bit of background info which would help contextualize these proposals. The intention of the current admin is to privatize the grad housing. Last year they hired a consulting company which conducted some research on its possible impact among the grads. We had a chance to meet with them as AHAC members and my impression was that they don't find the current housing projects profitable with these rental rates, yet they don't want to deal with the student reaction when they increase the rents to the rate they find viable for their business interests. This current proposal seems like paving the way to the privatization of grad housing. When the rent increase will reach to a "market" level there will be no point opposing to the privatization. I think what is at stake here lies in the question of should the grad housing be for profit or non-profit? The equal access for all grad students to housing is a separate question and it need not to be solved by the invisible hand of the market. Otherwise it would be a self-defeating effort, when the currents rents increase to the market level what is the point of living in the grad ghetto?

Rent increases or decreases capped at 10% a year to equalize desirability. Actually Mesa rent is already increasing at a rate of 7% per year. How about we just leave it at this rate which is already above the rate of inflation? Let's not forget that graduate student pay is not increasing at a comparable rate. Some students have suggested setting rent to 1/3 of a student's income and I totally disagree. It is NOT fair to charge one student $350 for the same apartment someone else is paying $550 or more for. Also many students have other responsibilities such as student loan debt, car note and insurance, etc. Setting rent to income would also be discriminatory against students in the sciences who tend to make more than other students. For example there are some who make only $14,000 a year versus others who make $20,000 which is still not much. To insure that students who would benefit the most from Mesa are being served, income can instead be used for eligibility, e.g. single students income less than $25,000, couples/families income less than $55,000.

3 year time limits on affiliated housing. This idea is going in the right direction yet there have been complaints. Lengthen the time limit to 5 years or to the campus wide average time for students to finish their graduate programs. I believe it is unreasonable to live in mesa 7 years or more especially if we are trying to accomodate incoming students.

Giving families first preference to North Mesa. North Mesa apartments may be the most affordable but it is significantly smaller than Central and South Mesa apartments. We should give familes the choice of whether they want to pay more for more space or vice versa. Leave the system as is, where families have first preference across all of affiliated housing.

Overall, I think more specific research needs to be done, especially in the areas of student incomes and program lengths. I think providing first year students with AFFORDABLE housing is great since it was the #1 reason I came to UCSD. At the same time, let's not forget about those who are already here.

• A No Vote at the GSA Meeting Tonight
• Meeting about F*%#ed up Housing Proposal Monday Night!
• Proposal to Discriminate against Couples and Families

You'll find a few older threads also if you look around.

This quote was taken from the excerpt on housing resulting from the GPSES report. What I'm most interested in is the phrase "renewal of housing". At Monday's meeting one of the public speakers noted that while our rent is being proposed to increase, the quality of our living spaces is not promised to increase. There seems to be a contradiction here between what the proposal referred to as increased rent for the purpose of creating more housing developments and the recognition of the need to improve current amenities. It is not that I see this as the most important issue to be considered because I don't. However, the issue of GSA representation raised at the GSA meeting concerning: the aims of the proposal, the perspective from which the proposal was written and who it was written for worries me.

While I'm fairly green behind the ears when it comes to political matters, I thought that graduate student representatives are suppose to operate, for the most part, on behalf of the graduate student population. The proposal seemed to be operating against current graduate students because of a vision or two which believe that by adding more housing and changing the current structure of housing, community would increase. I agree that housing needs to increase and that rents should be equalized within the Mesa housing structure, not with the "market". Thus, I agree with the parts of Erin's and Sabrina's suggestions that take student's individual income circumstances into consideration. However, how will income measures be used? To determine rental rates (charge 1/3 of someone's income regardless of the amount of income) or to determine who will be able to live in Mes (provide income caps to incoming grads and their partners to determine whether they would be eligible for Mesa housing). If the income of incoming students increases and exceeds the cap, then what happens? It seems as if the students would be forced to move out. However, I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Moving in, moving out. Therefore, it seems that the 1/3 of income for rent is fair across the board…… But what happens when you have three people in a three bedroom which is what the current proposal suggests? How will their rent be equalized? What do you all think?

Because the current proposal seems to relegate families to North Mesa (which I hope will not fly) I'm concerned that there will be a loss of three bedrooms for families with two or more children. This will be detrimental for a certain few students who come to grad school with such circumstances in their lap. Thus, there needs to be a preservation of at least the nine three bedroom units in Mesa for such families. In Sabrina's suggestions, the idea of buliding more three bedroom units with a one bedroom next door (for families and I'm not sure how this makes sense in a one bedroom but I guess it is in the interest of space and lower rent) seems like it would provide that a certain number of those three bedroom apartments be reseved for families with such circumstances as mentioned above.

