Pinehaven Apts to be torn-down - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 2, 2005

Pinehaven Apts to be torn-down

Date: Mar 2, 2005

I am sure there is no conflict of interest here, but I would be interesting in knowing what, if any, code of responsibility governs conflict of interest among state employees?

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Green Hornet
"WDAM is reporting that Pinehaven Apts (Married students housing) will be torn down in favor of a sorority village. WDAM reports that displaced married students will need to be housed in privately own apt complexes. I've nothing against the sorority village. But, I thought that the WEST property was going to be the site for the village. Why was Pinehaven selected. Granted they are in need of repair/rennovation to the tune of $26 million (according to Joe Paul on WDAM report) but what will happen to married students who have a fixed income. CONCERN: Married students are being displaced out of low-cost campus housing, and will have to rent off campus.....rumor has it that SFT owns some near-by apts. Can anyone check into this? Talk is that the residents of Pinehaven are planning a protest......"

They tore down WEST and put up a parking lot.

My interpretation of the story is that the university will enter some sort of agreement with privately owned apartment complexes in order to accommodate the affected Pinehaven residents. SFT does own apartments near campus.

IMO, those apartments are an eyesore and need to come down, although I do understand that married students (and single students with children, for that matter) on fixed incomes do need affordable housing options near campus-- unless the university would prefer these students become online students, in which case there would be no need for this type of housing.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

If you tear it down, they will come....Hey! I think I'll use that in "Shoeless Joe II: Back to Iowa"!

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Green Hornet
"WDAM is reporting that Pinehaven Apts (Married students housing) will be torn down in favor of a sorority village. WDAM reports that displaced married students will need to be housed in privately own apt complexes. I've nothing against the sorority village. But, I thought that the WEST property was going to be the site for the village. Why was Pinehaven selected. Granted they are in need of repair/rennovation to the tune of $26 million (according to Joe Paul on WDAM report) but what will happen to married students who have a fixed income.
CONCERN: Married students are being displaced out of low-cost campus housing, and will have to rent off campus.....rumor has it that SFT owns some near-by apts. Can anyone check into this?
Talk is that the residents of Pinehaven are planning a protest......"

A very upset student resident of Pinehaven called my home last night. She is quite distraught. She lives in one of the units to be torn down this summer. She said that she was told that she could get an apartment off campus at the same rate, BUTthat does not include utilities.

She is worried about her neighbors who are foreign and don't have a car if they aremoved off campus.

I have to admit that I am troubled by the very act of tearing down the housing for less fortunate students in favor of a sorority village. While I admit that Pinehaven isn't beautiful, it's necessary for many of our students. Why not build new apartments FIRST and then tear down Pinehaven?

I want to add that the student who called me last night does not believe what she is being told.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Googler
"those apartments are an eyesore and need to come down"

Whether or not Pinehaven is an eyesore is irrelevant. USM knew those apartments were not as aesthetically pleasing as Canebrake when they recruited those students to enroll at USM. If the residents are to be evicted, the university has an obligation (a moral and ethical obligation - not a legal one) to provide comparable housing at comparable prices. The students committed to come here. USM should follow through on its unwritten commitment.

I hope that USM is not going to give preferential treatement to sorority sisters whose pappas can probably afford upscale logding for their daughters.

I also hope that USM is not going to bite the hands that feeds it - and has fed it for many years: the students who are downright grateful to be here and who are not accustomed to gold-plated toilet fixtures.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
" A very upset student resident of Pinehaven called my home last night. She is quite distraught. She lives in one of the units to be torn down this summer. She said that she was told that she could get an apartment off campus at the same rate, BUTthat does not include utilities. She is worried about her neighbors who are foreign and don't have a car if they aremoved off campus. I have to admit that I am troubled by the very act of tearing down the housing for less fortunate students in favor of a sorority village. While I admit that Pinehaven isn't beautiful, it's necessary for many of our students. Why not build new apartments FIRST and then tear down Pinehaven? I want to add that the student who called me last night does not believe what she is being told. Amy Young"

It is also troubling - IF true -- that residents might have found out through the media rather than from the university first . . .

