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?
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?
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.
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.
I keep reading that the casualty rate for young people is miniscule. It's the nursing homes that are being decimated, no?
This probably also applies to firms in general now, but the article is specifically about its use in China.
[1] https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/22/chinese-firms-...
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?
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.
—a former mit fraternity president
Universities are their own small towns - they provide food, housing, have police forces, a large staff, etc.
Put it the other way around, does it make more sense for a city official to be calling the shots, when campuses have their own special context?
Literally their own police forces? How does that work? Where do they get the authority to be police from? Who are they sworn to?
The university cops are mostly there to protect the students (from off-campus trouble-makers, and also from each other; especially re: alcohol problems).
So, none. Regular police routinely carrying guns is crazy. Leave it to specialists. You don’t need a gun to police a place of learning.
You can say leave it to specialists, but that is the job of the police.
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.
However that issue is unrelated what I was talking about.
And it's solved by not giving ordinary police officers guns to carry around.
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.