Opinion
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
L
ast month, University
of Michigan President
Santa Ono revealed the
University’s plans to construct a
new undergraduate residence hall
on Elbel field, which is located
southeast of the South Quad
Residence Hall. It will primarily
house incoming freshmen, with
a proposed capacity of 2,300
students. The building’s location
on Central Campus is intended
to help alleviate the growing
demand for on-campus housing
among students.
“Demand among students for
affordable, on-campus housing
on or near Central Campus
continues to rise,” said Martino
Harmon,
vice
president
for
student life, at a Board of Regents
meeting. Harmon, among other
faculty members, are hopeful
that the addition of the new
building
will
help
address
problems of limited housing for
the University’s growing student
body.
With the University continuing
to
admit
record-breaking
numbers of students, this reaction
does not adequately contend with
the scope of the housing problem
within Ann Arbor. Though much
of the stagnation in housing
construction in Ann Arbor is
the result of city land use policy,
the University has a golden
opportunity
to
increase
the
number and variety of housing
options available to students.
Essentially, it’s time to think
bigger.
The last residence hall for first-
year students at the University
was constructed in 1963, making
the addition on Elbel the first
expansion of freshman housing
in about six decades. By not
expanding its housing capacity
and the variety of offerings,
the University has left many
students with no other choice
than to seek off-campus housing.
An astonishing 72% of students
currently live off-campus, where
they are left to grapple with the
high rent and limited availability
of housing in the Ann Arbor area.
In luxury apartment complexes
such as Sterling Arbor Blu, rent
rates can range anywhere from
$1,694 to $2,644 per month, per
bedroom. Consequently, the Ann
Arbor student housing market
has historically been ranked
as one of the most expensive in
the Midwest. Although Elbel is
a step in the right direction at
addressing the housing crisis, it
comes as a temporary solution to
a deeper-rooted problem.
The new Elbel Field residence
hall comes at a time when housing
in Ann Arbor is as competitive
as ever. With rent for a studio
apartment averaging $1,684 a
month and over two-thirds of
apartments costing upwards of
$2,000, many U-M students are
searching for cheaper housing
options amid the growing costs.
This search is often difficult,
especially for first-year students,
who have to navigate through
a competitive and sometimes
carnivorous housing market for
the first time. The additional
rooms and living spaces that the
dorm on Elbel Field will offer
for students who choose to stay
in on-campus housing, however,
will make the market better even
for students who choose to live
off campus. The fact that 2,300
fewer students will be bidding
up the price of off-campus
housing will surely assuage pain
to renters caused by the supply-
constrained Ann Arbor housing
market, at least initially. As long
as the number of the entering
freshman
class
continues
to
outpace the construction of new
housing units, though, the core
problem will not be solved.
For the 2022-23 school year,
the average monthly cost of
on-campus housing for a double
room setup is just under $1,300
dollars (or $15,719 per year).
Though this cost is cheaper
than the average Ann Arbor
apartment, it is still around $600
greater than the state average.
And for upperclassmen who
cannot find a spot in the dorms,
there are a limited number of
affordable choices — almost none
of which are sponsored by the
University.
The Ann Arbor Cooperative
Houses
are
an
inexpensive
option for housing, but the
Inter-Cooperative
Council
at
Ann Arbor comprises of just 16
houses throughout the city. The
University has a similar option in
Henderson House, a cooperative
residence under MHousing that
offers the social and practical
amenities of an off-campus house
and was designed explicitly for
sophomores, upperclassmen and
graduate
students.
However,
Henderson House has a capacity
of just 28 students. This is a living
situation that could appeal to
many upperclassmen and could
be made more affordable than
dorm-living — as residents are
responsible for maintaining the
house — if the University were to
expand it.
While
incoming
first-year
students are somewhat sheltered
from the housing problem, the
University’s
growing
student
population
and
the
failure
of
University
infrastructure
to properly respond to it has
resulted in many sophomores and
upperclassmen struggling to find
on-campus living. With roughly
97%
of
incoming
freshmen
choosing to live in residence
halls, accommodation for others
cannot be guaranteed. Space
limitations placed the University
in a difficult spot last fall when
they had to deny placement
of more than 2,300 returning
students in the dorms.
