I never understood why US universities have so many more rights over their tenants than other landlords. Why do they have the right to terminate what's effectively a rental agreement with only a week's notice?
I don't get it either. It was especially irritating at my university because the dorms were several thousand dollars a semester more expensive than larger, better apartments nearby, but they were the worst landlords I ever had. They would kick me out all the time, while still charging me rent. During finals week you had to be gone within 24 hours of taking your last final or be fined. If schools in the US aren't going to be free, they should at least be held to the same laws that other institutions that provide the same services are.
Surely they had better things to do than to try to figure out when people had their finals and check door-to-door every day to make sure people left when they should?
What's stopping you from lying and saying that all your classes have finals on Friday? It seems kind of stupid that they'll deprive you of a dorm you paid for because of how your schedule is laid out…
most schools have some sort of database with everyone's course registration and often finals follow a regular schedule that can be derived from the student's course enrollment. I don't know why they even bother to make students tell the RA. they could just send each student's exam schedule directly to the RA and require some written notice from the professor to document exceptions.
another question is why it even matters. what are they going to do with the fraction of dorms that are empty after the first day of exams that can't wait a few more days?
And the 180 other days the students were there, distracting eachother? Midterms? What about students that have their finals early, just have to have a disadvantage in study environment?
I think the idea was that once students are done with their finals they're going to want to celebrate and relax by throwing parties or drinking and it's best that they don't do that in the dorms and keep people up all night. Personally, I would just prefer students have single dorms so they don't have to worry about a loud roommate.
Regular rentals can "fine" you by retaining the deposit. It used to be the case that universities in the UK would withhold your degree until you paid all fines and charges. I think this was only stopped in the last couple of years.
Oh I guess that gives more power if state ran but someone below this thread mentioned even regular apartments will fine you... and I assumed by regular apartments they mean private then.
They also don't charge me rent after that day passes. The finals at my school were from Saturday till the next Friday. So whether your finals were on Saturday or on the next Friday, it still cost the same. It sounds nitpicky, but our rent was about $1500 a month. A lot of students paid $375 to be homeless.
In contract law, there's a concept called force majeure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure), which comes into play when the normal circumstances under which the contract was signed are changed by a sudden, unpredictable event -- the proverbial "act of God."
Most contracts have a force majeure clause, that either releases the parties from their contractual obligations in such an event, or substantially relaxes the penalties for failing to meet those obligations. The idea is, nobody could have seen these circumstances coming, so it's unfair to hold either party to obligations they suddenly find themselves unable to meet.
(Example. I contract with 5,000 people to give them admission to a concert, and then the night before the show an asteroid falls out of the sky onto the stadium I had contracted to hold that concert in. Force majeure means I'm not obligated to put on another show at my own expense despite losing all the money I'd already invested in the first one. It would be unfair to hold me to that promise, since it was invalidated by circumstances no reasonable person could have foreseen.)
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not privy to the precise language in the contracts between universities and students for residential housing. But I feel pretty confident that they have a force majeure clause in them. And seeing as how Massachusetts declared a state of emergency over the coronavirus today (https://www.boston25news.com/news/mass-gov-declares-state-em...), it seems like universities in that commonwealth would have a reasonably strong legal argument for exercising them.
The Economist even wrote about force majeure a couple of weeks ago [1]. Gist was that Chinese firms may use it to void contracts, and Chinese courts may uphold these choices to the frustration of Western companies.
This probably also applies to firms in general now, but the article is specifically about its use in China.
Um, sucks to be them? The fact that doing business in China has no useful legal backstop is quite well known.
It's very hard to be sympathetic to people doing business with or outsourcing to China when that is KNOWN to be basically cashing out now and foisting the consequences/risk off onto your successors.
Western firms are running with no inventory and no contingency. The Taiwan quake several years ago showed that Western business managers suffered no consequences for that so why should they care?
Interesting, also I thought some states don't consider dorms to be residential. So maybe that adds more flexibility for schools. Like I don't think you can use your dorm address on a state ID or driver license?
IANAL either, but force majeure refers to being unable to fulfill a contract. The dorms are still standing and legally habitable so that doesn't really seem to apply here.
They may be "legally habitable" under the normal building codes, but those codes don't take into account the circumstances of a pandemic disease.
MIT has contracted with these students to provide them with housing. Part of their normal obligation under those contracts would be to provide them with housing that offers a reasonably healthy environment. MIT will have by now heard from a lot of Highly Credentialed Experts that, in the circumstances of a widely circulating coronavirus, normal dorm conditions don't provide that reasonably healthy environment anymore -- they instead put students at elevated levels of risk.
So if you're MIT, what do you do? You could say "hey, those dorms up to code!" and keep on housing people in them, sure. But if you do, you open yourself up to lawsuits from outraged parents if those students end up getting sick at greater rates than the overall population. And, when it inevitably comes out in the discovery process of those lawsuits that you were directly warned against doing that by the aforementioned Highly Credentialed Experts -- well, at that point you are boned, my friend, contract or no contract.
Or, alternately, you can point to the declaration of a state of emergency, declare that the dorms aren't fit for habitation under the current circumstances (which, you will take pains to remind everyone, were beyond your ability to predict), and kick the kids out. Yes, it'll suck for the kids, but not as much as drowning in their own fluids would. And if anyone comes after you with a lawsuit when the dust clears, you'll be on a much sturdier position from which to defend your actions.