Date: Mar 3, 2005

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are rusted, and their rust shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. You have laid up your treasure in the last days. Behold, the hire of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cries out: and the cries of them that reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of the heavenly armies. You have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure; you have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous who does not resist you.

Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it, until it receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Googler
" ...IMO, those apartments are an eyesore and need to come down,..... "

Sorry guy. Right now the plan is to tear down just 1/4 of the apartments. That is not going to help the eye sore much. Also, when the new buildings go up next to the ghetto, the eye sore will be even larger.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" It is also troubling - IF true -- that residents might have found out through the media rather than from the university first . . . "

See my other post on the board (Pinehaven - Thames Relation). Most of the people on this board have been out of the loop for a long time, and they are running out of friends who still work at USM.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Double-Wide
"I also hope that USM is not going to bite the hands that feeds it - and has fed it for many years: the students who are downright grateful to be here and who are not accustomed to gold-plated toilet fixtures."

My dear friends at USM,

As hard as you might try, you are not going to instantly transform your school into something that it is not, even if you destroy deteriorated Pinehaven and contruct Greek beauties like the well manicured Sorority Row structures surrounding the lake adjacent to the LSU campus. The philosopy "Build it and they'll come" will not work at USM. It will take a major overhaul of some core academic values which have deteriorated (shared governance, freedom of speech, due process). USM had better overhaul its rapidly deteriorating academic values before it overhauls the physical structure of the campus. But do it now before it's too late.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

take a look back at your old copies ( last month)..........

hattiesburg city council commissioned a study about the number of apartments in hattieburg(i think a dept at usm was in charge of the study) BECAUSE two large apartment developments were attempting to build (one on corner of 7th st and beverly hills rd and the other on n. 31st and lakeview) but large protest from residents prompted city council to order the study if more apartments were needed

the study was pretty much a fence stradler...."how many are too many?"

now with the removal of pinehaven it will pretty much assure the proposed apartment developments will be "needed"

now the interesting part of the removal of pinehaven. the landowner for one of the developments is an old, old SFT cronie. former state senator stone barefield(also former board of supervisor attorney) is the owner of land on 7th and beverly hills rd and very active at city council meetings in the rezoning hearings.

one final thought on the students at pinehaven. most of the residents at pinehaven will probably qualify for section 8 housing so that will probably knock these residents our of near campus housing.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"
It is also troubling - IF true -- that residents might have found out through the media rather than from the university first . . .
"

Remember how the deans found out they were all fired????

Date: Mar 3, 2005

Stephen:

Very true. It is hard enough to accept bad news but to get from some source other than expected is bad.

Someone asked the question whether Thames owns apts near campus. Yes a bunch of them that are run by a local leasing agent.

I guess he will benefit again and the IHL will not know.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

It's not only married/family housing...graduate students can also live there. While I agree that Pinehaven is in dire need of a renovation, the plan should be to do that and not to disenfranchise these students.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Albert
"Sorry guy. Right now the plan is to tear down just 1/4 of the apartments. That is not going to help the eye sore much. Also, when the new buildings go up next to the ghetto, the eye sore will be even larger."

Sorry. That should read 1/2 (a half) and not 1/4. It is the "inner circle" apartments that are coming down. The inner circle are the ones that form a circle around the office. The rest will be up until at least December and maybe longer and the office is moving into a 3 bedroom apartment off campus.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"
It is also troubling - IF true -- that residents might have found out through the media rather than from the university first . . .
"

Agreed.

Student residents at Pinehaven were first "invited" to a meeting on March 1st. Though the letter of invitation is dated Feb.25th, it was not distributed (hung on the clips of their apartment doors) until Feb. 28. Then they received their "eviction" letter the next day (March 2). It appears to me that the decision was made some time ago. The residents were informed after the decision was made. I think extensive surveys to residents asking a variety of questions to really understand the potential impact to their lives was in order. Why the rush???