This last figure is perhaps the
most prescient point of this entire
discussion; many current off-
campus students want to live on
campus. Additionally, those who
don’t want to live on campus as
a second-year or beyond are not
averse for reasons of facilities
or location, but because the
University can not offer many
of the intimate and pro-social
living arrangements found in
shared houses and apartments.
Many of the Michigan Learning
Communities offer this social
environment — the guarantee of a
stable community into a student’s
sophomore year — and see
students remain in the community
beyond
their
freshman
year
at a higher frequency than in
traditional dorms. Even then, the
University only offers 10, some
of which are specialized to an
academic discipline or require a
competitive application process.
This
is
not
unique
to
on-campus
housing
at
the
University
of
Michigan.
Nationwide,
universities
have
heterogeneous
approaches
to on-campus housing. From
traditional dormitory living for
freshmen, to apartments with
kitchenettes for upperclassmen,
there are plenty of ways that the
University can make on-campus
housing options more diverse.
The Stockwell, North Quad and
Fletcher Residence Halls have
historically followed this model,
catering
their
offerings
and
services to upperclassmen.
If
there
were
more
tenable
on-campus
options
for
upperclassmen,
such
as
university-sponsored cooperative
houses, more Michigan Learning
Communities or more on-campus
apartments for undergraduates,
students would be able to both
live with friends while also not
being subject to the cut-throat
nature of the Ann Arbor housing
market.
A substantial increase in the
variety and capacity of on-campus
housing is, of course, a years-long
endeavor. Nevertheless it is useful
to set goals for our administrators
as they consider the University’s
place within a rapidly changing
Ann Arbor. The new construction
on Elbel Field is a good start to
solving a dire problem and well
worth the $6.5 million price tag.
Despite
a
nationwide
dip
in recent years, a near record
number
of
Americans
are
attending college. Ever expanding
application
pools,
especially
to the nation’s most selective
schools, have proven difficult to
accommodate. After announcing
the Elbel Field residence hall, Ono
explained to The Michigan Daily
that since 2004, undergraduate
enrollment at the University has
grown by 8,000 students.
Universities are not strangers
to
capacity
problems.
The
University of California, Berkeley
notably
had
its
2022-2023
enrollment temporarily frozen at
2020-2021 levels after a lawsuit
from
environmental
groups.
Berkeley’s housing crisis was a
prime motivator for the freeze.
Paired
with
a
precipitously
declining acceptance rate, the
University of Michigan must
contend with its place in a
growing, gentrifying Ann Arbor.
The University is responsible for
much of Ann Arbor’s cultural and
financial wealth, but its presence
poses unique public challenges.
Until this reckoning, though,
the University ought to meet the
satiable demand of its students:
a new and varied housing stock
to meet the needs of a growing
community.
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
W
e all remember the first
semester
of
college,
for better or for worse.
Moving into your dorm, having to
cope with the pressures of a new city
without the comfort of hometown
staples and learning how to live on
your own. Taking responsibility for
things that you accepted as givens
when you were younger is often
when you realize you’ve become an
adult. And with adulthood comes
the non-negotiable responsibility of
managing expenses.
As any college student knows,
college expenses are a burdensome
source of stress. They can eat away
at your time and mental health.
But, beyond the obvious line items
on the semesterly invoice, such
as tuition or housing rates, many
students don’t realize the extent of
the hidden costs tacked onto their
bill. These include, but are not
limited to: laundry, food outside of
the dining halls and other out-of-
pocket necessities that the average
college frequently fails to make
obvious for prospective students.
Once on campus, the most well-
hidden expense quickly becomes
obvious: laundry.
When students live in a dorm at
the University of Michigan, they
first have to pay for laundry supplies
such as detergent, fabric softener
and bleach. Then, they have to pay
the University (to which they’ve
already given tens of thousands of
dollars) for access to the machines
themselves, a cost never advertised
during their supposedly “complete”
tour of the University. The many
aspects of cleanliness on a college
campus generate expenses that can
easily add up, and yet are absolutely
necessary for a healthy lifestyle.
Let’s break down the numbers
for laundry costs. The University
charges $1.25 per load for washer
machines and $1 per load for dryer
machines.