As far as where the revenue will come from the fund further housing, it has recently come to my attention that while housing is said to be self-supporting and UC does not or cannot contribute funds to housing, this is simply not true. The university does have a pool of unrestricted funds, but they choose not to spend it on housing. Thus it does not seem to be a law but rather a choice. (by the way this is iris)

Given the increasing shortage of affordable housing in the proximity of campus, it should be no surprise that the need for increased G/PS housing was one of the key issues raised. The committee recognizes that in many ways the solution of this would go a long way towards enhancing G/PS life. Since a large percentage of G/PS come from outside the local region and State and most incoming students have not yet established ties to their department, the campus, to one another, or to the larger community, it is important that UCSD offer campus housing to incoming graduate students at the beginning of their graduate student experience. The committee believes that early placement will enhance student recruitment and maximize the educational and social benefits that on-campus housing provides the G/PS. Anecdotal evidence from peer institutions suggests that the G/PS experience is significantly enhanced through the non-academic interactions developed through living in close proximity with other G/PS students. G/PS student housing at UCSD should be expanded through constructing additional new housing, reallocating housing allotments, and revising methods used to set priorities, occupancy lengths, and wait lists. Together, these efforts would provide increased opportunities for G/PS to live on campus, establish a community of their peers, and reap the benefits of having affordable housing while keeping in close proximity to their research labs or campus offices. Currently, graduate and family housing communities lack substantial G/PS focused retail, dining and social venues. Future planning of residential areas should include construction of new graduate housing on the west campus. Furthermore, construction of additional units at Mesa and Coast Affiliated Housing Communities could be accomplished by increasing density. New development, redevelopment, and renewal of housing ought to emphasize the provision of more amenities attuned to meeting the needs of G/PS. These efforts would serve to revitalize the campus while assisting in the development of a stronger sense of community and belonging.

As I understand it, they went to GSA to get our endorsement in March-April (I actually missed several meetings around this time so probably am not the best to fill be answering this, but I wanted to put this out there). Overall, it was liked but GSA wanted to add things and make more concrete suggestions on how some of the ideas should get carried out - many were frustrated that the report (as is often the case with things penned by committee) contained few concrete ideas on how to proceed. Rather than try and amend that report, we said we'd attach a supplement with some ideas. Interested GSA members (and some from outside GSA, I believe) formed a committee to draft a proposal, and put it before council last week. Since it's a supplement to the GPSES report (which has already been submitted) and there's a lot of momentum behind trying to improve the life of grads, the thought is this needs to get out there rather than get hung up in council til next year.

So that's the story, at least as I know it. It seems like a pretty valid question "why this? why now? what was the process?" and maybe this slice of history will help it. If anyone who knows more wants to correct or comment, go for it.

The procedure for updating the GPSES report will be as follows:

A new report will be released on Friday, with some updated content
and numbered lines. There will be a form [I think this will only be for
GSA reps] to create amendments. The amendments will have the specific language to be removed (as much as you want) and the new language to be added (also as much as you want), so if you hate the whole thing you can replace it with your own if you want. There will be a space on the form to justify the amendment. After I receive all the amendments I will compile them and send them out to all the reps the following Friday, who will have the weekend to review them. When we get to the meeting there will be a brief period for the author to introduce the amendment, then a period of limited debate, then a vote. At the
end we will vote whether or not to adopt each section.

No public comment will be allowed. Send comments and suggestions to your GSA Representative. You can also read and discuss the current draft of the proposal here.

It's Erin. Thanks for posting the clarification on the rent increases. It's definitely one of the most contenious points and many people may not be quite clear on what it entails.

Also to clarify the stress/couple weeks idea. With that idea I was considersing incoming student's stress in finding housing from far way separately from the long waitlists. That idea was to ease the stress of incoming graduate students who must search for housing from far away and also to think of ways to create community among incoming students. I agree that the waitlist is MUCH more than a few weeks of stress and I think that changing the primary/secondary clause, time limits that consider need and time to degree, and finding ways to create more housing are avenues for starting to address the waitlist problem. I'll try to change the language so that idea gets across more clearly.

Lots of great ideas, a couple places where maybe the proposal's intent didn't come through. Just to reassure a bit, what's here is a *draft* that went before council for the first time on monday and we haven't had a chance to discuss or amend it yet formally due to the meeting getting cut "short" (at 4 hours). But based on initial comments from councilmembers and others, its being revised in committee and a new *draft* should be coming out soon which, from what I hear, takes a lot of what you (and others) mention into account.

I think the biggest thing I've heard people just genuinely confused about is the +/-10% rents - I can't tell whether you are, but let me clarofy what I *think* was the intent. The idea is that currently really only Mesa and Coast are deemed desirable (as shown by a waitlist in years) and that both Del Sol and Single Grad are overpriced for what they are. Since Housing is run at cost, lowering their rents would mean raising the rents of someone else - but the net result is more housing that is deemed affordable and desirable by grad students. Another thing to keep in mind is that aside from One Miramar, the other complexes are pretty tiny - single grad appts (by far the most bad-mouthed) is only 200 beds compared with Mesas 1400. The +/- 10% was meant to be a *cap* on how much they could change rents in balancing out, not as "rent will be bouncing around by 10% yearly". And that's not to say that Del Sol would be the same price as North Mesa - Del Sol would still be the most luxurious, and people would still pay the most money for it, but the differences in price between grad housing would be based on their value to graduate students, and not to some number HDS makes up to make their budgets balance. (While I support the goal, personally I think 10% is too high.)

I'm pretty sure the North Mesa = families thing will be out. I hear a good amount of support for the "quiet zone" idea you mention. And I know there are a number of ideas being bounced around on how to address financial need in this proposal. Elsewhere in the proposal (outside affiliated housing since affiliated housing doesn't manage this) there are some things that relate to trying to make it easier for grad students to live in other areas as well.

