Rockingham Hall closing lacks foresight

House Editorial

In 1999, the Virginia Department of Transportation announced a proposal to expand Interstate 81 to eight lanes — twice its current size. This expansion could involve demolishing part of JMU's R2 Lot, in addition to the expected demolition of Rockingham Hall.

JMU has decided that, after this year, the residential parts of Rockingham Hall no longer will be a housing option for upperclassmen who wish to remain on campus. The dorm, which was home to about 70 students — as well as some offices — this year, has been a popular choice that offered single rooms and student-accessible parking spaces.

Rockingham is closing for two reasons — the coming highway expansion and the costs required to renovate the building to meet state permit standards. Without renovation, the building will not meet neccessary standards of an occupancy permit as a result of the building's previous use — a Howard-Johnson's motel before JMU bought it three years ago. Motels follow a different set of regulations than dormitories.

Unfortunately for students, JMU made the decision that Rockingham Hall would not reopen next year after housing contracts had been issued and students who had intended to live in Rockingham had made that commitment, foregoing the search for apartments or other off-campus housing.

While JMU did give the opportunity to students to opt out of their contracts without a penalty, it is a difficult task for the roughly 70 students who may have wanted to move into the dorm to search out desirable housing on such short notice — it was March before they received word that Rockingham Hall was closing.

JMU should have anticipated the issues that surround the closing of Rockingham Hall — it was aware of VDOT's planned expansion and should be aware of the state regulations of any building it purchases.

Allowing students to back out of their contracts was a good move by the university, though it was the only reasonable option available. The university could not, logically, expect the students involved to want more typical on-campus housing, especially since there are few guaranteed single rooms such as the ones Rockingham provided.

It was irresponsible of JMU to neglect to anticipate or inform students in a timely manner that this issue was likely to arise, when anyone who knew about VDOT's plans or about state regulations should have been able to surmise as much.

Another facet of the issues surrounding Rockingham Hall is the potential need to relocate the university offices currently located there, some of which already have moved several times.

Hopefully JMU will show more foresight when dealing with this relocation, as well as in dealing with the parking pressures that will result if the highway expansion affects the R2 Lot. It certanly showed a lack of foresight in dealing with the students who had hoped to live in Rockingham Hall next year and now must find last-minute housing for next year.