Consumption Rules

In 2003 BYU announced that it would be implementing new boundaries for its BYU-approved housing (now called ‘contracted housing’), which finally went into effect last month. This so-called “2-mile radius” rule was introduced with vague explanations from BYU’s administration, and is drafted in such a way as to cause negative consequences for the same students for whom this policy was supposedly instituted, while significantly benefitting other parties. If it truly wants to keep its students’ best interests in mind, BYU should repeal this policy and give students back their options for housing.

Why was this policy implemented in the first place? After it was announced, BYU spokesperson Carrie Jenkins gave the following explanation, “It is important not only the academic environment, but the moral environment. [sic] Part of the BYU experience is to live in a strong moral environment. We have limited resources at BYU and we can not [sic] keep stretching those resources and provide the environment our students expect.” [Nielson-Stowell, A. BYU housing boundaries to change dramatically. (2003, December 8). Daily Universe] I think it’s interesting that students’ “moral environment” was cited as a reason for the change. At first this seems obvious, given BYU’s strict moral code of conduct, but upon further thought one sees that proximity to campus doesn’t have any causal relationship with adherence to the Honor Code. In other words, being closer to campus, by itself, does not affect one’s righteousness. To attend BYU all students must receive an ecclesiastical endorsement signed by his or her Bishop, Stake President, and, most importantly, the students themselves. Location does not change that. If a Bishop judges a person to be worthy, and that person signs the statement declaring that they live by the Honor Code, that would be sufficient recourse for a Saint to be admitted into the temple; therefore, that should also be sufficient recourse for a student to be admitted into the School. Should we only allow Saints who live within a 2-mile proximity to enter the temple? Personal accountability overrides proximity in matters of the temple; it should in matters at BYU as well.

If the reason for implementing a boundary on contracted housing, then, is to maintain a certain general environment that the “students expect,” how will BYU students benefit when, according to the same article, 94% of all BYU students were already living within the boundaries before any requirement was put in place? Of course a specific living environment is a major reason why most students come to BYU, but it is not why all students choose to come here. That doesn’t mean those for whom environment is not one of their top reasons are bad people, or prove they are trying to evade the Honor Code; some people just prefer to live in a different environment, equally uplifting and righteous, than the typical south-of-campus environment.

Before this new policy, those who really expected a particular environment in their experience at BYU were already experiencing that type of environment, and the few that wanted something different were exercising their option of living elsewhere. In other words, the new policy does nothing to further benefit the vast majority of students and forces the small minority to live in a different environment than they had previously chosen, and this at the expense of all of the students in the form of possible increased rent, decreased quality, and, most importantly, the loss of options and bargaining power as a renter. It doesn’t seem like this new policy was implemented to benefit the students at all. Instead it seems to have been implemented to either decrease the burden on the Off-Campus Housing Office or as acquiescence to the influential voices of Provo City or of the owners and managers of large apartment complexes. These are the wrong reasons for restricting BYU students in their housing choices.

In the Winter 2007 edition of BYU Magazine, Riley Lorimer asked BYU’s director of residence life, Julie Franken, about the purpose of the new 2-mile radius rule. She responded, “The majority of BYU students have always lived and still live within the boundaries we have drawn. With housing booming the way it is, it made sense for the university to take care of housing for its students. So rather than spending time and effort dealing with complexes that were far away, we drew the circle around where our students were already living and said, ‘This is where our students live, so these are the places we’re going to work with.’” So another reason for the change is to foster a closer relationship between BYU and its students’ landlords. This also seems like a good reason at first blush, but again begs the question of exactly who benefits from it. There is no question BYU’s Off-Campus Housing Office wields significant power in the housing market and can use that power to fight students’ battles in dealing with troublesome management. The problem is that BYU has only two arrows in its quiver in this battle: threatening to revoke a complex’s approval and actually revoking a complex’s approval. This helps in resolving the most egregious instances of neglect, negligence, or misconduct, but most of students’ problems are the smaller, day-to-day issues of poor management: inconvenient move-in/move-out dates, lost rent checks, miscellaneous fees, broken appliances, unreasonable cleaning checks, etc. Even if BYU could pull out its trump card on every issue that comes up, it is now even less likely to, because revoking a complex’s approval would make a small pool of housing options even smaller. So now students are basically left on their own to fight these battles, with less bargaining power on their side than before. While the Off-Campus Housing Office will spend less of its time and expenses approving more distant housing with this new policy in place (which was hardly a problem), it will spend more of its time addressing students’ complaints and trying to resolve issues with complexes within the designated area, which will prove to be just as costly and time-consuming. Market forces do a far better job than one regulatory body in dealing with all of renters’ potential problems.

