PROTEST ABOUT ACCOMMODATION FEES RISING

[Valen_gr]

£ 4000 fom my hall next year just makes me want to break something.Probably somebody's head.Or car. Something.

I paid £2100 in my first year.
How the hell has the proce DOUBLED in a few short years?
And I have lived in the same hall all years....
the increments :
£2100
£2500
£2900
£3900!!!!!


[hr]Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe....

[munchingfoo]

I think perhaps combining all the thoughts on this thread may bring us to an amicable conclusion.

Firstly, no outstanding protest until talks fall through(or are an unnaceptable deal)

Second, someone with accounts knowledge look through the accomodation accounts. Just taking into consideration the running costs. Remember, when a building is built at a cost of £27 million that money is not lost, it is just another form of capital and can be sold or traded with almost as freely as money. Also summer revenues should be taken into consideration. As long as we are fair and remember that some of the older halls have huge repair bills.

Third, like rennie says, a group willing to take action meets, discusses and draws up plans from there. Disorganised complaining will only cause iritation, nothing else

Fourthly, we have to remember that if EVERYBODY refuses to pay the new increase there is NO way the uni can keep them up. A boycot, or even a threat of one, if carried out by seven thousand people, will make them run back grabbing for the eight and a half million they already get. We hold all the cards, the consumer votes with their feet. We are that consumer. No government or the general public is going to allow SEVEN THOUSAND people to lose their degrees over this issue. If the accounts have been bias(which all good accountants do!) the uni isn't going to want external sources looking through them is it?

So no immediate action, it will be a long-hall(bad pun) but we can do it. Just keep remembering that you are a customer.

My e-mail is ag56 if you guys want to start getting things organised.



Andy Grayland

[Rennie]

Ok, it's clear that we need a group of people who are willing to sit down and think this through - a kind of forum. As we're unliklely to get help from the sabs as tehy're in negotiations with the University, we need to set something up ourselves.

Therefore, this is what I think we should do:

A new thread on the sinner where you put your e-mail address and availability over the next 2-3 weeks (basically, whether you're in St Andrews or not). Once the thread has a set number of people, enough to get a good forum going for a lot of different viewpoints (30?) then we can book a venue and a time. Then, e-mail this time out to everyone interested, everyone turns up, and we make some progress.

Also, add friends who are interested - the more the merrier.

The new thread will be entitled - 'Sign Up Here for Rent Protests'

[Pussycat]

Well 7 thousand people can't refuse to pay considering that there are only 3,015 students in hall accommodation, but that is still a huge number.

This year in Uni Hall with all the first year students being packed in the population of hall was 301, this was then reduced to 295ish. There used to be only 270 people in hall, and no new rooms have been built. We were promised that the temporary accommodation in hall would be just that - temporary. And yet in the new proposals how many bed spaces does it state uni hall will have next year? 295! This means we will not be getting our tv rooms back or our senior study. The rooms shared between three will stay like that. Uni Hall presently has one tv room that has space for maybe 15 people, 20 at a push, out of a hall population of just under 300!

For the record uni hall has no entertainment or leisure perks, we have a computer room of course, a table tennis table with invisible ping pong balls, and one tv room. There are three vending machines, all for drinks. And there are tennis courts out the back that have not been resurfaced in years (decades probably) and are subsequently never used. And of course we have the worst security of any hall.

Next year, no extra services, no improvement on the decrease of services we had this year and the rent being raised by an incredible amount however sneakily the university manages to do it.

The university should not be allowed to get away with this, which is purely a result of clever accounting. Anyone who knows their accounting should go over the proposals with a fine tooth comb, looking at how much they make over summer alone would surely be enough to show that the uni is talking bollocks? And I'm sorry but 5% over 5 years is just as outrageous in my view. Any rise is needless and therefore unacceptable, it would only pander to the university's absolute greed. This should not be a protest about a 40-47% rise, this should be a protest over any rise.

[Jonny_G]

Make sure you sign up for e-mails regarding progress of the protest on the sign up thread!!

[Pussycat]

Has everyone got the new e-mail about trying to get the rent increase in stages?

I think I've made my opinion pretty clear already about what I think of that, heh. It worries me though that many people will be satisfied by this and feel as if we have somehow won :/

[PurelySynthetic]

Nope i've not got an email!?

[Pussycat]

Just read a copy of a letter that the warden of Uni hall, Dr Carson sent off to a few people (can't rememeber who exactly, any other uni hallers know?) in the Student's Association and the University. It made for good reading, basically he asked for the rents to be staggered and for a guarentee that any money raised would go solely towards the residences themselves and no other department of the university. He also asked why an extra 2.75 weeks were being added and why it was neccessary to raise £2million when the deficit was claimed to be £550,000. He also pointed out that this would deter many active and valuable students from returning (eg hall committee) and that the raises would be unfair to unaware first years students.

