Hey, there! Log in / Register
So where would the students go?
By adamg on Wed, 02/20/2008 - 8:07am
The city council is considering an ordinance (proposed by councilor Michael Ross, who represents a student-heavy district) that would prohibit more than four students from living in an apartment. Michael Pahre provides background on the issue. The Allston Civic Association will discuss the issue at a meeting tonight, starting at 6 p.m. at the Honan Allston Library, 300 North Harvard St.
Free tagging:
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
Councilor Ross sponsored it, not Councilor Ciommo
For clarification, the petition was by Councilor Ross (not jointly with Councilor) Ciommo, and was submitted in the fall before Ciommo took office.
Fixed
Thanks.
Huh?
Why does this make sense? Instead of devoting resources to starting a new program, why don't we devote those resources to inforcing our old program? It seems to me that the issue is parties and dirty yards, not people living together. We already empower the police to break up parties and fine people for dirty yards, but the problem is that the police are over whelmed and under funded. I think that if we start this new initiative, all we will have is two underfunded programs that only half work. Let's combine our efforts into one program that does work!
The rule that only a certain number of students can live together also seems to be counter productive to the efforts to ensure that more homes are available to families in the sense that students are often willing to pay more to live in an area near schools than families are, and now students will need more housing to fit in to.
Hail Mary Pass
It's a Hail Mary pass. Yes, the problem is that the police are overwhelmed and under-funded. But fixing that would cost money. Passing new legislation is cheap. So they're going to huck this law up towards the end zone and pray it accomplishes something.
Technically the town where I
Technically the town where I went to college (Ithaca, NY) had a similar rule. And it was routinely dismissed by rental agents and landlords as ancient and discriminatory.
They once tried it in Wellesley
But Town Meeting voted it down because it would have prevented a prominent local family from maintaining their servants' quarters.
Pre-review?
I would think that any such ordinance would be reviewed prior to submission for it's constitutionality. Of course the city lawyer is just going to regurgitate an opinion that conforms to the views of whoever he or she sees as a patron, not the likely outcome of an expensive and contentious law suit against the city for blatant discrimination.
Lets see exactly how this one gets differentially enforced against varying categories of student. Boston, this one's going to cost ya!
Who do they think they are?
Allston can't discriminate against students! Its not like they're Brookline!
...Or Newton...
When I was first looking for apartments in Boston in 2000, I found a nice old 3 story house in Newton Center with very reasonable rent. The landlords showed it to me and it had 2 kitchens, about 10 people in the place and room for 2 more, I think. They explained nothing about the living situation and I went home to consider the place. I took it having found nothing as good elsewhere (not knowing about craigslist yet), but ended up running afoul of their "parent waiver for college students" (I was a 24 year old grad student at the time with my own stipend and money and had no need to co-sign with my parents).
This ended up being a good thing however, because I then found the landlords' names on an old news article online. They had continually shoved multiple students into large single homes in Newton. Frequently, the end result of their practice was completely unruly tenants having huge house parties, resulting in damage to neighbors' houses and inanity such as toilets ending up in the front yard. Sure, this could have all been rectified by enforcement of established laws, but it did nothing to prevent the lowering of property values around these "college slums" that were developing. So, Newton enacted a 6-per-rental law (I think it's 6, anyways). The house I had seen avoided this by calling the single house a 2-unit rental (why there were 2 kitchens, etc) and putting 12 people back in the house. There was noise of defining the unit structure better to include properties as units and avoid this "half-house" definition which still allowed them to house 12 people together...leading to the over-concentration of stupid that led to all the problems before.
So, for me, I'm glad I ended up taking issue with how they were considering me a "college student" (and not an independent grad student) because it kept me out of one of their Victorian slums. But reading the stories about how college students would abuse the neighborhoods because people would turn the houses into party centrals and take little care regarding their neighbors, I can appreciate why Allston would also have similar concerns. I also think that in 1-2 years all of this would likely go away in large part due to both BC and BU's attempts to gather up their students into their new dorm projects.