Provo City has long been trying to figure out a solution to the negative effects of having such a large student population. BYU creates such an attractive environment that many students from the growing UVSC population (now UVU) prefer to live in Provo instead of Orem. This has several side effects: parking and traffic congestion, inflated housing prices, added demand for government services, etc. At least since the year 2000, Provo has been trying to figure out a way to consolidate the student housing closer to campus, and separate it from local citizens and businesses (August 2000 Mayor’s Message—South Campus Area Master Plan: Planning for Provo’s Future). The South Campus Area Master Plan (SCAMP) was a largely failed, yet probably better, attempt to do many of the things that this new 2-mile radius rule will now accomplish in packing the students into one denser, more concentrated area. The difference is that SCAMP was a plan to create more student housing closer to campus, increasing the supply to meet demand. The 2-mile radius rule tries to limit supply in an attempt to decrease demand, hoping that some of the UVU students will move back to Orem. Unfortunately the principles of economics don’t work that way. What Provo knows that BYU doesn’t yet understand is that all of these students do a lot to increase productivity, giving back to the economy by working and spending their money here. Provo City doesn’t suffer because of all of these students; it thrives because of them! The money cycled back into the economy provides the money to pay for the means necessary to handle the traffic, and the government services. What Provo doesn’t understand is that it can’t enjoy a vibrant economy, largely fed by the student population, while at the same time trying to limit the student housing so that its citizens won’t see an increase in housing prices. Now, this 2-mile radius rule attempts just that, corralling BYU students into a given area, laying the groundwork for the student ghetto that SCAMP was at least trying to avoid. The city enjoys the benefit, while the cost is borne solely by BYU students, again the afterthought in a narrow-viewed policy.

The biggest beneficiary from the change in policy seems to be the apartment owners and managers, especially those of the large complexes within the 2-mile radius. This is most observable in the change in prices and the distortion of incentives. Because BYU announced the policy change back in 2003, the market prices have been absorbing and reflecting this information since then, and so we didn’t see a dramatic price change when the boundary changes finally took effect April 30th of this year. Though perhaps less obvious, this hasn’t made the monetary benefit any less real. With constant demand and a more limited supply, the premium on BYU-contracted real estate has risen, as well as the liquidity of the market. With more limited options for the students rent prices will only continue to increase over time. Large complexes will especially benefit from this market environment because information for them is more readily available than for smaller complexes or individual houses. Also, the incentive for apartment managers has and will continue to change as this new policy moves forward. Large complexes already have a bad reputation for being strict and unbending in dealing with the unique needs of individual students. This new policy only reduces their incentive further to maintain their apartments, to keep rent reasonable, to write clear contracts, and to give good customer service to their tenets. The cost of all of these benefits to the apartment owners is again borne by the students, the same people this 2-mile radius policy was supposedly designed to serve.

Regardless of who is benefitted, the biggest mistake of this new policy is that it hurts the students, no matter where they lived before this policy was announced, because it limits their options and decreases their bargaining power as consumers. An individual student may live in the exact same apartment as they did before the implementation of this policy, but may see increased rent, decreased quality, or decreased customer service because apartment managers know that the students simply don’t have other options. The buyer power that comes with having options is invaluable to anyone, but especially to us as student who have little else to give us credibility in the eyes of our landlords. This bargaining power is far more important to us as individuals than the small administrative or regulatory benefits BYU may see from the 2-mile radius policy. Why implement a policy that benefits so many others at our expense? This boundary restriction should be repealed so that we, as students, can have our options and buyer power back.

Share This

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 17th, 2007 and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

(Somewhat) Similar Posts: