A 100% housing requirement? That's entirely unrealistic. Some students cannot and will not live on campus no matter what. Paying to live on campus instead of at your parents' house nearby is an expense that some families simply cannot afford.

For students from other regions, it's sometimes cheaper to live in off-campus dwellings or with relatives nearby. For these people, OP is essentially raising the cost of a college education.

by Eric Fidler on May 6, 2011 9:49 am • link • report

What city planners fail to appreciate are the long term economic benefits of universities on innovation and high quality jobs. Look at places like Boston and Palo Alto -- they have built tech centers on the backs of strong universities that churn out entrepreneurs, engineers, and the jobs that follow. Georgetown residents love Sweetgreen but there would be no Sweetgreen without the Georgetown students who founded it. The most important asset a society can have is an educated workforce and the best way to build that human capital is to have a strong local education pipeline from kindergarten to PhD.

by Falls Church on May 6, 2011 9:57 am • link • report

How do we complain to the Office of Planning? I don't understand how a government body can have such control over a private institution down to the number of beds it has and the number of students it is able to educate. Absolutely ridiculous.

by Adam L on May 6, 2011 10:05 am • link • report

@Eric Fidler Yes, cost is one factor, but this has to be a capacity issue right? Even if they have the ability to house 100% of the students, there is no way the city or the school can keep students from living off campus if they wanted to. The school would have to tie tuition expenses or financial aid to housing. This requirement does nothing to solve the issue that the OP is trying to solve - mainly keeping 20007 student free, as wrong as that is anyways. All it does it put more pressure and cost on the University, and will most likely not change the fact that students like to live off campus for their senior and sometimes junior year.

by Ryan on May 6, 2011 10:06 am • link • report

I would be interested to know if there is any college of comparable size to Georgetown in the entire country that has a 100% on-campus housing requirement.

by MLD on May 6, 2011 10:10 am • link • report

Can you explain what standing the OP has? Is this an enforced requirement? Is this a suggestion that needs to be ratified by the Zoning Commission? What is GU's recourse here?

I find the subject fascinating, but the particular details are somewhat hazy to me. The idea of a legal requirement to have a bed on campus for each student seems absurd..

by J on May 6, 2011 10:10 am • link • report

The Office of Unnecessary Government Interference they ought to call it.

I feel for GU. Here at UMD we have a fair bit of head-butting between the student community and the non-student community, but at least we aren't being forced to all be squeezed onto campus. Here's hoping GU can right this unconscionable wrong and meet a compromise with the residents of the neighborhood.

by Martin on May 6, 2011 10:10 am • link • report

Local students and non-traditional (ie. 25 and older) students who already live in the area certainly aren't going to like this. I actually think that they'd have a pretty good chance of suing the city/university, and winning.

(But, then again, no matter what claims you might make about GU's incredible financial aid, nobody goes there because it's cheap.)

by andrew on May 6, 2011 10:11 am • link • report

MLD, to answer your question, some military academies have 100% housing requirements.

by tom veil on May 6, 2011 10:13 am • link • report

@Eric Fidler - I went to a school where not only was living on campus mandatory, but every student was required to have a full on-campus meal plan. In short, it's not entirely unrealistic. And as far as living in nearby parents' houses, I'm curious exactly which parents in Georgetown can't afford room and board?

and @falls church, it's not clear to me how undergraduate housing is related to innovation or business development. Without support, your argument is specious.

Based on this article, it seems to me that the OP decision can be explained by the reasonable expectation that graduate students pose fewer concerns for the surrounding community than undergrads. And the graduate enrollment cap increase seems to have been accepted, so there are likely to actually be more students living off-campus than currently. I'm not sure why this is such a big deal, really, except that it makes GU build some new dorms. I'm no anti-GU protester, but this seems to me to be a reasonable tradeoff.

by reader on May 6, 2011 10:14 am • link • report

@MLD

I would be interested to know if there is any college of comparable size to Georgetown in the entire country that has a 100% on-campus housing requirement.

The answer to your question is no. Except instead of "of comparable size," it's "of any size."

by Dizzy on May 6, 2011 10:14 am • link • report

GU and GW can't even be mentioned in the same breadth as Harvard and MIT (and even BU) in terms of student lead innovation. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence. I think living social is the only viable startup I've seen in DC. Maybe Blackboard. Most of the rest are in VA. I'm not even sure they're leadership is related to any of the local universities, but it's still two companies. What these universities turn out is high functioning government bureaucrats nothing else. And no one's going to write off GU/GW because of their undergraduate housing requirements.