I definitely disagree *strongly* that the current policy limits stress to waitlisters to the couple weeks it takes to find a place, but I'll have to try and get back to that another time.

Anyways, thanks for getting this going Erin, hopefully we'll see some more comments.

I'm Erin Malone, communication grad student. Here are my responses to the proposal:

I take issue with the following points in the proposal:

• That community is being conflated with access to housing and an undefined concept of community takes precedent over graduate financial needs. Community should be viewed as a possible outcome of housing not the primary motivation for changes in housing policy.
• The proposal places an emphasis incoming students as opposed to acknowledging that students in different programs have different housing and financial needs during various stages in their graduate careers.

- Changes most benefit students who, according to the survey, experience the highest level of satisfaction with their experience and least frustration with finances
- Finding housing in San Diego from a distance is indeed stressful; however, that period of stress only that lasts a few weeks and decreases once students find housing. The proposed changes shift the relatively short amount of stress of some incoming students to a longer period (2 or more years) of financial stress and burden to other students.

• Rent rates under this proposal will be based on market demand and the desirability of housing rather than on graduate salaries. There is no provision to ensure that graduate housing rates remain affordable for graduate students. The proposal states “housing should be provided for as many GPS as possible so long as on-campus housing remains the most affordable in UTC.” Rental rates should be compared with popular lower cost options in the Hillcrest/North Park areas.
• Providing priority for grad parents only in North Mesa which will in effect segregate them from the rest of the housing community and put them in the smallest floorplans.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Rent increases should always centrally take into account graduate salaries. Any increase in rents should be justified by the need for new housing and either a dollar amount or time cap should be stated when figuring rent increases.
• Strike the proposed idea of having North Mesa as the preferential housing for graduate families. While it is understood that graduate families are not required to live in North Mesa, the proposition will still result in the ghetto-ization of graduate families. Graduate students that have or will start families during their time at UCSD do not have the luxury of remaining on a waitlist to get into the more spacious housing. Since North Mesa is where they will have the quickest entry, most people will choose that housing. The resulting effect will be that graduate families will be primarily segregated into North Mesa.

- If the concern is providing the lower cost housing to families, consider creating different rates for graduate students with families and heavier financial burdens.
- If the issue is noise and alcohol, consider creating an alcohol and/or noise reduced area. This way people will self-select themselves to be in particular areas depending on lifestyle choices rather than assigning spaces to people based on essentialized notions of how graduate student families prefer to live.

• The proposal should centrally focus on the relationship between affiliated housing, the realities of different graduate programs, and levels of graduate funding.

- Proposed ime limits should taken into account normative time to completion variation across programs. In many programs, the average time to completion is 7 years or more.
- Rental rates should take into account the fact that many graduate students experience a dramatic drop in the level of funding after the fourth year because the fourth year is when guaranteed funding ends. Many graduate students (particularly those dependent on TA-ships) do not receive any funding during the summer from their departments. Many students take out loans from the university that borrow on their first paychecks of the new school year to be able to make it through the summer. This means that students start off the school year in debt and receiving smaller paychecks than normal. These students cannot afford higher rents. It is very difficult for students with inconsistent levels of funding. This proposal compounds the problem by adding an inconsistency in the level of expenses. If rents are increased and time limits imposed, there must be provisions with clear and fair criteria for graduate students that experience higher levels of financial strain.

• To ease the stress of incoming students trying to find housing from far away, a system of guidance should be developed. The suggestions below will be beneficial for continuing students as well.

- Set aside some additional affiliated housing units (not all) in Warren Grad, North Mesa, Coast and One Miramar for incoming graduate students. These apartments could be used to create a new one year program to provide a cushion for incoming students.
- One of the most difficult things about finding housing from a distance is simply that incoming students are not familiar with the city. GSA and Affiliated Housing should conduct a campaign in the months preceding the start of each school year to aid incoming students find housing. When students come to visit the campus during the proposed campus-wide orientation week, there would be a housing fair with tours of on-campus housing and different San Diego neighborhoods. We could also invite rental agencies to come to campus to disseminate information about their properties. There could be a panel discussion on finding housing. A video of the tour and panel discussion could be posted online for students who aren’t able to come during the open house week. There would be a hotline where incoming students could call between specific hours to ask any housing related questions they may have. This hotline could be manned by housing staff and graduate student volunteers that are familiar with grad housing options. Dates for online housing chats could be set up. There should an searchable forum for people to ask questions about housing. All of the online suggestions could be hosted on the grad wiki. (http://ucsdgrads.wikidiot.com). [Honestly, I think this would be really fun and I'd volunteer to take the lead on planning it]
The campaign would aid in matriculating students who have been offered admission to the university. Community would be formed in putting together the event and incoming students would experience and become acculturated in the campus community before they arrive in the fall. Housing is also an important factor in deciding whether or not to pursue graduate studies at UCSD. Knowing in their first weeks that there are housing options and a community to support them in their search, will sway a many students who are on the fence as to whether or not to come to UCSD.
- The university should support the development of a tenants union. (For an example see the University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign’s tenants union). The tenants union along with affiliated housing and GSA could conduct a regular assessment of graduate housing. The union could have reviews of various real estate companies and landlords. The would also provide information on renter's rights. The tenants unions could serve as additional point of information for incoming graduate students and assist continuing students during their time at UCSD. The tenants union would also take a central role in organizing the campaign to help incoming students with housing.
- Add a webpage to the Affiliated Housing site with descriptions of various locations and housing options across San Diego. It should include average rents, density of the graduate population in the area, the demographics of local San Diego residents in the area, and ways to get from the area to campus. (This could also be hosted by a tenants union.)
- A network of graduate students with expert knowledge of finding housing in San Diego can be assembled to serve as a human resource for incoming students looking for housing. A list would be available with contact information and areas of San Diego they are familiar with. This network would assist with the campaign to aid incoming student in finding housing.
- Information on all of these resources would be mailed to students when they accept admission to UCSD with reminders sent closer to the time of their arrival.

