Editorial: UCLA Housing price hikes should be explained, not arbitrary

UCLA Housing’s motto on paper is “Hospitality First!” In reality, though, it should be something along the lines of “Hospitality first – at an arbitrary price.”

UCLA Housing proposed a housing rate hike earlier this year for graduate students living in university housing. The increases were originally planned to be between 3 and 5 percent and are meant to account for inflation and help fund the university’s future housing projects.

Peter Angelis, the associate vice chancellor of Housing and Hospitality Services, said the university set next year’s increase to be as low as it possibly could while accommodating UCLA’s increased expenses. But following a meeting with members of the Graduate Students Association, the university agreed to a smaller average increase of 3.5 percent, delaying for a few months the full increase of 4 or 5 percent on some units. So much for as “low as possible.”

A lack of transparency in UCLA’s housing budget is nothing new. Students using UCLA Housing’s services don’t always know where exactly their funds are going toward, and it’s unclear exactly how exactly Housing will disburse the additional moneys graduate students will be coughing up.

It’s hard to believe the university is trying its best to reduce costs for students when it proposes seemingly arbitrary housing rate increases that are negotiable. If the university originally expected students to pay up to 5 percent more in housing fees for the next academic year, the least it could do was let them know where those fees were going. UCLA Housing must be more transparent with the students who pay fees, such as by releasing detailed breakdowns of which operations those housing fees are going toward.

UCLA spokesperson Allison Hewitt said Housing averaged about a 2.5 percent annual increase in housing rates over the past decade. The university decided to increase housing rates by between 3 and 5 percent next year because it expects higher operating and construction costs. Hewitt added the rate increase change was designed to help avoid sudden, larger increases of around 8 percent in the future.

The university said it decided to overestimate the expected costs of construction and set a high rate since for the next year it will not receive construction bids for the projects until April. Hewitt said the university tells students the projected housing rate increases during Winter quarter.

UCLA’s intentions are certainly valid. But the facts don’t add up: the university claimed it had proposed the lowest possible housing rate it could to students so as to drastic future hikes, only to to propose an even lower rate after pressure from student leaders. A university looking to reduce student costs should propose the lowest student fee increases it can, not put out an apparently arbitrary amount and backpedal once students go up in arms.

This isn’t to say increasing housing rates is wrong; it’s very much needed. But there exists a lack of transparency in how exactly Housing comes up with and intends to use its increased housing rates. The difference between a 3.5 percent and 5 percent hike is enough to worry students about being able to afford the cost of attendance at UCLA, and the university owes it to students to explain why every cent of those increases is necessary.

Transparency starts with disclosing details proactively and letting decisions speak for themselves. Administrators shouldn’t think it starts only when students call them out on their opaqueness.