However, both of these MA based colleges have turned Cambridge, Allston, Brighton and parts of Somerville (you too Tufts) into student Ghettos. That's the exact opposite of what the residents of DC want.

In terms of cost, all the university has to do is provide a higher subsidy to ensure students can afford to live on site. However, I'm guessing that the real reason for the interest in off campus housing (as it's been for decades) is the lack of adult supervision to partake in underage drinking and banned drugs without university oversight.

by ahk on May 6, 2011 10:15 am • link • report

@tom veil

MLD, to answer your question, some military academies have 100% housing requirements.

Those are academy policies, not civic/zoning policies. Not that it would ever happen, but if USNA decided it wanted to let some firsties live off campus, there is nothing on the books that would forbid that.

by Dizzy on May 6, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

@Ryan

The school can definitely make all undergrad students live on campus (with limited exceptions) just like they make all freshmen and sophomores live on campus. Some schools make students apply to live off-campus.

Some schools have very restrictive housing policies where students may not live off campus unless they meet certain criteria (they are married, they are the primary caregiver for someone, or they live with a parent: http://goo.gl/FF6ir

by MLD on May 6, 2011 10:17 am • link • report

@ahk

Ah yes. As an undergrad, the only reason I didn't want to live in a 10x10 box and share a bathroom with 30 other people is because I wanted to partake in underage drinking and illegal drugs. Get over yourself.

by Adam L on May 6, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

@reader

I went to a school with similar undergrad housing requirements (nearly 95% of us were on-campus), but the difference was that that was a policy enacted by the college itself. The college chose to make that a requirement; the neighboring jurisdiction did not mandate it. As a private institution, the colleges can mandate whatever housing requirements they want, but they shouldn't have requirements forced upon them by some other government body.

by JS on May 6, 2011 10:26 am • link • report

@MLD ok, so you give me a link to Brevard College, which pardon my ignorance but I have never heard of it. Name me a school which has the national recognition both acedemically and traditionally as G'town that requires 100% of students to live on-campus.

by Ryan on May 6, 2011 10:26 am • link • report

It's pretty standard for Universities to be subject to zoning restrictions, as well as approval of campus plans. Saint Joseph's in PA is undergoing a similar process now, for example. This isn't a case of unwarranted government interference - it's fundamentally the same as OP review for a business development, as far as I can tell. And to be clear, DC law provides for oversight of the university campus plan, but the university puts that plan into action. So GU would have to put in place a policy against off-campus living - and I suspect of course there will be an appeal process etc. even with a "100%" cap.

by reader on May 6, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

I'm no legal scholar, but I definitely have issues with the constitutionality of being compelled to live or not live somewhere.

On the other hand, I wonder how Arlington county could exploit this over time to support a more 24-hr pulse in Rosslyn. I suspect this is already happening, wrt to the orange line corridor generally. Or some students are responding to market forces.

by spookiness on May 6, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

I went to Michigan State, and they have a requirement for all undergrads to live on campus for their first year. There are exceptions for some commuters, but not many. At MSU this is more to make sure the dorms are at or near capacity because they have so many rooms (and a HUGE campus to expand on).

Georgetown residents don't like students. This plays out in every college town. I have never seen this sort of push back though. It could drive undergrads elsewhere.

I hate the way neighbors treat the Universities that they CHOOSE to move close to. Georgetown University was there before you were. Georgetown would not be what it is today without GU. Would they be happier if GU moved into VA or MD and sold their properties to developers who would not have to submit 10 year plans and can build whatever they want within the code? Just saying, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. I think GU is being a responsive and responsible institution and the neighbors want to put the kids in a pen. I would encourage the students to engage in a little civil disobedience - I'm sure they can create a fair amount of havoc if they wanted to.

by dano on May 6, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

Adam L: People who want to weigh in opposing or supporting OP's position should send testimony to the Zoning Commission. To do that, you have to write a letter, print it, sign it, and scan it or fax it.

Email the scan to zcsubmissions@dc.gov or fax it to 202-727-6072. Put at the top that it's in reference to Case No. 10-32, Georgetown University Campus Plan 2011-2020, and whether you support or oppose Georgetown's position (since they are the one filing for something). So if you agree with OP, say oppose; if you disagree with OP, say support.