• Search for alternative methods of funding housing.

- Consider opening small businesses near grad housing (such as a grocery store, restaurant, cafeteria, co-op thrift store could also sell staples like toilet paper, light bulbs and detergent, a commerce fair akin to what happens on library walk at the beginning of each quarter). Use the rents of the businesses and create a small tax that would subsidize graduate housing.
- We could also consider a graduate fee referendum. A small increase in fees such as $15/ qtr over the next years specifically to fund enough new housing to host incoming students is more reasonable that the indefinite and unchecked raising and lowering of rents by 10% every year. This would yield per year $193,725. ($45 per year x 4305). Taking into account the proposed growth of the graduate population in the near future, this would add up to over one millions dollars in five years.

• End the primary/secondary policy that allows current graduate students to grandfather in other grad students regardless of whether they are on the housing wait-list or not. Instead require current housing residents choose from the wait-list and both will be secure residents. Additionally, protocols need to be developed in case there are serious conflicts that occur.

• The report refers to the desirability Grad Housing (specifically Mesa Housing) We should conduct an analysis of the various housing options that graduate students have (on campus and off campus) to determine what the value of graduate housing actually is. If one takes into account the peripheral benefits of various housing options (the hospitability of the surrounding local community; proximity to campus; proximity to shuttles to campus; conveniently located businesses, attractions, parks, etc; access to municipal public transportation) the value and desirability of each graduate housing option changes.

Here's the new draft of the proposal proposal. You can review the original survey on the GSA website. Also visit the GPSES committee website.

