HB 1762
In CommitteeHouse
Higher ed./residence req.
Prohibiting institutions of higher education from requiring students to live on campus.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill prohibits public colleges and universities in Washington from requiring students to live in on-campus housing. It ensures that housing remains optional, even if schools continue to offer dorms and residence halls.
- Bars public colleges and universities in Washington from requiring students to live in on-campus housing or residence halls.
- Applies only to public institutions (e.g., University of Washington, Washington State University, community and technical colleges); does not affect private colleges.
- Allows institutions to continue offering on-campus housing but only as optional, not mandatory, for students.
- Does not prevent schools from setting reasonable housing policies for students who voluntarily choose to live on campus.
Who is affected
- Students at public higher education institutions — Students at public colleges and universities in Washington would no longer be required by their schools to live in on-campus housing (such as dorms or residence halls).
- Public colleges and universities (e.g., UW, WSU, EWU, etc.) — Colleges and universities would lose the ability to enforce mandatory on-campus housing policies, though they could still offer on-campus housing options and encourage (but not require) students to live on campus.
- Families and students seeking affordable housing options — Families and students who rely on affordable on-campus housing may need to find alternative housing arrangements, potentially increasing housing costs or logistics challenges.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Students who prefer independence, have local housing, or need to live with family or partners to reduce costs will no longer be forced into expensive dorms—potentially saving hundreds to thousands of dollars per year, especially for students with dependents or disabilities who need flexible living arrangements.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1The bill strengthens student autonomy and bodily/financial self-determination by preventing institutions from mandating where students reside, aligning with broader trends toward student agency in higher education policy.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1Institutions may innovate in hybrid or off-campus residential programs (e.g., learning communities in apartments, co-ops), potentially expanding housing options for students who thrive outside traditional dorms—though this is speculative and not guaranteed.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1Students with safety concerns (e.g., survivors of domestic violence, LGBTQ+ students in unsupportive dorm environments) may benefit from the ability to live off-campus in safer, affirming settings—though this depends on access to such housing.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1Municipalities may gain flexibility to integrate student housing into broader affordable housing plans, potentially reducing pressure on institutional housing monopolies—but this requires proactive local policy, which is not guaranteed.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1
Potential Concerns (5)
Students from low- and moderate-income households—especially first-year students, transfer students, and those with dependents—may face increased housing insecurity, higher costs, and longer commutes, as affordable on-campus housing options are no longer mandatory and may be reduced by institutions in response to the ban. This disproportionately affects students who rely on dorms for affordability, safety, and proximity to campus, especially in high-cost urban areas like Seattle or Spokane.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1Institutions may reduce or eliminate on-campus housing operations due to lost revenue from mandatory assignments, potentially weakening student engagement, academic persistence, and campus community formation—particularly for first-year and historically underserved students who benefit most from structured residential learning environments.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1Students living off-campus—especially women, international students, and those with limited transportation access—may face increased safety risks due to longer commutes, less secure housing, or neighborhoods with higher crime rates, while institutions lose the ability to ensure baseline safety through controlled residential environments.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1Municipalities and counties hosting public colleges may experience increased pressure on local housing markets, rental enforcement, and public services (e.g., traffic, sanitation, policing) as students disperse into surrounding neighborhoods, potentially straining local resources without corresponding state support.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1On-campus housing staff (e.g., resident advisors, facilities, dining, security) may face reduced hours or job losses if institutions scale back residential operations, though some may be shifted to off-campus partnerships—net impact is likely modest negative for student-facing service workers at public institutions.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income and first-generation students—especially those with dependents or disabilities—are most likely to be negatively impacted, as they often rely on affordable, safe, and convenient on-campus housing; the ban removes a key affordability lever and may increase their housing cost burden and commute stress.
While some students gain flexibility, many will face higher housing costs, reduced campus engagement, and safety concerns—especially those without local networks or transportation. Institutions may reduce housing capacity, indirectly limiting options for those who still want dorms.
Universities lose a tool to support student retention and community building; they may face revenue loss from reduced housing demand and increased operational complexity if they shift to voluntary-only models. Some may cut housing entirely, worsening affordability for remaining students.
Municipalities may see increased demand for off-campus rentals, straining local housing stock and services. Without state support, cities may need to absorb costs for student-related infrastructure or enforcement, especially in college towns like Pullman or Bellingham.
Landlords and property managers near campuses may benefit from increased student rental demand, but may also face turnover, short-term leases, and compliance challenges. The net effect is modestly positive for large property firms, less so for small landlords.