J: Universities are required to file campus plans with the DC Zoning Commission, a hybrid federal-local body which decides on planning and zoning issues. The ZC holds hearings and then either approves or requires changes to the plan, which legally governs how the university can expand or change.

The DC Office of Planning comments on each Zoning Commission case, giving essentially the DC government's position on the issue; this report was their position on this campus plan case.

by David Alpert on May 6, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

@spookiness - there's no constitutional issue here; nobody is forcing students to go to GU. Moreover, zoning is certainly constitutional, and it's historically a process of separating uses by geographic location. e.g. it is unlawful to live in a commercial space. This is merely an extension of that principle.

That's not to say that there might not be legal challenges here; I'm no expert on the DC human rights act which is noted in the post, and there may be other limitations on zoning decisions that will affect the ultimate outcome.

by reader on May 6, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@Ryan

Err, I'm not trying to prove that it's feasible for Georgetown, in fact earlier I asked the same question that you did.

I was trying to point out that the university CAN, in fact, force its students to live on-campus through policies if it wanted to and could build enough space. You said there's no way the city or the university could keep students from living off-campus if the students want to. That's not true.

That said, I don't think it's really feasible for the university to do so. The people proposing that GU build little dorms on every available square inch of its property apparently don't understand the cost increases that you get from building lots of little dorms over a larger building.

by MLD on May 6, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@reader

This isn't a case of unwarranted government interference - it's fundamentally the same as OP review for a business development, as far as I can tell.

Except in this case, it's more like an ex post facto review: what OP is saying is that the number of undergrads living off-campus that was approved under the 2000 Campus Plan is now no longer ok. It would be like granting a business approval for certain operations, then coming back several years later and saying "well, actually, we don't like your clientele, they're not the sort of people we want in our neighborhood."

by Dizzy on May 6, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

@ David Alpert

Does the OP plan state that the University require 100% capacity or does it state that the University require 100% of its undergrads to live on-campus. I believe this is a huge distinction, and I am not sure legally that OP can require G'town to enact provisions to require students to live on-campus for 4 years, they can only require them to have the capacity. What could happen is that G'town builds more capacity filling the requirement set by OP, and undergrads may still choose to live off-campus. In the end this could turn into a hybrid undergrad-grad living situation. Which may even help graduate students find more affordable housing close to campus.

by Ryan on May 6, 2011 10:40 am • link • report

When i was an undergrad, a friend and i lived off campus because paying rent and shopping at the grocery store saved us each 2k a semester.

by dcseain on May 6, 2011 10:44 am • link • report

Also, Topher, your statements "I believe there are about 1,500 GU undergraduates not living in GU housing" is a little bit misleading. Under the new methodology, the Total Undergraduate Main Campus headcount includes students studying abroad, as well as students who are explicitly commuter students and not living anywhere near Georgetown. So while they're not living on-campus, they're not living anywhere off-campus that impacts the university's neighbors. They were never going to be taking up one of the currently available 5,053 spots on-campus as it is, so it's ludicrous for OP to say that the university should be required to have a spot for them on-campus.

by Dizzy on May 6, 2011 10:44 am • link • report

@ reader

I wasn't referring to the housing issue, I was referring to the cap on the number of students. As for support, I don't have any data handy but I think it's clear that strong universities create the kind of workforce that lead to high quality local jobs and a strong local economy. Examples aside from Boston and Palo Alto include Ithaca (Cornell), Madison (Wisconsin), Austin, Princeton NJ, and Charlottesville. You might cite places like New Haven as a counter example but I think New Haven would be a lot worse off without Yale.

@ahk

Part of the reason why the startups are in VA and not DC is that VA nurtures its universities while DC could care less. There are few times I agree with Gov. McDonnell but his effort to increase the number of Science/Engineering graduates in VA by 100,000 is laudable and will help secure a bright future for the state. VA Tech may not be MIT but there are still tons of Hokies in NOVA creating jobs and innovating. Businesses founded by Georgetown alums include Corporate Executive Board, K ST lobbying shops, and law firms -- all of which are at the heart of the DC economy.

by Falls Church on May 6, 2011 10:50 am • link • report

Did OP even call the other universities it mentions to find out what their housing policies are?

They wrote:
However, many universities of competitive standard to Georgetown house 100% of their students on campus. Harvard, MIT and Princeton are among other universities that require all of their undergraduate students to live on campus.

