Staff editorial: A public good

Oakland Hall is coming to North Campus. The 650-bed dorm will round out the Denton Community and will help address College Park's housing crunch. But the problem with the plan lies in the $88 million needed to finance it. State Comptroller Peter Franchot argues that money is especially tight these days and therefore the university should pursue a public-private partnership to jointly finance Oakland Hall. Yet we agree with university officials who have responded that such a funding model would compromise their vision of the campus.

Franchot is certainly right that dollars are currently hard to come by, and in general, we are strong advocates of pursuing more public-private partnerships to round out on-campus housing - these projects reduce the state's investment, providing opportunity for the university to build much-needed housing without taking on an inordinate amount of debt. We are pleased to see the administration pursuing these partnerships in the form of South Campus Commons Buildings 7.

Yet the primary problem with pursuing a public-private partnership for the construction of Oakland Hall has to do with rent prices and intended residents. Public-private partnerships work because both the university system and private developers benefit. The university leases a private company the land on which to build an apartment building or dormitory, according to a design agreed upon by both the university and the developer. The company then operates the building for an agreed-upon number of years, with the students' rent providing the company with a profit. After the lease ends, the building becomes the university's property and is operated by the Department of Resident Life.

Naturally, the amount of profit that a company makes in operating a building is dependent on how much they charge students. Developers set rent at the market rate - this is the reason that it costs more to live in a Commons apartment than a South Hill apartment operated by the university. This is fine for juniors and seniors; they are familiar with the housing options (even if they are scarce), have time to research rent prices and can make an informed decision regarding whether the higher cost of a public-private partnership is worthwhile.

But the new hall is going to primarily serve incoming freshmen, who are assigned to a dorm by Resident Life. Board in an on-campus dorm is about $5,400 per year, significantly less than the going market rate. If Oakland Hall were to be constructed through a public-private partnership, freshmen would pay more than those living in other dorms, even within the Denton Community. To do so would unfairly penalize incoming freshmen at random.

While we fully appreciate the difficult budget situation and commend Franchot's desire to find creative ways to save money, this is not an appropriate opportunity.

Oakland Hall has faced many delays and will only end up compensating for beds that will be lost when Old Leonardtown is torn down. It is a necessary addition to the campus to accommodate the university's swelling numbers. Simply put, the Board of Regents should allow the university system to assume direct debt and construct the traditional dorm - students need affordable housing, and they need it in Oakland Hall.