This is absolutely disgraceful.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"This is absolutely disgraceful. "

To reverse spin this, it is absolutely disgraceful that those tenements weren't torn down a decade ago. The last time I was in a Pinehaven apartment was over 25 years ago & it was a slum then. Or maybe the guy I was visiting was just a slop... (That's it -- most of my friends then were slobs.

)

But I agree that the residents should have gotten better advance notice & I hope that accomodations have been made for low-rent housing for married students who can't afford pricier off-campus digs.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

We keep calling this "married" housing, but I thought it was "family" housing. It seems to me that single parents are even more in need of affordable housing while they are getting an education to try to make a better life for themselves and their kids. When I heard the report on WDAM last night, it sounded to me as though the plan was that only married students would get to live in the remaining PH units. I hope I misunderstood, because that was the most disturbing element of the report to me.

Date: Mar 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Retired prof
"We keep calling this "married" housing, but I thought it was "family" housing. It seems to me that single parents are even more in need of affordable housing while they are getting an education to try to make a better life for themselves and their kids. When I heard the report on WDAM last night, it sounded to me as though the plan was that only married students would get to live in the remaining PH units. I hope I misunderstood, because that was the most disturbing element of the report to me."

Points well take, RP. I shall correct my terminology if I ever need to use it in the future.

Date: Mar 4, 2005

I believe using the term "family housing" is a PR spin. Afterall, calling a housing complex "family housing" is more "wurld class" than naming it (basically) "single, unwed mothers who had children out of wedlock housing."

Date: Mar 4, 2005

I think the "married housing" is just an artifact of the past. For a very long time, two things governed such housing: 1) the university would not allow unmarried couples to cohabitate, and 2) almost all single parents had zero time for full-time school. "Married student housing" was the moniker assigned, probably because it fit in 99% of cases. I would think that the use of that terminology is, as said above, just an artifact.

The problem with on-campus housing is that it simply is not competitive. It has been said that Pinehurst is run-down, and many other dormitory facilities are in poor condition (with the exception of McCarty). The university still charges a fairly sizeable amount per semester for "rental" of these facilities, and most students can get better conditions at lower cost off-campus.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

I have heard through student sources that at least two sororities are implementing new policies mandating their members live in Panhellenic at least four semesters (signed contract and all). In the past, sororities have made exceptions for members who live in Hattiesburg who want to live at home, but my understanding is this exception is no more. If this is true, it is likely due to the fact that some of the sororities have trouble filling their rooms in Panhellenic, and they need an increase in residential numbers to justify building the new sorority village.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Old Timey and Grimy
"I think the "married housing" is just an artifact of the past. For a very long time, two things governed such housing: 1) the university would not allow unmarried couples to cohabitate, and 2) almost all single parents had zero time for full-time school. "Married student housing" was the moniker assigned, probably because it fit in 99% of cases. I would think that the use of that terminology is, as said above, just an artifact. The problem with on-campus housing is that it simply is not competitive. It has been said that Pinehurst is run-down, and many other dormitory facilities are in poor condition (with the exception of McCarty). The university still charges a fairly sizeable amount per semester for "rental" of these facilities, and most students can get better conditions at lower cost off-campus."

I believe this is a problem at many universities, even tier 1 univerisities. Overpriced, old housing is epidemic at many schools. However, an off-campus apartment does not afford a freshman the same experience that dorm life provides.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Googler
"I have heard through student sources that at least two sororities are implementing new policies mandating their members live in Panhellenic at least four semesters (signed contract and all). In the past, sororities have made exceptions for members who live in Hattiesburg who want to live at home, but my understanding is this exception is no more. If this is true, it is likely due to the fact that some of the sororities have trouble filling their rooms in Panhellenic, and they need an increase in residential numbers to justify building the new sorority village. "

I'll say that USM sororities are sending a ton of personal notes to my daughter, who has not even applied for admission to USM but has already sent in a housing deposit to Ole Miss. By contrast, she has been encouraged by a couple of knowledgeable friends to get letters of recommendation for the sororities at Ole Miss...

All freshmen whose parents do not live within a specified commuting distance of Oxford are required to live on-campus at Ole Miss.