The University of Hawaii’s faculty housing program has ventured so far afield from its mission of providing short-term lodging for professors new to the islands that the overdue refocus on that goal is sure to be financially painful for long-time tenants who have benefited from the Board of Regents’ lax enforcement of its own policies. Some of the tenants have grown so dependent on the taxpayer-subsidized, below-market rent in desirable Honolulu neighborhoods that they feel entitled to a perk that eludes the vast majority of their university colleagues — not to mention public employees in general or the everyday working resident.

So the regents’ decision to enforce time limits on rental leases for the first time in two decades has ignited an outcry among some of the 160 university employees expected to vacate subsidized housing with their families in the coming months. We sympathize with individual stories of house-hunting hardship, because there’s no doubt that decent, affordable homes are scarce on Oahu, to rent or to buy. Still, many UH employees have dwelled too long in units envisioned as transitional housing, making the BOR’s belated move not only necessary, but in the best interests of the university and of the broader community it serves.

The current stock of faculty housing should be a short-term bridge for newcomers, a temporary bonus for sought-after faculty relocating here — not permanent public housing for a lucky few within a generally well-compensated professional class. There are competing interests here, and the BOR has made the right call.

With so many tenants settling in for the long term, rather than saving to buy their own homes or seeking alternative rentals, UH has meager space to offer shining scholars for whom an inexpensive apartment in a lovely Manoa neighborhood close to the university would be fine inducement, or, at the very least, reassurance for those who want to come here but are put off by Honolulu’s cost of living, which is among the very highest in the United States.

UH deans and directors have for years cited the lack of available faculty housing as a significant impediment to new-faculty recruitment. That claim has merit, and underpins the argument that the university needs more dedicated housing stock, similar to the subdivisions where faculty of the University of California-Irvine live. Faculty-union leaders have advocated that model to no avail, so far. The idea of building more faculty housing was rightly a non-starter as long as UH squandered the recruiting potential of its current housing stock by keeping the Manoa Valley and Dole Street units full of long-term tenants, paying roughly half what they might on the open market; 70 percent of current tenants have been in residence for three years or more and some will never attain tenure.

The Board of Regents voted unanimously in April to reinforce existing rules that limit residents to one-year leases, and added a new provision that allows annual renewals for up to three years only for tenured and tenure-track faculty. Three years should be ample time for new faculty to settle in, get the lay of the land and find their own places, exiting in a timely fashion so the apartment opens up for the next coveted professor. Prioritizing disbursement of the units increases their value as a recruiting tool for top-notch faculty.

The updated policy allows the UH president to grant exceptions to the three-year limit on a case-by-case basis. The president should exercise this discretion rarely, lest allegations of favoritism arise or long-term residence again becomes the norm. UH’s valuable housing benefit, held by so few, must be reserved as a short-term option for the new arrivals who deserve it most.