Reality check: NOT ONE of those three institutions requires you to live on campus for all 4 years of undergrad. All of them PROVIDE housing for all 4 years but you don't have to live there.

by MLD on May 6, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

It appears to me that the office of planning is entirely beholden to the ANC and neighbors.

It continues to amaze me that a large and prestigious university (presumably with a crack legal team) cannot gain an inch against these narrowminded stooges of the well-connected neighbors.

Topher, great post.

by James on May 6, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

I don't know, if I was a prospective student looking at GU and was told I have to live on campus for all four years, a campus in the middle of a city no less, that would be a big check mark in the negative column.

GU students really need to work on building support from local businesses along with residents who see the advantage of living in a vibrant neighborhood. Perhaps some sinage that says "we support GU" might be effective.

This is all kind of ridiculous led by a small number of people with too much time on their hands and a group of residents who can't see beyond thair front yard.

It's blatant discrimination.

by cmc on May 6, 2011 11:16 am • link • report

Gray is on the kojo show coming up: you can tweet questions to the show for gray @kojoshow sorry I don't know how to link to a twitter account

by Ryan on May 6, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

@Ryan:

http://twitter.com/#!/kojoshow

by oboe on May 6, 2011 11:21 am • link • report

Lets be honest here any arguement about what students want while valid is the last thing the people making this decision care about.

- Students that would chose to go somewhere else becasue of this requirement. Georgetown has a long list of applicants who can take their place. And for all we know some students may like this idea.
- Students who are aginst the idea now. Who cares they will be gone in 4 years by the time this kicks in.

Not saying I am for or aginst the policy, but this is the reality of the situation.

by Matt R on May 6, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

Thanks oboe

@ Matt R

Your only half correct in my opinion. The city does not really care about the opinion of students, but the University should. Yes there is a long list of students who want to go to G'town, but it might possibly have an impact on what type of student/person would go there. The University does and should care about the opinion of its students and therefore they should fight this. The actions of the University not just in this case but in general is directly tied to applications, enrollment, and also alumni pride and giving.

by Ryan on May 6, 2011 11:33 am • link • report

This is absolutely absurd. Exactly why the DC government feels the need to harass one of its largest non-governmental employers is beyond me.

The Office of Planning is basically forcing the University to expand elsewhere - and if they think elsewhere will be another location in the District, instead of Arlington VA, they are fooling themselves. I'm sure Arlington would appreciate the boost to employment and retail sales in the area.

On another note, this report almost reads like a farce. What I don't understand is why the Office of Planning did not hold back its ire - if only to ensure that whatever plan they put forward had a high chance of being upheld in court. Instead, OP might as well have written the university a letter reading "sue us, please." The cash-strapped DC government will now have another decade long litigation awaiting it.

I agree with earlier posts - enrollments may be capped, but the only way Georgetown can house all its undergraduates on campus is by slashing the undergraduate population (assuming they don't find some office tower in Rosslyn at prohibitive expense), which means that staff get cut at every level. Can a zoning board really tell the university to go slash payroll by a sizable amount?

by Mark on May 6, 2011 11:40 am • link • report

"I hate the way neighbors treat the Universities that they CHOOSE to move close to. Georgetown University was there before you were."

GU is certainly an asset to the area, and I have no opinion on whether all undergrads should be required over time to live on campus. But let's not stretch this argument too far. No one is forcing Georgetown to change the status quo. Rather, Georgetown itself proposes to expand, and housing all, or at least nearly all, undergraduates on campus is part of the conversation as the school seeks approvals to grow. The argument above only makes sense if one moves next to an institution and starts complaining about how it's always operated. But it can't be used to bootstrap all future expansion. If that institution seeks to expand its enrollment or its operations by a material amount then, yes, it has to submit a process that seeks to mitigate the impact of that change on the community. And the community is certainly entitled to be part of that process.

by Bob on May 6, 2011 11:49 am • link • report

@Mark

Great point. Attacking the university and its students is very much attacking DC's economy. With population trends beginning to climb upward, more people are choosing to stay in the District for the long-term and making the investments neccesary that boost small business and the school system.

by cmc on May 6, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

This is absolutely absurd. Exactly why the DC government feels the need to harass one of its largest non-governmental employers is beyond me.

GU is, in fact, the largest non-governmental employer in the District.

No one is forcing Georgetown to change the status quo. Rather, Georgetown itself proposes to expand, and housing all, or at least nearly all, undergraduates on campus is part of the conversation as the school seeks approvals to grow.