You can view the previous draft of the proposal here

___________

1 Affiliated Housing
2
3 The GSA has identified the lack of an inclusive residential community affiliated
4 with UCSD as the most pressing issue for graduate students. Housing is a vital and
5 integral part of an active academic community. While comparable universities are
6 fortunate to have affordable housing in close proximity to campus, UCSD is surrounded
7 by high cost commercial development. This commercial development drives up real
8 estate prices, making the surrounding area inhospitable and unaffordable for students.
9 Affordable and desirable on-campus housing must be a high priority of the administration
10 particularly because UCSD does not have any kind of surrounding “campus town”.
11
12 In addition to causing significant problems for current graduate students,
13 demonstrated in the GPSES report by the lack of connection to the campus community
14 and frequent stress from finances, the lack of affordable housing also threatens the
15 continued viability and future of UCSD as a great research institution. While the goal of
16 the university is to double its current graduate enrollment, it was unable in the most
17 recent year to enroll more students than in the previous. While San Diego has
18 traditionally had an advantage over other schools due to the ideal setting, it appears that
19 this advantage is evaporating with the rising cost of living. Without far reaching
20 planning now, graduate students will increasingly choose other institutions for their
21 studies.
22
23 The lack of affordable housing is particularly onerous for incoming graduate
24 students. Incoming students are forced to find housing in San Diego, frequently without
25 knowledge of the area or friends that can become roommates. Due to high housing costs
26 and limited availability of housing near UCSD, these first year students often live far
27 from campus with roommates that may not even be part of the UCSD community. The
28 long commute prohibits engagement in campus activities that frequently occur at night.
29 As a result GPS engage the UCSD community primarily within their department. This
30 inhibits development of community within housing, as well as students in the later stages
31 of their career that have more established social circles. In the housing communities
32 standard at most campuses, as well as for UCSD undergraduates, community develops
33 organically within first year housing, particularly within the first few months of arriving
34 at UCSD.
2
To address these issues the GSA has identified the following action 35 plan for the
36 Department of Housing, OGS, and GSA to cooperatively address.
37
38 Key Housing Areas for Improvement
39
40 Action 1: Create additional affordable housing for graduate students
41 through both traditional and nontraditional means.
42 → Improve future housing development to better address student
43 cost/benefit concerns
44 → Explore co-ops and off campus housing colonies to increase housing
45 availability and affordability
46
47
48 Action 2: Develop a more cohesive, fair, accessible, and sound housing policy
49 that allows for designed growth for the future.
50 → Reduce operating costs
51 Reduce landscaping and utility costs
52 Reduce administrative costs
53 → Revise housing priority policy
54 Provide housing for incoming students
55 · Aim for 1 year less than normative time to degree
56 · Restrict housing time limits until this goal is met
57 Maintain housing priority for families
58 → Revise the current rent structure to make housing accessible and
59 affordable
60 Equalize the current rent structure
61 · Balance rents between AH properties
62 · Plan for future development so that rent increases are
63 predictable and gradual
64 Provide rent abatements for needy students
65 → Revise current social constriction policies
66 Create separate areas with different quiet hours and alcohol
67 policies for students to choose between
68
69 Action 3: Actively establish a strong community within existing affiliated
70 housing.
71 → Create a tenants association to address community concerns within
72 housing
3
Action 1: Create additional affordable housing 73 for graduate
74 students through both traditional and nontraditional means.
75
76 UCSD faces a serious shortage of housing for GPS. As of the writing of this
77 report there are 4878 GPS [1] at UCSD, and 1681 GPS and 354 spouses/partners of GPS
78 housed in Affiliated Housing [2]. Additionally there are 1263 GPS on the waitlist for
79 housing, with at least 42 additional spouses/partners [3]. As well as GPS, Affiliated
80 Housing has 420 undergrad, faculty, and staff residents [2].
81 By these numbers UCSD currently houses 34% of GPS, with 26% currently
82 seeking housing. We believe that the number seeking housing is artificially low due to
83 the extremely long waitlists for the more desirable housing. With the opening of One
84 Miramar 800 new graduate beds will be available to unmarried graduate students. This
85 should increase the proportion of housed students from 34% to 51%, not accounting for
86 increased growth in the student population that is projected to be small for the 07-08
87 school year. This will still leave 463 current students on the waitlist.
88 In addition to these 463 students, we believe that many more students who would
89 like campus housing are not on the waitlist. One major group is masters students, who
90 are not currently offered housing [4]. Current housing policy also artificially restricts the
91 waitlist through strict requirements for students on the waitlist such as having 48 hours to
92 reply to a housing offer, needing to move on 30 days notice, and not being allowed to
93 keep a waitlist spot after moving in. The primary/secondary roommate system also
94 deliberately restricts the waitlist.
95
96 While the housing situation for GPS at UCSD is currently terrible, it only appears
97 to be getting worse over the next five to ten years. In the past ten years GPS enrollment
98 has grown from 2473 to 3910, and increase of 1437 students [1]. By 2011 enrollment is
99 projected to grow [4] to 6130, an increase of 2220 students in less than half the time. To
100 accommodate these extra 2220 students an increase of only 350-400 additional beds is
101 planned. Is it possible that the surrounding community can absorb these additional
102 students? Currently vacancy rates in the area around UCSD are 3.8% at rates of $892 per
103 month per bedroom. With the construction of additional commercial space near UCSD it
104 appears that this situation is only degrading for students. It is clear that future students
105 will be forced to live farther, endure longer commutes, and pay higher rents than current
106 students.
107 There is a serious possibility that future enrollment will be restricted precisely
108 because the shortage of affordable housing is so acute. While UCSD has traditionally
109 benefited from the high quality of life of San Diego while recruiting, it appears that this
110 benefit has been seriously eroded by the increasing cost of living. It seems likely that the
111 current difficulties encountered in enrolling students has come from the lack of
112 competitiveness of support packages from the university in light of the high cost of
113 housing relative to other universities.
114 Conversely, UCSD faces a stage of great opportunity. Currently the University
