OPINION & EDITORIAL
Students say build away
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Save University Square Theater (April 1, 2005)
- New dorms can benefit everyone (September 21, 2004)
- Politics as usual (July 3, 2003)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
In early March, local property owner Steve Brown dispersed a letter stating the new $110 million UW Student Housing East Campus Plan should not include the construction of new residence halls. Brown claims such buildings are not needed and would detrimentally affect the tax base of Madison. Yet his arguments do more to display his own self-interest in the matter than present credible reasons to prevent the plan from moving forward. Upon further examination, the University and its undergraduate students have a compelling interest in building new — and more — public housing.
Certainly, Steve Brown and other property owners have every right to protest the construction of more residence hall facilities on campus. To be sure, the new buildings will drive down the cost of living in the campus area by increasing supply. Brown argues this will not only hurt his bottom line, but decrease the property tax base of private rental companies because those properties will be worth less. While this argument may hold true, and we certainly cannot reprimand Brown for defending his own economic interests, we cannot help but feel his claims are disingenuous at best.
In an article appearing in the September 3 edition of this newspaper, Steve Brown Apartments, LLC was noted as registering as a limited-liability corporation. This allows the organization to sell property without filing the selling price with the city of Madison. Owners are then automatically exempt from real estate transfer fees and can easily avoid high property taxes because no sale price is recorded and the city does not know the property’s actual value. Steve Brown’s supposed concern for the city coffers is hypocritical.
In addition, the University has a compelling interest in building not only new public housing, but additional residences as well. The East Campus Plan includes the destruction of Ogg Hall, which was first built in 1965. That the University wishes to destroy one of the older and less-liked dorms is completely within its interest, not to mention that of undergraduate students.
To this, Brown responds that there is no need for additional housing, since freshman enrollment has not increased substantively. Yet this ignores the fact that a strong demand exists among freshmen and sophomores for such housing. Many freshman students have been denied the tremendous educational experience of living in the dorms due to lack of availability. And, contrary to what Brown argues, returning sophomores should be offered the chance to stay in the dorms. Such flexibility results in more choices for students, and they are choices those students clearly wish to exercise.
In the end, this debate boils down to an issue of choice. Students want more in their housing. The University is willing to give it to them. For Brown to argue otherwise merely reflects his own self-interest in the matter, one which would deny students such choices.
