DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | United Campus Ministry papers, 1970-1972 | 1971-01-06 'Student Housing in the Year Ahead' Page 1

Transcribe
Translate

United Campus Ministry papers, 1970-1972

1971-01-06 'Student Housing in the Year Ahead' Page 1

Summary
University-Community Seminar
Wednesday, 6 Jan. 71
Civic Center

Subject: "Student Housing in the Year Ahead"
Sponsor: UCCM
Moderator: Dr. Martin Rosinski
Present: Kent Braverman, Gary Veldy, Loren Kottner, George Genaraux, Mike Norton, Jay Basler, John Cain, Gerald Burke, Mrs. Jean Tester, Emil Trott, Roger Simpson

A summary of issues and concern, without indicating priority:
1. U. Housing Committee: set up compulsory housing in dorms due to financial pressures to pay for dorms. Hope to make living there so attractive that residents will want to continue. Toward this end, to recommend "no rules" - except those which apply to all citizens. No supervisory personnel, etc. to be present.... Also co-ef. Dorms to vote about their own regulations, etc.
2. "Differential rates" vs "uniform rates". U. has experimented with both approaches and neither is very satisfactory, so will probably stick with present "uniform rates".
3. Meal arrangements: have to require meals by residents in order to support any meal system at all. No indication of any change in this area.
4. There is absolutely no purposive segregation of races: some of the blacks have chosen to live in close proximity in some dorms, but this is not by the design of the housing authorities.
5. Kottner explained housing programs 235 and 236 (rental). The MARK IV Apts. will be of program 236. They will supply only a small percentage of the needed apts. They will be somewhat isolated: thus, being designed for the lower income persons, they will have an accessibility handicap.
6. Private rentals: lively discussion in this area. Concerns about the impact of urban renewal - its delay. Generally, it was agreed that where larger units are concerned, there is little complaint about quality or management, but much complaint about high rentals. Braverman explained this in the context of high up-keep costs, high real estate, construction, and taxes. He said rental property brings a profit of about 7-8% net.
There was much to complain about concerning small rental units: enforcement of city code, prejudice in rentals, damage fees, intransigency of landlords. To counter this, some expressed need for better care of properties by tenants, and the need to take initiative to try to negotiate and to work through lawyers. Shortage of funds for lawyers, and reduction in service by Legal Aid were cited as tow handicaps for tenants.
7. General agreement that there is extensive need for a lot of sub-standard housing- ie, low rentals, decent accommodations. No one saw an answer for this.
8. Many expressed concern that U. enrollment will be limited for those seeking non-U. housing.
9. Matter of trailers as a "solution" was proposed. Some saw this as unrealistic, due to inadequate parking spaces, and also due to relative high cost of trailers, accessability, etc.
10. Very good exchanges toward end of meeting. Open differences and frank confrontations about views, styles, values.
11. Most were appreciative of this opportunity to talk it over.
12. The PAT group will seek to work more closely with the Chamber Committee on Social Concerns, and try to get them to mediate some problems.

Saving...

Summary University-Community Seminar Wednesday, 6 Jan. 71 Civic Center Subject: "Student Housing in the Year Ahead" Sponsor: UCCM Moderator: Dr. Martin Rosinski Present: Kent Braverman, Gary Veldy, Loren Kottner, George Genaraux, Mike Norton, Jay Basler, John Cain, Gerald Burke, Mrs. Jean Tester, Emil Trott, Roger Simpson A summary of issues and concern, without indicating priority: 1. U. Housing Committee: set up compulsory housing in dorms due to financial pressures to pay for dorms. Hope to make living there so attractive that residents will want to continue. Toward this end, to recommend "no rules" - except those which apply to all citizens. No supervisory personnel, etc. to be present.... Also co-ef. Dorms to vote about their own regulations, etc. 2. "Differential rates" vs "uniform rates". U. has experimented with both approaches and neither is very satisfactory, so will probably stick with present "uniform rates". 3. Meal arrangements: have to require meals by residents in order to support any meal system at all. No indication of any change in this area. 4. There is absolutely no purposive segregation of races: some of the blacks have chosen to live in close proximity in some dorms, but this is not by the design of the housing authorities. 5. Kottner explained housing programs 235 and 236 (rental). The MARK IV Apts. will be of program 236. They will supply only a small percentage of the needed apts. They will be somewhat isolated: thus, being designed for the lower income persons, they will have an accessibility handicap. 6. Private rentals: lively discussion in this area. Concerns about the impact of urban renewal - its delay. Generally, it was agreed that where larger units are concerned, there is little complaint about quality or management, but much complaint about high rentals. Braverman explained this in the context of high up-keep costs, high real estate, construction, and taxes. He said rental property brings a profit of about 7-8% net. There was much to complain about concerning small rental units: enforcement of city code, prejudice in rentals, damage fees, intransigency of landlords. To counter this, some expressed need for better care of properties by tenants, and the need to take initiative to try to negotiate and to work through lawyers. Shortage of funds for lawyers, and reduction in service by Legal Aid were cited as tow handicaps for tenants. 7. General agreement that there is extensive need for a lot of sub-standard housing- ie, low rentals, decent accommodations. No one saw an answer for this. 8. Many expressed concern that U. enrollment will be limited for those seeking non-U. housing. 9. Matter of trailers as a "solution" was proposed. Some saw this as unrealistic, due to inadequate parking spaces, and also due to relative high cost of trailers, accessability, etc. 10. Very good exchanges toward end of meeting. Open differences and frank confrontations about views, styles, values. 11. Most were appreciative of this opportunity to talk it over. 12. The PAT group will seek to work more closely with the Chamber Committee on Social Concerns, and try to get them to mediate some problems.