115 has an abundance of land available, in contrast to other campuses like Los Angeles and
116 Berkeley. If UCSD manages its land properly and creates more affordable housing
117 without rushing into expensive and undesirable projects it has an opportunity to further
4
continue its meteoric rise among research universities. Through careful, 118 long range
119 planning and willingness to take risks and innovative solutions UCSD can create a
120 graduate community and experience superior to all other schools in California,
121 establishing its dominance throughout the world for years to come.
122
123 Traditional Means
124
125 The GSA applauds the administrations recent plan approved by the Regents to
126 increase GPS housing by 350-400 beds. We hope that occupancy can be made as high as
127 possible in this structure. While we appreciate very much the recent addition of the One
128 Miramar complex and feel that there are many reasons to be excited, there are also many
129 reasons to be disappointed. Among them are the high cost of construction and
130 undesirable floor plans.
131 Attached to the One Miramar complex is a parking garage with one spot for each
132 resident. While the GSA feels that transportation is important for GPS and that it is
133 generally unreasonable to expect GPS to live without a personal vehicle, we also believe
134 that the costs of such a structure should have been more closely examined. While most
135 GPS would like to have a car, we would like to have the cost option for ourselves. This
136 suggests that in current complexes residents should be given incentives for relinquishing
137 their vehicles. The level of incentives necessary would indicate whether the cost for such
138 a large parking structure is justified for future complexes. In general we believe that the
139 goal of UCSD should be to create a strong enough community in the surrounding area
140 that students do not feel obligated to have a personal vehicle. This would allow
141 significant cost savings for GPS, a reduction in environmental impact, and a self fueling
142 improvement in local community and campus connection.
143 Current plans call for additional beds to “be provided in apartment units
144 comprising two, three, or four bedrooms in both high-rise and mid-rise buildings” [4].
145 While many GPS enjoy the low density environment of existing Affiliated Housing
146 structures, we understand the need for future housing to be higher density to
147 accommodate as many students as possible. Currently Affiliated Housing has many two
148 bedroom units (I plan to provide specific numbers, which I have at home), but not many
149 one bedroom or three/four bedroom apartments. The GSA believes that future
150 development should focus on one bedroom apartments to house GPS couples without
151 children and three/four bedroom apartments that are more desirable for single graduate
152 students. Further, we believe that in general plans should aim to increase the diversity of
153 housing options as much as possible. In contrast to One Miramar, we also hope that
154 future housing complexes will emphasize increasing communal living space, particularly
155 at the expense of large hallways and bathrooms. In general hallways, which waste space,
156 should be limited as much as possible.
157
158 Nontraditional Means
159
160 The greatest opportunity for UCSD comes from continuing its tradition of being
161 an innovative, risk taking institution. Every risk that UCSD has taken has paid off, but
162 since we established our name we have become more conservative, particularly with
163 respect to students services and campus activities. We have a great opportunity to
5
continue leapfrogging other universities by exploring alternative housing 164 options and
165 taking risks when we see the strong potential for reward. We can aim to be the best
166 campus community in California, setting trends that other campuses would follow, or we
167 can settle for being a commuter research center. While the GSA advocates exploring the
168 full range of alternative housing options, and encourages the administration to solicit as
169 many sources as possible for other options, only two will be addressed here.
170 The first is housing co-ops, currently housing hundreds of students at UC
171 Berkeley and other campuses [5]. While the university has not traditionally promoted co172
ops and other small businesses, we feel that co-ops offer the greatest potential benefit to
173 students. Providing below market rates for management, maintenance, and food service
174 through cooperative work, co-ops provide the best opportunity for GPS to have
175 affordable, community oriented housing. Many of the aims of the university could be
176 met through housing co-ops. Unfortunately the area surrounding UCSD is too expensive
177 and land is too limited to allow for the development of housing. The GSA urges the
178 administration to make every effort to allow the development of co-ops on university
179 land at cost. We are eager to work with the administration and interested students to
180 develop responsible co-ops as a long term housing solution.
181 Another solution the GSA believes should be explored is the possibility of remote
182 housing colonies. Due to the free and frequent shuttle service between campus and the
183 Hillcrest medical center, a large number of graduate students have chosen to live in the
184 Hillcrest area, where there are lower rents and a higher quality of life within reliable and
185 swift transportation to the university. Some departments, particularly in the humanities,
186 report that the large majority of their social events occur in Hillcrest/ North Park because
187 of the large community there. The GSA urges the university to explore how to encourage
188 the development of these communities, through enhancing transportation options and
189 possibly purchasing property for the express purpose of developing an alternative
190 graduate community. Extreme vigilance should be shown in maintaining awareness of
191 the housing situation in San Diego to seek out low cost opportunities to expand housing
192 off site.
6
Action 2: Develop a more cohesive, fair, accessible, 193 and sound
194 housing policy that allows for designed growth for the future
195
196 Many issues faced by dealing with housing are brought about by the well
197 intentioned but haphazard housing policies currently in place. Housing is not provided
198 during the most difficult transition time for students, when they first arrive, but is offered
199 to students that have established themselves in San Diego. This creates a host of
200 problems. In an ideal situation students would begin in housing with a mix of established
201 early career GPS and other incoming GPS that have yet to establish themselves.
202 Community would develop organically within the housing community, which would then
203 transition together to the greater San Diego community. Ties established in the first year
204 would continue throughout the GPS career, with most students most strongly connected
205 to other students on the same timeline as them in terms of advancement and graduation.
206 Current administration policy does allow first year housing for some students
207 through the SHORE recruitment program. The GSA believes that incoming GPS housing