Not quite, Bob - the University is not proposing ANY growth in traditional undergraduates. They are not asking to change the status quo - OP is arguing that the previously agreed to status quo be overturned.

by Dizzy on May 6, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report

Why don't they just say that all new student growth needs to be housed on campus?

Forcing student population which is currently living off-campus onto campus seems like an unjustifiable revision of the status quo.

by student on May 6, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report

Though it seems counterintuitive, I've have always been puzzled by the neighborhoods insistence on the strict campus boundaries. In my experience the biggest complaints come from non-campus townhouses that are decrepit, poorly maintained, unpoliced etc.. This is a result of absentee landlords more often than students (gtown townhouses are 'relatively' well maintained/pretty strict trash rules/have RA's) I know that the residents are loath to give an inch to the university, but allowing the university to take over from some terrible terrible landlords would do everyone a favor. I know it's easier for the neighborhood to complain to the school instead of individual landlords, but they are where the problem lies mainly.

It seems to me if gtown had more control over the townhouses students live in the situation would be better all around even if complains didnt go down (they never do seem satisfied)

the neighborhood can never stop students walking down prospect or N late at night, M street will always draw them. Might as well fix what can be fixed.

That said .. it will never happen.

by alum on May 6, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report

Daddy buys daughter a condo near GT -- presto! a commuter undergrad that does not have to live on campus. After graduating, daddy sells condo at nearly the buying cost, and avoids all those mandatory on-campus housing fees.

What will these new student condos do to the neighborhood?

by goldfish on May 6, 2011 12:26 pm • link • report

on edit to my post above ... i am not puzzled at all that this is their reaction. I mean to say that I think thats a better course of action, but its obvious no one in the neigborhood would admit that or come to that conclusion

by alum on May 6, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report

Why all this concern about students living on campus? It seems foreign not to want to live on campus and not have to put up with complaints from property owners who object to all night partying by GU students. Really, why not live on campus where students party all night long in dorms with the fellow undergrads? Perhaps because the university has rules that all night partying is not allowed and fellow undergrads don't tolerate it. So why do you expect homeowners to tolerate student all night partying?
OP is attempting to put the problems at their source.

by maeve on May 6, 2011 12:44 pm • link • report

The University should mandate that all students establish local residency, register to vote and do so. That would likely change the attitude of whoever represents the university ward to someone a lot more student-friendly.

OK, parts of that are likely impossible, but you get the idea. If GU rebated students $100 to register to vote in DC, and made election day a holiday...

by rnarnarna on May 6, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report

Dizzy -- I thought GWU was the largest non-government employer.

by aaa on May 6, 2011 12:59 pm • link • report

...to follow up on my post above. The parents of GT undergraduates are paying $41k/year tuition. Clearly these are people that can afford condos, and will work the housing market to meet their children's needs. Since they will break even on selling the condo after their son/daughter no longer needs it, buying a condo is a no-brainer for those that can afford it.

So the result of OP policy will be more student condos in the neighborhood.

by goldfish on May 6, 2011 12:59 pm • link • report

I thing the odd thing about this situation is that the city is trying to use zoning to change the status quo, when zoning statues typically grandfather existing uses. If students are already living there, it seems wrong to force them out with zoning.

If there are noise, parking, maintenance problems, etc, those should be fixed with generally applicable statutes and regulations, not by "zoning out" the students.

by student on May 6, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report

Email OP. jennifer.steingasser@dc.gov.

by Contact OP on May 6, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report

There are advantages to living on campus. At UMD the commons are bacicly on campus dorms but are nice like apartments. If the added new space using that method I am sure students would like staying on campus. Though UMD has more free space to put buildings then Georgetown does.

by Matt R on May 6, 2011 1:14 pm • link • report

@maeve: Most students want to live on-campus. 80% of GU undergraduates do. There is a percentage, though, that want to get off-campus, become more independent, etc. They should have this right.

@rnarnarna: Campaign Georgetown did it once without the university. DC Students Speak seems posed to try to do the same.

@aaa: Dizzy appears to be correct: http://dcstudentsspeak.org/2011/02/14/the-strong-economic-benefits-of-dcs-universities/

by JS on May 6, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report

@goldfish

Let's not forget that not all students at Georgetown have rich families and a large amount of money; many students are Georgetown may not be able to afford on-campus housing for four years and may need group housing off-campus to make it through college without going deep into debt.

by Evan on May 6, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report

he parents of GT undergraduates are paying $41k/year tuition. Clearly these are people that can afford condos, and will work the housing market to meet their children's needs. Since they will break even on selling the condo after their son/daughter no longer needs it, buying a condo is a no-brainer for those that can afford it.

