Vacancies handled in students’ best interest

Foraker is director of UCLA Housing & Hospitality Services.
Hanson is director of the Office of Residential Life.

By Michael Foraker and Alan
Hanson

Recent articles that appeared in the Daily Bruin late last
quarter expressed concern over Housing’s plans for managing
vacant residence halls spaces. At issue was the misconception that
Housing was requiring students with a vacant space in their room to
pay the difference between the cost of a double or triple room or
move during finals week.

In March, on-campus housing residents who lost a roommate or
roommates over the course of the first two quarters were informed
that effective spring quarter, they would be given the following
choices: 1) upgrade their contract to reflect the current number of
roommates, 2) switch to a single room accommodation, 3) accept a
new roommate for spring quarter, or 4) consolidate within their
current building to reflect their contract preference. These
options were presented in an attempt to offer choices to impacted
residents and allow affected residents to self-select their living
situation spring quarter. Options like this are not typically
available to residents and were created this year by the vacancies
that resulted from the mid-year opening of Birch Towers in DeNeve
Plaza.

While filling vacant spaces in the residence halls is important
to ensure equity and financial viability, equally important are
addressing requests to upgrade or transfer to a more desirable
room-type. Many residents were genuinely appreciative that they had
the option to stay in their existing room with their existing
roommate and change their contract type.

As of the first day of spring break of the 216 students notified
in March, over half (113) decided to upgrade their existing
contract, 32 were assigned a roommate in their existing room, and
30 students were matched with other students with similar contracts
on their floor or in their building.

Of the 216 students with vacancies in March, four will be
required to move to another room in their building by the start of
spring quarter. No resident was required to move during finals
week, nor were any students asked to move from one residence hall
to another.

The decision to consolidate residents who chose not to update
their housing preference was made only after lengthy discussions
with representatives from Housing Services and the Office of
Residential Life, both offices that have joint responsibility for
the campus residence hall program.

While there was mixed opinion on the merits of requiring
students to consolidate, the decision was made based on a need to
be equitable on an across-the-board basis with all 7,335 residence
hall students. It is not an equitable option for students to pay
for one contract type and live in another when open spaces exist
that match the student’s contracted preference.

During the fall and winter quarters when a space becomes
available, it is filled with someone from the waiting list or a
current resident who wants to transfer to the open accommodation
type. The residents with a vacant space in their room are usually
not provided an opportunity to change their room to a different
accommodation type, upgrade to a single, or keep the vacant space
in their room. The situation created by the mid-year opening of
DeNeve Plaza provided unique opportunities to the housing team to
address vacancies differently, and to provide opportunities for
those impacted by involving them in their spring quarter
assignment.

In conclusion, given the large number of students who have
self-selected preferred living arrangements and specific roommates
for spring quarter, we remain confident that the decision to manage
spring quarter vacancies in this manner was in the best interests
of the greater number of those living in and paying for on-campus
housing.