Boxes
of
detergent
cost anywhere from $5 to $15.
Meanwhile, the average cost of just
a single bottle of fabric softener
usually ranges from $3 to $7. Heavy
loads may require multiple washes,
stacking these already high variable
costs on top of one another. Put
together, it can be estimated that
each student pays roughly $90 to
$200 a year out of their pockets
to do laundry on campus, with no
opportunity to cover these costs
through financial aid.
We
shouldn’t
accept
those
numbers as inevitable. After all,
such horrific statistics don’t exist
at so many other peer institutions
— many of which the University
of Michigan is ranked higher than
in general quality of life metrics.
Many other colleges have made
the move to include the use of
laundry machines in their tuition.
These include Central Michigan
University, Grand Valley State
University and Western Michigan
University, other colleges in the Big
Ten such as the University of Illinois
and the Ohio State University
and the one school which fits
both of those criteria: Michigan
State University. This practice is
a widespread standard for many
schools with the University of
Michigan’s traits because it has
many
self-evident
benefits
to
students. Including laundry fees
in tuition relieves students of a
deceptively heavy burden, and
that’s just the start of the positive
consequences for students.
There are numerous benefits to
including laundry fees in housing
costs, both for students and the
University. By making students
pay for laundry at the beginning of
the year, it encourages them to do
laundry in the future through the
psychological effect (and economic
fallacy) known as “sunk cost.” Doing
laundry improves physical health
by minimizing chances of sickness.
Moreover, the removal of the
pay-per-use barrier will increase
general
clothing
cleanliness,
enhancing the respectability of
University students.
When students no longer have a
price shoved in their face every time
they try to wash their belongings,
they’ll no longer want to messily
shove all of their laundry into one
machine to save money. And if their
clothes don’t get fully dried in one
load, or a machine malfunctions,
students will be able to complete
multiple cycles and fully cleanse
their clothing without fear of
further
unbudgeted
expenses.
But it’s not just a matter of making
the activity of laundry less urgent
and stressful. Folding laundry
machine fees into the University’s
official housing or tuition rates also
means that hundreds to possibly
thousands of students would be able
to pay for laundry with financial aid,
scholarships and grants. Clearly,
laundry being part of housing
rates would benefit all University
students, especially those who
struggle with college expenses.
Laundry fees being included
in housing or tuition rates would
also be beneficial for universities,
as it will persuade students to
live on campus. At the University
of Michigan, freshmen are not
required
to
live
on
campus.
Therefore, a notable minority of
first-year students choose to rent
apartments or houses. However,
they
might
consider
it
more
worthwhile to live on campus if
they didn’t have to worry about the
ever-changing, undisclosed costs of
University housing — such as, say,
laundry.
In fact, an improvement of the
campus laundry paradigm could
also help the administration by
increasing application rates for the
University of Michigan. After all,
although the University typically
ranks very highly in national
publications for most categories, the
U.S. News and World Report ranks
Michigan as tied for the 65th spot in
first-year experiences. Antiquated
and confusing rules, such as paying
for
laundry
separately,
could
contribute to this dismal ranking
of this statistic. When comparing
costs of colleges through means like
these very rankings, students will
see the tangible benefits of having
“free
use”
laundry
machines.
Having the costs of laundry be
included in tuition fees could make
college much less of an overarching
burden on students, and it could be
a key motivating factor for where
students choose to attend college.
So what should the University
do? Central Student Government
recently passed a resolution stating
that it would like the University to
revise its housing rates to include
laundry machine fees, making them
a flat fee under room and board
costs. This wouldn’t solve all of
the hidden costs we deal with on a
daily basis; however, centralizing
one of the University’s most major
hidden costs would be a great start.
From The Daily: build, Santa, build
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHANNON STOCKING
AND KATE WEILAND
Editor in Chiefs
QUIN ZAPOLI AND
JULIAN BARNARD
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Zhane Yamin
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
JULIA VERKLAN
MALONEY AND ZOE
STORER
Managing Editors
Cleaning up our act: How to
eliminate a hidden cost of college
TYLER FIORITTO,
RILEY KINA
AND JACK HANDZEL
Guest Contributors
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
For the campus
Climate change is an opportunity for Michigan
O
n a visit to campus
last
Thursday,
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris
joined
Secretary
of
Energy Jennifer Granholm and
Kyle Whyte, a professor at the
University of Michigan School for
Environment and Sustainability,
to discuss climate change and
the role young people can play in
solving the climate crisis.