Oh please. Financial aid anyone? Half of GU students have financial aid of some sort.

by MLD on May 6, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report

@Evan -- true, not all GT undergraduates come from well-to-do families. But many of them obviously do.

Parents have resources; probably most will have 401k, pension, or a nearly-paid-off house to borrow against. A condo in the neighborhood costs about $250k, with a mortgage payment of about $1500/month, of which about 25% is principal. The interest is tax-deductible, and the sale after graduation will pay back all of the mortgage principal. So the issues are, how do these costs compare to on-campus housing? and can the family afford the 2nd mortgage? If they can, it is easy to see that a condo is a better deal than on-campus rent.

I presume GU will be the one enforcing the on-campus housing rule. Since commuter students relieves GU's need of new dorms, they have no incentive to crack down on this game.

Bottom line, the OP policy will encourage a student condo market. Further, sharper developers will see the need and build cheaper condos.

by goldfish on May 6, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report

@goldfish

I attended a college with an on-campus requirement and there was no "student condo market." First, the campus required commuter students to be living with family, not merely commuting from a property they owned. Second, most students are not settled enough to want to commit to locking themselves into a particular living arrangement for multiple years when they don't know who they want to live with, whether they'll study abroad, where they'll work for the summer, etc. Third, most parents aren't invested enough in student housing to bother buying a condo just so precious can live off-campus when there are suitable on-campus options. Fourth, most students and their parents want to live on-campus for at least two years, so transaction costs (closing/realtors/taxes) are prohibitively costly to buy a place for just a year or two.

While there may be a few student condos, it certainly will never be a market driver.

by student on May 6, 2011 2:38 pm • link • report

@goldfish - Your assumptions about the Georgetown University populace do not seem based in fact, but rather musings on what the "typical Georgetown student" must look like.

I just graduated, and I can tell you, point blank, that your presumptions are incorrect. The mere question you ask, "Can the family afford the 2nd mortgage?" should rule out the vast majority of students. I have not known one individual during my time at Georgetown whose family bought him/her a CONDO during the 4 years they lived there, and the price of land in Georgetown doesn't give much freedom to a developer to build a "cheaper condo" for this assumed new market.

It irks me when people make gross generalizations about a group of people who happen to have one variable in common (attendance at GU). If you can find stats on the economic status of GU students to back your point up, I'd be interested in seeing them.

by recent alum on May 6, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report

This is obviously quite sad. The residents are abusing their local government power at the expense of the larger community.
I know it is a poor substitute, but Georgetown should consider expanding in other parts of town. Tysons is looking for a satellite university for one of its metro stations. SW waterfront or PG could benefit from a campus. Any of these campuses could be dedicated to the sciences or to medicine or anything else that brings community benefit and development.

by MW on May 6, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report

Oh, but why stop with universities? Can we require the Office of Planning to house all of its employees in the OP office building? Will Harriet Tregoning call the top bunk?

Normally OP does very good work, but in this case their request is far too financially burdensome for students and too restrictive and discriminatory for a free society.

by Eric Fidler on May 6, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report

If I was going to build a major university from scratch today, I would develop it as some kind of TOD along a commuter rail line way out in the boonies, and build a town around it. The whole place would be like Irvine, California-effectively a private city.

My hometown of College Station, Texas was once a little like this. At one time, everything like the fire department was part of Texas A&M, and so was the K-12 schools. I went to an A&M Consolidated High School, which actually was run by the university way back in the 1940s. Even today, the airport is owned by the school, and the student shuttle buses serve as the town's public transit.

by TXSteveW on May 6, 2011 3:15 pm • link • report

@student -- in my college nearly everybody moved off-campus before graduating. The desire for an apartment is pretty universal. Fulfilling that is a part of growing up, which is what one should be doing in college.
1. The student condo market depends on the expense of the school. At state universities attended by less-well-off students, not so much. But at the ivies there is indeed a condo market. There are lots of student condos in Cambridge; GU is comparable to this.
2. Obviously I do not know the situation for your (unrevealed) college. But consider the alternatives for the GU administration, when students present a nearby mailing address owned by parent and says that his/her parent is living there. How are they going to check? and since that relieves them of the need to provide a dorm room, why would they?
3. True students live in transient situations. That is because most rent; the few that live in their own condo, by themselves, are not transient. Most undergraduates will not get a condo. However, because of the OP policy, more of them will, because they will not be allowed to rent.
4. True the transactions costs will also limit the number of student condos, as it does already. But preventing undergraduates from renting will greatly increase the desire, and some of them will find a way -- such as buying cheaper condo, joining a co-op, becoming a landlord, or just eating the cost -- to get off-campus.