Hospitalization rate for young people is small but not insignificant, and as Italy is now experiencing if the number of cases overwhelm the healthcare system then many of those who need to be hospitalized will die.
> reasonably strong legal argument for exercising them.
I know terribly little about law. But from what I've seen, tenants have a great deal of rights as to their status quo living conditions. The property is not hazardous to inhabit, clearly their non-student neighbors couldn't be evicted for the same reason. Seems like a court would favor the tenant here unless the university provided evidence from the government that favored their eviction.
I have a hard time believing this is legal. Like 50% of MIT guys live in fraternities. At least my fraternity was owned by the alumni board so I don't know how they can force people out. Especially for the Boston-side fraternities, I can't imagine them enforcing this.
Even the Boston-side fraternities are subject to licensing as dormitories. It’s unlikely FSILG Alumni corporations would kick someone out but it could put the license at risk. If MIT says they’re closing Boston can consider that to be a suspension of the form license.
Aren’t tenant/landlord laws typically set by the state, though-Using your analogy or do I have it backwards? Aside from local zoning laws I don’t quite see the comparison to how a municipality would be able to “call the shots” on something like eviction rules.
Are you referring to Home Rule? I’ve heard of it, had no idea housing laws could be delegated this way; it seems rather problematic for a state to let local municipalities set their own varying and disparate housing laws, that sounds like an administrative nightmare for both entities.
They get the authority from the state. My alma mater University of Maryland had its own police force. They were sworn gun-carrying officers of the law same as the county cops and state troopers.
The same reason any other cop would need guns. Hell, we had a high profile death of an armed MIT police officer not that long ago (Boston bombings). Universities can and do face external threats, so even if the students themselves aren't packing heat (which is itself sometimes the case), there's non-student criminals who cause the same kinds of problems they would anywhere else. I remember there being lots of break-ins, robberies, even some rapes on-campus. UMD is in Prince Georges County, which has some pretty sketchy high-crime areas in it, and students are vulnerable victims.
The university cops are mostly there to protect the students (from off-campus trouble-makers, and also from each other; especially re: alcohol problems).
I have never need an AED device, but I know where the one is in my office and I know how to use it. A gun for a police officer should be the same: they have it and know how to use it, but almost all retire without even once having used it. A gun is almost never needed for police duty, but when it is nothing else will substitute and seconds are counting (police only use a gun when not killing someone fast will make the overall situation worse).
You can say leave it to specialists, but that is the job of the police.
> police only use a gun when not killing someone fast will make the overall situation worse
I'm not sure this is really true. I've seen quite a few news stories about them shooting when it didn't really look like there was any need at all. I think police officers also fairly regularly injure themselves accidentally with their weapons.
I fundamentally don't think a gun is an appropriate tool for a civilian community police force. Batons and electric stunners yes in an emergency if really needed. Actual firearms? Not really appropriate in my opinion.
Many states in the US have laws that specifically exempt colleges and universities from the majority of tenancy protections that regular landlords must abide by.
I heard something like that before, like I guess there's states (maybe most of them?) where you can't use your dorm room on your driver license for some reason. Which seems annoying if you moved across the country and don't intend to return home. or your renewals conflict with other dates when far away.
Massachusetts considers out of state students as residents eligible for jury duty so maybe they should enjoy some more protections in exchange for the public service.
Yeah I heard that, I think they are the only state doing that. If you live there 50% of the year. Sounds kinda a odd thing to do if they aren't domiciled there, but I guess the locals support it. Was reading a random forum thread and sounds like they use more college students than local.
I was researching about domicile before Since the full time RV/digital nomad life interests me and looks like people decide on South Dakota, Texas and Florida or use a friends or family address even if they don't really live with them, and probably the only family member who's stable and I'd trust handling my mail isn't that computer savvy to scan them for me and security concerns - so going to a friendly state and paying a provider makes sense if you are going to get rid of all your stuff and be a nomad.
Kinda seems like discrimination in a way though. Some couple who retired sold their house and bought a RV and ran into issues with their state's DMV, so they had to hurry up change to a friendly one, but I guess their former state loses out more then they did anyways since they saved a lot of money since the new state has no income tax, and cheaper registration and insurance. Then homeless people or abused people escaping from their partner or family can struggle to get all their documents. I guess some DMVs were telling elderly people their birth certificates were no longer good and they had to buy new ones and wait.
Then also seems a form of voter suppression, some county in Florida said people who are homeless, living in a van, rv or boat wasn't allowed to vote. I'm a fan of one person, one vote though but seems like they need a better system for IDs. Also wouldn't surprise me if some workers would give you trouble for printed bank or credit card statements since so many people are paperless... Oh the DMV is such a annoying place, I think maybe could be right below going to the dentist. I know both Texas and Florida have online renewals every other renewal too, so sounds like when moving maybe factor in the DMV along with other things. Then Texas even offers online driving school too where you can take your permit test online even, so they seem maybe one of the more advanced states.
Still have that dream of full time travel though but building up passive income online would be needed, right now I think I rather focus on a startup and find a city I'd love like maybe Austin or Miami, warmer, focus on being happier - then travel a few weeks a year which would be way more vacation I have now.