Rather than focus on young
people’s role in organizing and
activism as a means to solve
the
climate
crisis,
however,
the event had a broader focus
on infrastructure. “Just about
anything that the students here
are studying will relate to and lift
up this new movement and this
new economy,” Harris said.
The decision to host an event
in Ann Arbor was politically
savvy
given
the
city’s
blue
slant within a reliably purple
state. But Harris’s decision to
speak
specifically
on
climate
infrastructure
investments
reflects a growing realization
that climate change may be an
opportunity for economic growth
in Michigan. With its temperate
climate,
manufacturing
roots
and availability of jobs, Michigan
has the potential to emerge as a
national leader amid the climate
crisis.
Already, American workers are
beginning to move as a result of
climate change. Thirty percent
of Americans say climate change
is a motivator to move, and many
climate-vulnerable
states
such
as California are beginning to
see their populations decline.
Though some southern states
have been growing in population
recently, this isn’t predicted to
last. “Cities like Detroit … will see
a renaissance, with their excess
capacity in infrastructure, water
supplies
and
highways
once
again put to good use,” predicted
one New York Times article. A
separate study corroborated that
claim, predicting that the Great
Lakes region’s low exposure to
natural disasters, as well as low
social vulnerability, will lead to
population growth as climate
change persists.
As more Americans move north,
Michigan has an opportunity to
attract displaced, highly skilled
workers and convince them to
settle in the Great Lakes State.
Tourism efforts have already
been successful in stimulating
economic activity in Michigan,
but to convince visitors to make a
permanent move, new jobs need to
be created.
Those jobs can be created by
new green industries. Ahead of
her conversation with Harris,
Granholm, a former Michigan
governor, focused largely on the
role technology and infrastructure
investments passed by Democrats
last year will play in strengthening
green-energy
solutions
in
Michigan.
Thanks
to
its
climate-
progressive
state
government,
Michigan has already risen to
dominate green-energy industries.
One
of
the
most
prominent
was a
$7 billion investment in
electric vehicle manufacturing
in
Michigan,
expected
to
create 4,000 new jobs. Other
investments have been made to
strengthen electric vehicle battery
manufacturing
and
renewable
energy production. As demand
for
these
green
technologies
continues
to
increase,
these
investments will become more
and more valuable for the state.
Harris was quick to point out
that it isn’t just manufacturing
jobs that these investments are
creating. “We are building a clean
energy economy,” Harris said, “It’s
new. It’s new jobs … We’re going to
need HR specialists because these
are new industries. We’re going to
need comms folks who know how
to communicate the importance of
this work.”
Climate change is also bringing
renewed focus toward improving
infrastructure in the U.S. Better
transportation
infrastructure
results in more efficient travel,
ultimately leading to a decrease in
emissions. As pressure builds for
more
environmentally-friendly
infrastructure
improvements,
federal and state governments will
be under more pressure to make
investments.
Michigan’s
transportation
infrastructure
currently
ranks
in the bottom half of the nation,
and destructive natural disasters
will compound the need for
improvements. Though the state’s
poor roads and bridges may seem
to be a hindrance to fighting the
climate crisis, they may actually
be
an
opportunity.
Already,
investments
are
being
made
across the state. Gov. Gretchen
Whitmer’s
plan
to
“rebuild
Michigan” is bringing a $3.5 billion
investment that will put 90% of
the state’s roads back to “good or
fair” condition by 2024. A more
significant federal plan is bringing
$7.3 billion in road improvements,
as well as $535 million in bridge
investments.
These
investments
aren’t
just significant in the amount
of money they are injecting into
Michigan’s economy. Many of
these investments are being made
with climate change in mind.
In addition to improving roads,
the federal plan outlined above
includes a $66 billion investment
in public transportation, as well as
$7.5 billion to set up a network of
electric vehicle charging stations
across the state.
JACK KAPCAR
Opinion Columnist
Read more at MichiganDaily.com