Business NZ urges review of student loan system

With universities set to keep thousands of would-be students from study this year, Business New Zealand has called for more targeted enrolments, as well as removing interest-free loans and fee limits.

The Labour and Green parties have slammed the universities' move as a direct result of National's capping of student numbers in disregard to the so-called knowledge economy. The Tertiary Education Union says it will keep ordinary New Zealanders out of study.

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce insisted that universities were getting more funding than ever before. This year Victoria University got $7 million more than last year, he said. "Is it enough? There's a limit to what the taxpayer can do but it's a bucketload."

With the exception of Canterbury University, New Zealand's six other universities have confirmed they are, or are likely to, turn away more students than previously. Lincoln University says it will be closely monitoring enrolments.

Business NZ chief executive Phil O'Reilly said the capped enrolments would only be a problem if students were kept from subjects – such as engineering, technology, and science – that fed directly into skill shortages in the workplace. Reducing enrolments on subjects such as sports sciences would not be a problem.

He called on the Government to consider ditching interest-free loans or increasing the maximum fees universities were allowed to charge students. Doing so would mean universities could afford more students. However, lifting maximum fees without changing the loan system would further burden the taxpayer.

"What the government has to do is review all of it," he said.

Tertiary Education Union president Tom Ryan said the move to restrict entry was because the Government had failed to foresee more students would be going to university because of demographic changes and the recession.

Poundon quiz raises cash

Roger Morton, from Poundon, near Bicester, is raising £2,000 so he can go to Uganda to work on a water and sanitation scheme.

The 19-year-old, who is studying at Exeter University, has organised a number of events, including a quiz at the Sow and Pigs pub, in his village.

The quiz, hosted by landlady Ali Gurney, raised more than £300, and a further £100 was donated by the pub’s owner, Brakspear’s of Henley.

Mr Morton needs another £600 to take part in the project, which is a joint scheme between Engineers Without Borders Exeter and New Build Uganda.

It will help improve sanitation and water supplies in the rural Mubende district.

Large percentage of students who don’t pay back money

Four career colleges in Sydney are among the worst in Canada when it comes to students repaying their loans, according to federal government numbers.

The most current figures available are from 2008. In that year less than one in 16 students of Patrick’s Business College Ltd. were making good on their loans.

The other three on the worst list are: Cognitive Strategies Inc., Centre for Distance Education and Mactech Distance Education.

While some students at those schools aren’t paying their bills, students at some of the province’s other 43 registered colleges appear to be meeting their obligations.

Just over 88 per cent of students at Tec The Education Centre Inc. in Halifax pay back their loans, a rate higher than many of the province’s universities. The Canadian College of Massage and Hydrotherapy had 80.5 per cent of its students making their payments in 2008.

CITY OF HOUSTON v. STUDENT AID FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM J. BOYCE, Justice.

The City of Houston appeals the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction. Because we conclude that the claim of appellee Student Aid Foundation Enterprises ("SAFE") is not ripe, we reverse the trial court's order and dismiss this cause for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

The City regulates development of property in flood-prone areas. In October 2006, the City amended chapter 19 of the City of Houston's Code of Ordinances to impose new, more stringent restrictions on development in areas designated as a "floodway."See Houston, Tex., Ordinance 2006-894 (Aug. 30, 2006). The amended ordinance provided that "[n]o permit shall hereinafter be issued for a development to be located in any floodway if that development provides for . . . [n]ew construction, additions to existing structures, or substantial improvement of any structure within the floodway." The ordinance as amended expressly prohibited any variances except for certain instances involving bridges and facilities necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. The 2006 amendment also adopted new maps redefining the floodway under chapter 19.

SAFE is a non-profit corporation that provides academic scholarships to students at Rice University in Houston. SAFE owns vacant property that it purchased as an investment, and it periodically sells or leases portions of the property and uses the money for its philanthropic purpose. The 2006 amendment to the ordinance placed SAFE's property in the floodway for the first time. In 2008, the City again amended chapter 19 and significantly relaxed the restrictions on development in a floodway. See HOUSTON, TEX., CODE ch. 19 (2008). SAFE filed this suit shortly after the 2008 amendment, claiming a regulatory taking of its property based on the 2006 amendment. SAFE alleged that the 2006 amendment constituted a taking of its property because the strict development restrictions meant it could neither construct improvements on the property not sell it to anyone who wished to do so.

The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing in part that SAFE's claim is not ripe. The trial court denied the City's plea, and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Ripeness is a threshold issue that implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 851 (Tex. 2000). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction properly may be raised by a plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Dep't Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004). We focus on whether facts have been alleged that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction. See City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. 2008);Kessling v. Friendswood Indep. Sch. Dist., 302 S.W.3d 373, 385 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. filed). We review a trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. See Lopez, 259 S.W.3d at 150; Kessling, 302 S.W.3d at 385.

Both the United States and Texas Constitutions prohibit the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. See U.S. CONST. amend. V; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17; see also Hallco Tex., Inc. v. McMullen County, 221 S.W.3d 50, 56 (Tex. 2006) (recognizing similarity between Texas and federal constitutional provisions regarding taking of property and noting it is appropriate to look to federal law for guidance). Although governments can regulate property under a valid exercise of police power, a regulatory action can constitute a taking requiring compensation under some circumstances. See Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001); Hallco, 221 S.W.3d at 56. SAFE argues that the 2006 amendment made its property unmarketable and therefore constituted a regulatory taking.The City argues that SAFE's claim is not ripe because SAFE (1) never submitted a permit application or variance request to the City and (2) had no plans for the property in 2006 and thus did not suffer a concrete injury arising from the 2006 amendment.

Ripeness concerns the timing of a lawsuit. See Gibson, 22 S.W.3d at 851. A lawsuit is ripe if the facts are sufficiently developed so that a concrete injury has occurred or is likely to occur, rather than being contingent or remote. See id. at 851-52. A case is not ripe when determining whether there is a concrete injury depends on contingent or hypothetical facts or events that have not yet come to pass. Id.

For more: http://www.estudentaid.com/