He also asked how much the halls made over summer and if this had been taken into account in the proposals. Makes me wonder if Dr Carson reads the Sinner If so, big thanks to our big scarey warden

[Kriedmar]

This just goes to show how slow I am, I've only just realised how serious this could be, when will this be going through the university's court? Is there time to make a serious protest or is it too late?

[hr]The reason I'm holding on to the floor of the pub is that if I let go, I shall slide off of the world.

[Marco Biagi]

University Court will be meeting on February 20th. Almost certainly at 10:00am at Lower Parliament Hall on South Street.

[Marco Biagi]

Also, I remember a presentation by the previous Quaestor, Andrew Menzies, which put the residential estate at a few percentage points in profit overall. The claim made then to members of University Court was that it was making a return, but not as much return on capital as if the value of the estate had been put in investment or even a bank account. This might be what they're talking about - a 'notional' loss. I suspect they're also playing around with insurance and summer income figures to make their position look financially weaker.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Pussycat wrote on 22:03, 29th Jan 2004:
Rent raises in the private sector cannot be based on demand alone, they have to justify it. Unfortunately the university doesn't fall under the same rules.



Justify it to whom? In the private sector, profit is the only justification, as it should be.


Let's not kid ourselves, this has been coming for a long time. This isn't really what the university wants, it's just an initial negotiating position. I expect the final result to be agreed rises of about 17%, over 4 or 5 years.

While the rises are disgusting, you have to look at it from the university's point of view- they are being told by the funding council that they have to raise a "market" rate of return on their investments- including the property they own.

However, the figures that they are presenting to us are, so far as I can tell, worthy of the Booker Prize.

[mysterio]

[s]KateBush wrote on 12:23, 30th Jan 2004:
Ok...I've just been and spoken to Will Macfarlane this morning who says they're trying to negotiate some kind of staggering of the rises-= say maybe 5% a year over 5 years or something. He says the best thing to do is not to take to the streets just yet, but wait til the negotiations are done...


Can't say I'm surprised, this is the same person who said "we are glad that the University has not ‘passed the buck’.” This will do exactly that by promising that the people angry at the moment won't suffer but those who come along in a few years will.

It is exactly what some people predicted would happen, start out big and cut back to something still unwanted, they PROMISED last year would be the last year of rising rents for a long time. This is not acceptable!! And people are falling for it yet again!

[Guest]

A meeting of everyone who wishes to protest needs to be organised - I suggest Venue 2 at some point this week, for the start of the new term.


Somehow, I don't think Venue two will be big enough, infact i think you would need the Sports Hall, Venue 1 and the Younger Hall all at the same time.

[Guest]

[s]PurelySynthetic wrote on 12:35, 30th Jan 2004:
The link again for those who didnt see it in the other thread

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/services/fi ... reschg.pdf




Thanks, but how did you find it? Having downloaded it, i went for a browse to see of there were other such documents and i couldn't find it by browsing.

[S.P.I.G]

In reply to the question of why £2million extra funding was needed instead of the £550,000 stated, the uni. states that it costs an extra: "£550,000 per year on direct costs alone". So you have to remember that indirect costs should be taken into account as well (although an extra £1.5 million in indirect costs beggars belief). Perhaps the extra money is also needed to make improvements to accomodation etc.

[Thackary]

Would it not make more sense to save money by spending less?

The radiators in most of the halls are on for a few hours per day, but they blast out heat like there's no tomorrow. If they were to be left on for a little longer at a lower temperature, this would use less energy.
Energy efficient lightbulbs have already been implemented throughout most of the university buildings, so it seems that the university is doing something, but it's not enough yet.

And as someone said earlier on in this thread, it would be very nice to see some customer service from the staff. It would make people feel that they're actually getting something extra in return for the increased fees.

[Pussycat]

I can't see the University falling over itself to promise that any money raised from these rents will be plowed back into the accommdation itself. I mean, that would defeat their purpose.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Pussycat wrote on 20:27, 31st Jan 2004:
I can't see the University falling over itself to promise that any money raised from these rents will be plowed back into the accommdation itself. I mean, that would defeat their purpose.


Oh, I totally agree.
None of the money will be going back into accomodation.

[hr]
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Pussycat]

The article in todays News of the World:

---------------------------------
Skint students at Prince William's university are set to face a massive increase in their rents.

The University of St Andrews Court is to consider a recommendation to increase student rents by an average of 27% from September 2004.

The rise will bring accommodation charges at the halls of residence - where Wills, 21, stayed as a first-year student - into line with other universities.

A uni spokesman said: "It's unfair to take money away from our teaching resources to subsidise rents".

-----------------------------------