208 should be seen as a recruitment tool for all incoming GPS, and not just those picked
209 through the sometimes random methods of the SHORE program. Further, the current
210 SHORE program offers a dramatically lower cost of living over the complete graduate
211 career for some students, while the GSA believes that the cost of living should be low for
212 all GPS.
213 To this end the GSA feels that the current gross disparity should be addressed.
214 There are many important considerations when deciding on rent levels. Virtually all of
215 these have been ignored to this point, as rent levels have been set in an ad hoc fashion on
216 a per project basis. Current rent policies are virtually nonexistent. Rates are set on a year
217 to year basis, without adequate planning. Because of this students have in recent years
218 experienced dramatic and unexpected rent increases. This has been extremely difficult
219 on many GPS that established their lifestyle and made commitments on the basis of
220 previous rent levels. It is important to remember that doctoral students make a
221 commitment to their education for six years, and that the university should make every
222 attempt to make changes gradual and predictable to prevent students from being in a
223 situation where they have obligations they cannot meet. The worst case scenario is a
224 student with one year left until graduation finding that they are unable to continue at
225 UCSD for financial reasons and sacrificing much of their life without a degree.
226
227 In order to address these issues, the GSA has identified the following long term
228 goals for Affiliated Housing to address:
229
230 Key Goals for Affiliated Housing Policy
231
232 · Goal 1: Reduce operating costs
233 · Goal 2: Revise housing priority policy
234 · Goal 3: Revise the current rent structure to make housing accessible and
235 affordable
236 · Goal 4: Revise current social constriction policies
237
7
In achieving each of these goals emphasis should be placed 238 on making these
239 changes gradually and fairly, such that no GPS is burdened in an unacceptable or grossly
240 disproportionate manner.
241
242 Goal 1: Reduce operating costs
243 Current housing costs are relatively low at some AH complexes, due to
244 minimization of expensive remodeling and renovation work. The GSA applauds the
245 efforts of AH to keep housing as affordable as possible. However with expensive new
246 housing being added and the cost affiliated with increased turnover due to the shift to
247 incoming GPS housing, it will be imperative that AH strive with increased vigilance to
248 reduce costs as much as possible. To this end the GSA has identified two
249 recommendations to explore to minimize rising housing costs.
250
251 1) Reduce landscaping and utility costs
252
253 Projected utility costs for residential apartments (all AH properties but La Jolla
254 Del Sol) for 2007-08 are $1.3 million, which is $828 per adult resident per year, or $69
255 per adult resident per month. In these units the AH provides water, gas, and trash
256 removal. 18 units also have included electricity. The GSA believes that there is
257 opportunity for significant cost reduction in this area. Trash removal is already very
258 efficient at $93k, or $60 per adult resident per year. Gas usage may be reduced and
259 comfort improved through improved insulation in older units, although certainly a
260 cost/benefit analysis should be considered before this is implemented.
261 Grounds costs for residential apartments are projected to be $421,755 for 2007-
262 08, or $268 per adult resident per year ($22/month). The GSA believes that significant
263 cost reductions can be realized through more environmentally friendly landscaping at the
264 Mesa and other housing properties. Currently water hungry and maintenance intensive
265 grass covers many unnecessary areas in the Mesa complex. Because of this watering is
266 continuous, with many areas of grass being frequently unpleasantly damp. A zero
267 scaping effort was initiated that would reduce cost and environmental impact, and
268 significant progress was made with specific, detailed plans being created that would
269 minimize costs while still providing large lawn areas for community enjoyment. It
270 appears that these efforts have not been followed through, however. The GSA advocates
271 that these efforts are renewed, and that all future developments seek to use water
272 resources and labor in a cost efficient manner.
273
274 2) Reduce administrative costs
275
276 Following are projected costs for AH (except for La Jolla Del Sol) for the 2007-
277 08 fiscal year (in terms of total cost and cost per resident):
278
279 Household Services Administration: One Miramar $577 k / $352
280 Household Services Administration: Mesa, Coast, SGA: $332 k / $415
281 Maintenance & Paint Services: Mesa, Coast, SGA: $187 k / $114
282 Maintenance & Paint Services: One Miramar: $27 k / $33
283 Internal Housing Administration: $1.1 M / $451
8
284
285 Human Resources: $30 k / $12
286 Purchasing: $33 k / $13
287 Financial Services: $79 k / $32
288 Administrative Services: $80 k / $33
289 Information Technology: $270 k / $110
290 Total Central Administration: $1.2 M / $492
291
292 While the GSA understands the complexities involved in managing an enterprise
293 as large as AH, we call for the administration to control administration costs as much as
294 possible. A significant concern is due the difficulty in comprehending the budget. The
295 GSA is unclear on the differences between “Household services administration” and
296 “Maintenance and Paint Services administration” and alarmed by the $110/year cost each
297 resident is paying for information technology. In order to identify further cost cutting
298 measures the budget should be made public, reviewed by the soon to be created tenant
299 association, and should have descriptions of each expense.
300
301 Goal 2: Revise Housing Priority Policy
302
303 Current housing policy allocates housing to three groups: GPS with children (and
304 also undergraduate students with children), incoming students through the SHORE
305 program, and senior GPS as identified by time on the waitlist. The GSA believes that
306 housing should be reallocated over time to early stage GPS with the eventual goal of
307 providing housing to incoming GPS and those at the beginning of their career. We
308 believe that the preference given to students with children should be continued in
309 recognition of the extra difficulties presented to these students in the interest of
310 maintaining accessibility.
311 Providing housing for incoming students introduces difficult challenges for the
312 housing structure. Currently AH turns over approximately 1/3 of their units, or ~400
313 units throughout the entire year. It would be extremely difficult and expensive for AH to
314 turn over the required 500 units necessary for incoming students on the same day.
315 Further there would be additional cost associated with the vacancies required to secure
316 apartments for incoming students under the current waitlist policy. In order to minimize
317 these costs the GSA suggests instituting one year leases (to minimize vacancy) that
318 would begin at staggered point during the summer (to spread the turnover). GPS would
319 be required to fill the duration of their lease, unless they found a qualified sublessor. The
