Hey, there! Log in / Register
What if students living off campus had to sign leases that included a ban on loud parties?
By adamg on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:21pm
NorthEndWaterfront.com reports city councilors Mike Ross (of course) and Sal LaMattina are working on an idea to "have students sign leases where certain loud party' terms are included." The idea is to then enforce those terms with fines or outright eviction.
Why is NorthEndWaterfront.com reporting on this? Seems the North End might soon have to rename itself East Allston, based on a rising number of complaints about out-of-control parties run by college students (the more enterprising of whom charge admission).
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
ACLU lawsuit in
ACLU lawsuit in 3.....2......1
Okay
Afterall, we all know that people who happen to be apprenticing for plumbing and electrical or living five to an apartment on retail wages or living in properties owned by their grandparents on the family plan never have wild parties where all their suburban friends come in to wreck the place, oh no.
Why not put these terms in all leases? Because it isn't faiiirr shut up! That would make local scumbag connected landlords responsible for something. It might mean that some little local twit running a pay party would get his parents to seek various forms of retribution on some landlord's arse - much safer to scapegoat students and pretend one is doing something.
Just another piece of stupid aimed at reelection, not solving any problems that may actually exist. Another way to make special rules for "those" people certain others dislike, without actually looking at the problems and their causes. After all, people never get elected for solving problems - only for perpetuating them and grandstanding on them.
Wow your angry
I get that you want everyone who is not currently in or a recent graduate of your college to move the hell out of Boston but that's not going to happen.
Have you ever rented a place from a family member? Not only do many people living near you know that family member. Some of them have said family member on speed dial. In my old neighborhood the guy who lived 3 up from my aunt rents out his mother's house. The people next door to the house have his phone number and they will call him when the renters get out of hand. The group he is renting to now know he will show up if they act up.
Some times I read your comments and posts and wonder if you really like living here?
Lets just agree that people who do not respect their neighbors or their neighborhood need some type of control. Be it from a involved property owner, a family member or a legal document.
And now, since I know you despise me, I'm going to log off so you can flame at me to your hearts content. I think I might have misuse a comma some where.
Not angry
Just continuously annoyed at the way that this sort of research-free nonsense brings the entire area down. Not just Boston, the entire area. Somerville and Cambridge can only do so much to pull the area up when Boston thinks it is an island state. Who wants to risk opening a business someplace where city officials regularly single out things by minor types for grandstanding persecution? Who wants to move someplace that already has a reputation for hating on people who are new or different when city officials are constantly finding new types of people to hate on?
Now explain how any of this current grandstanding does anything to solve any established and explored problem? Note that they haven't even quantified the problem with statistics showing firm attribution to student lessees or explained in any concrete way how their "solution" links to any sort of resolution versus current status quo? Note what has been said elsewhere: many leases already bear some party-control language, the problem is not limited to students, people don't always have leases, it isn't clear that students are running the fee parties and the city can't enforce a lease or make a land lord enforce one or include specific language.
Boston needs to face reality and stop playing these little side-show games. It needs to improve transportation, grow some affordable housing, streamline permitting for businesses, and start thinking regionally about growth and participating in regional initiatives if the metro area is to compete for high paying jobs and stable economic growth. Persecuting students in new and different ways each week because it cuts Ross' Viagra bill doesn't seem like a good first step toward any of these long-term viability goals. It just makes us all look stupid and backward and clueless.
simple answer to drinking: enforcement
It would be nice to have better transportation, better permitting etc, however none of those things will actually affect drinking.
You can't teach kids not to drink, you can't educate them out of it, you can't prosperitize them out of it. There is only one example of a school which actually cut down on the student drinking and that was Nebraska.
http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2009/12/uis-alcoho...
And the city will end up in
And the city will end up in court, where it'll lose; with nothing accomplished but wasting the taxpayers money. There's already occupancy and gathering clauses in most leases, but they're unenforceable.
Furthermore, my guess is the problem is with post college kids more, being the North End where rents are upwards of $1100 for a multiple roommate apartment.
Here's an idea Rossy, why don't you man up and tell your constituents that it's either more dorms, or more apartments; and that dorms are much easier to control, put out of the way.
This isn't already the case?
Most leases I've seen previously as a student include a provision regarding disturbances. Never saw it enforced though.
That's My Experience
I've signed leases as a non-student and they contained boilerplate provisions about noise limits and hours and parties and the limits of capacity of the premises and so on. Why students are more or less likely than any other young adults - or even older party culture adults - to hold house parties that are loud and disruptive is pure Mike Ross Idiocy.
I also find it hard to believe that it is only student renters holding entry-fee parties, either ... or that there isn't a fair amount of family-held property being used for said activities either.
Mike Ross is aspiring to win
Mike Ross is aspiring to win Pokaski's title of biggest idiot in Massachusetts politics.
Of all time?
Or just this decade. Cause we have had some real winners.
Is this even legal? I mean, I
Is this even legal? I mean, I know housing discrimination against students or people who look like they might be students is all the rage, but really...
Yes
Students aren't a protected class.
Landlords also will avoid renting to students by requiring that steady monthly income be documented, then stating that a trust fund account statement or student loan letter isn't proof of steady monthly income. They usually can't discriminate based on SOURCE of income, but can say that they require a trail of checks coming in regularly. Some will rent to students who are working their way through school or collecting disability or AFDC but not ones with just loans or just an account.
Who do they think would
Who do they think would enforce it? Do Ross and Lamatina think that maybe the City would then have the right to step in and evict tenants because of such a provision? Maybe in the City's Public Housing but doubtful in the private apartments in Mission Hill and The North End. Nice try though - anything to get your names out there and look like you are doing something has got to be worth a few votes.
Mssrs. Ross and LaMattina should visit the courts sometime
Any such lease provisions would be enforceable only by the landlord. The City would not have standing. This means that everyone would have to rely on the landlord to initiate a summary process proceeding.
I mention this because, as anyone who has ever been through a summary process proceeding will tell you, there is nothing summary about it (particularly if you're the landlord). The natural termination of the lease is likely to come before any eviction (except in the most ridiculous cases). Most landlords are not going to be in a rush to foot the bill to initiate the action, either.
Why do city councillors in a city with a mayor-strong form of government get paid over $70K again?
All things considered
They don't make that much for a city of this size. True some want more and take bribes but that is kind of a given in politics.
The councilors I know are pretty busy guys. They each advocate for their section of the city. Working to save the local library, helping neighborhood watch groups get started. Being our voice in City Hall. I can't get in to see the Mayor, I can get in to see my city Councilman.
No New Clause Required
There are so many urban myths when it comes to landlord/tenant affairs. Mostly they are created to provide landlords with an excuse to do nothing. In the 70s I brought a LL to housing court on behalf of the City because he had rented to prostitutes. I argued that the LL had not properly done his part to uphold the clause that the apt NOT be used for illegal activities. The Court forced the LL had negligently not checked references and forced him to begin eviction and the ladies immediately vacated. I think that this is an approach applicable with some adjustment to the student parties. I doubt that parties would continue once the eviction is started and in the long term the LL is forced to use a higher standard of tenant selection and screening. This happened when Kevin White was Mayor. That kind of work was what was expected. Today's City Hall hardly functions at all.
QED
The city will never go after landlords in these cases; it will always go after students. Students don't vote. Landlords donate to campaigns.