@recent alum -- the figures I provided are straightforward. Most undergraduates do not want, and cannot afford, a condo because they can rent. But that will change if they cannot rent. My only point here is the OP policy will have the unintended consequence of encouraging a student condo market.

by goldfish on May 6, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report

goldfish: For the record, because students are required to live on-campus their first two years, the university does indeed check to make sure that anyone claiming commuter status (who is a traditional full-time undergrad - not counting veterans or 25+) is living at their parents' primary residence. Presumably, the same policy would be in effect if living off-campus were to be prohibited for everyone other than true commuters.

by Dizzy on May 6, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

What's really interesting about this case is that OP is taking a hard line which is contrary to their usual approach. It must be because there will be no increase in tax revenue for the city due to GU's tax exempt status. Steingasser doesn't have to worry about the developer taking his proposal to another jurisdiction if unhappy with OP's opinion.

by maeve on May 6, 2011 4:04 pm • link • report

Obviously I do not know the situation for your (unrevealed) college. But consider the alternatives for the GU administration, when students present a nearby mailing address owned by parent and says that his/her parent is living there. How are they going to check? and since that relieves them of the need to provide a dorm room, why would they?

At universities where you have to live on campus for the first two years, you have to get a special exemption not to. And they look into it to make sure that your situation is what you say it is.

by MLD on May 6, 2011 4:13 pm • link • report

@Dizzy and MLD -- the ability to circumvent a on-campus living requirement depends on cooperation of the parents. Nearly all parents want their kid to live on campus for the first part of college, so the enforcement of university policy is pretty effective. This will changes if parents want their kid to get off-campus. The simple things that a university can do to verify a primary address are easily thwarted. See "ward 9".

It occurs to me that the 4-year on-campus living requirement will prevent some from attending Georgetown and will cause some upperclassmen to transfer out. The loss of students will hurt the school.

by goldfish on May 6, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report

"What's really interesting about this case is that OP is taking a hard line which is contrary to their usual approach."

What's the chance that this hard line is a result of pressure from the Mayor's office? Many people in the anti-GU crowd were big fundraisers for Gray.

This is not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know the degree to which OP's internal deliberations are subject to political interference.

by Phil on May 6, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report

I'm curious exactly which parents in Georgetown can't afford room and board

and

Clearly these are people that can affort condos, and will work the housing market to meet their children's needs

Mine couldn't. I worked--and it was a better use of **my** financial aid and meager funds to have a kitchen instead of a meal plan.

One of the reasons I chose Georgetown was that I had the flexibility and freedom to live as an adult and make choices that lessened my debt burden. I would have absolutely gone elsewhere if there had been a 100% on-campus requirement, and the city would have lost out on my 15 years (and counting) of tax revenue.

by Dina on May 7, 2011 8:04 pm • link • report

If this rule was enforced, Georgetown could have several options:
If a student wants to live off-campus, then they can not live in DC. Furthermore, due to the cost and restrictions on land in DC, they could build new dorms in VA and MD. That would effectively push the bulk of the student population into Arlington (where many already live in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor) and Potomac/Bethesda MD. Then let the OP explain what would happen with the reduced economic activity from this dynamic population; who else do you think keeps a lot of bars, restaurants, and shops open?

Once again DC government behaves as if the world ends at its borders.

by Smoke_Jaguar4 on May 7, 2011 11:47 pm • link • report

For those who say Georgetown U does not give back to DC:
http://www.georgetown.edu/campus-life/good-citizen.html

by Jasper on May 8, 2011 10:53 pm • link • report

As a GU grad, who lived off-campus for several years, and an attorney in DC, I would be happy to be involved in a coalition of attorneys dedicated to defending the interests of the Georgetown Students on a pro bono basis, and smacking this planning group right back into their dark little hole.

by Tom McCarthy on May 30, 2011 11:44 am • link • report