320 GSA would support any system that would solve this problem with the minimal burden
321 on GPS.
322 In order to create space for incoming students someone has to leave housing. At
323 steady state the GSA would like to see GPS guaranteed housing for one year less than
324 their time to degree, which is the standard at UC Irvine. This has the benefit of
325 encouraging students to graduate in the nominal time, unlike the current system which
326 rewards delayed graduation with low cost housing. Unfortunately there is currently an
327 insufficient amount of housing to meet this goal.
328 In transition from the current system to the steady state system the GSA proposes
329 the following method for creating space for incoming students:
9
- Housing time limits should be implemented. These time limits 330 should be slightly
331 shorter than the current average amount of time that a student spends in housing
332 such that the waitlist is gradually reduced. Under this system any student should
333 be able to defer their tenure in housing if they desire to have housing in the later
334 stages of their academic career.
335 - Once the waitlist has been eliminated and housing has shifted to incoming
336 students, the students that have been in housing for the longest time will not be
337 offered continuing leases. If two students have been in housing for the same
338 amount of time then preference should be given to the student with the longer
339 normative time to degree. Under this system any student should be able to defer
340 their tenure in housing if they desire to have housing in the later stages of their
341 academic career.
342
343 The GSA appreciates the efforts of AH to accommodate students by allowing
344 partners as qualified roommates in two bedroom apartments. However, we feel that the
345 benefit to the GPS community would be greater if only other GPS were allowed as
346 qualified roommates in multiple bedroom apartments not occupied by GPS with children
347 until such as time as there is sufficient housing available for spouses/partners to resume
348 being allowed roommates. Until that time married/partnered GPS should be given
349 preference in both studio and one bedroom apartments. AH should investigate the cost of
350 converting more units to one/three bedrooms in the style of central Mesa, and perform
351 those conversions if it is a cost effective way to create an extra accessible bedroom.
352
353 Goal 3: Revise the current rent structure to make housing accessible and affordable
354
355 Currently there is no clear rent policy in the AH properties. As new properties
356 become available the rent structure for that property is set without consideration for the
357 units as a whole. While some extremely low cost units are available to assist those GPS
358 with significant financial burdens, there are no safeguards to ensure that the most
359 qualified students will receive this benefit, thus many financially well off students receive
360 this large housing benefit while needy students face significant hardship in the San Diego
361 housing market. There is also no long term rent policy accommodating new
362 development, so rent increases are sudden and unpredictable. In order to solve these
363 problems the GSA proposes that two policy changes be implemented: rent equalization
364 across properties and time and a rent abatement policy.
365
366 Rent Equalization
367
368 Under current policy rates between AH properties vary by as much as 191% for a
369 two bedroom apartment. While there are differences between amenities, it is clear that
370 some properties are dramatically more desirable than others when both cost and quality
371 are factored. One Miramar, while comparable to Mesa when all concerns are considered,
372 is at least $189/month more expensive for a two bedroom apartment. The only
373 explanation for this that is given is that former OGSR Dean Richard Attiyeh said that
374 rates should be between those of Mesa and La Jolla Del Sol. The GSA believes that rents
375 should be set according to desirability on a market system. According to this system
10
properties that had more applications than open rooms from incoming 376 students would
377 increase in rent, while properties that had less applications than openings would decrease
378 in price.
379 It is important in the implementation of this system that the expectations that
380 students have based their financial decisions on are maintained. This contrasts with
381 current policy. The GSA proposes that housing make ten year plans with all new housing
382 and projected expenses, and provide guidance to incoming students on the expected
383 housing situation for the next seven years (the amount of time that some GPS will be
384 dependent on these predictions). Every effort should be made to maintain these
385 projections for current students, shifting additional costs to incoming students over long
386 periods of time. When a new property is opening AH should run surpluses in the years
387 leading up to the opening and deficits in the years afterwards such that rent increases can
388 be maintained at a steady and predictable rate. The GSA expects rent increases to be
389 maintained in the following range:
390
391 Steady state: Inflationary or less
392 After cross property market equalization but while more housing is still being built: 6%
393 or less
394 During cross property market equalization: 8%
395
396 If at any point the average rent appears as though it will rise above 40% of the
397 average graduate student pay rate UCSD should slow GPS enrollment growth so as to not
398 make a situation where current students are unable to continue for financial reasons.
399
400 Rent Abatement
401
402 Many students are unable to pay increased rents due to legal or other limitations
403 on income. These include, but are not limited to, international students with spouses who
404 are legally unable to work, single parents, and students with disabled partners/spouses. In
405 order to accommodate these students and increase competitiveness for a diverse student
406 body, the GSA proposes an alternative maximum rent for students in these circumstances.
407 This rent would be set at 40% of income, with a long term goal of reducing it to 33% of
408 income. This would dramatically reduce rents and increase quality of life for the neediest
409 GPS, while providing reasonable rents for all GPS.
410 Further, there are many GPS for whom rent is already greater than 40% of
411 income. The GSA demands that the university raise the minimum pay rate for GPS
412 employed at 49% above the full time minimum wage.
413
414
415 Goal 4: Revise current social constriction policies
416
417 Current social policies in the housing properties are unnecessarily restrictive, in
418 particular quiet hours and alcohol possession. While administrators have traditionally
419 appealed to the presence of families for these policies, many families themselves find
420 themselves overly constrained by their single neighbors due to the policies. To
421 accommodate these concerns the GSA proposes that quiet hours and alcohol possession
422policies be restricted on the basis of location. Specifically we request 422 that in the
423 Mesa/One Miramar area the more restrictive policies be applied to the eastern part of the
424 Mesa structure and the northern buildings in One Miramar, expanding the size according
425 to demand.