How about limiting to 4 students
per freakin' building?
Define Student
A poster above already described teh stupidity of a 24 year old needing a signature from a parent to get a freaking apartment.
How are you going to define student? Any black or gay person taking night classes, even if they are 50 years old? Any person any body doesn't happen to like? Would that mean a family with 4 kids going to UMB would have to split up, especially if mom or dad was working on a undergrad or graduate degree at night? Does it count if I have a summer or coop job and am not otherwise enrolled when I move in? What about corporations that bunk 4 or 5 into a summer sublet to take management training courses? Will this be based on area of origin? How can you do that without running afoul of sensible non-descrimination rules?
In other words, this is discrimination that will likely be used for discrimination.
Students are not a protected
Students are not a protected class under federal or state law.
Once more with a little reading comprehension ...
Please define "student".
Now, try to define "student" in a way that does not run afoul of multiple other "protected classes", both state and federal, and the entire body of Massachusetts state law and court rulings regarding tenancy and housing discrimination.
The proposed ordinance
The proposed ordinance precludes "a group of five (5) or more students enrolled at or attending a post-secondary educational institution" from being considered a family for occupancy purposes. The definition of student seems pretty clear from that. If not, then add a definiton repeating the same thing explicitly as a person enrolled at or attending..etc. It has nothing to do with race, sex, or any other class protected from discrimination. I don't see how this couldn't be written to avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination laws on the books.
Otherwise, please show me how it can't be avoided through the language. I don't really get your point. You're kinda asking me to disprove a negative, imo.
Also, this may be already
Also, this may be already outlined in the proposed ordinance anyway. We can't access them online, which is another issue by itself (paging the Zak!). If you're really concerned beyond just posting on a blog, contact the Councilor's office to get a copy. I'm sure they wouldn't mind more input. I personally don't have a problem with the proposal so I'm not inclined to do so. Lawyers do look at this stuff before it's codified and also Councilor Ross himself is an attorney. Additionally, the city law department will not just greenlight something because the Council wants it. The Council has a staff attorney that gives strictly legal advice as well.
"Protected Classes" a Red Herring, Rob
There is a huge weight of both case law and Massachusetts housing laws that seem liable to violation here. In essence, you are saying that you are okay with it if the city discriminates against people soley because of their perceived occupation. There isn't even a "full-time" or "out of state home of record" or "juvenile" or "undergraduate" status here. Take a single course and you could get tossed out on your ass. That is really ripe for abuse, and totally against everything I've ever read when I was a tenant.
What next? No military members? No nurses or doctors? Oh - btw, how are medical residents classified? Is Boston really going to forcebly close close-by boarding arrangements for medical residents because they are nominally "students"?
"Massachusetts law prohibits
"Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, ancestry, military background or service, sex, sexual preference, marital status, blindness, deafness, or the need of a guide dog, except owner-occupied two family dwellings (M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4)." That's from the MA Consumer Affairs website. Students are not covered I'm pretty certain. They can choose to not rent to you if you're a student and there's nothing that can be done about it. As far as I know, the city can also set regulations regarding student housing under the same premise as well as its ability to set zoning and occupancy. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I didn't write the law. Take it up with your legislators since you have obvious policy differences. That's all I got on this.
What is your problem with students, anyway?
If the issue is overcrowding, change the state mandated sq ft per person limits.
If the issue is misbehavior, enforce the laws.
If the issue anti-intellectual townie pissings, see above. This thing will be lawsuit city - either when they start evicting law students, or when they preferentially target specific persons.
It will probably trigger a
It will probably trigger a lawsuit, I agree with that. I just don't think it will go anywhere. Beyond that, I have zero problem with students, especially because I am one. I just think it's better for all parties involved to get rid of these massive party houses that annoy neighbors, aren't safe for the students living there, and let the landlords make money in a very shifty and immoral fashion. I respect your disagreement and pretty much am done on my end.
Glad I don't Live in Boston
I was a graduate student, we had a part-time student living downstairs (with a 75K/yr full-time job), my husband was an at-home parent finishing his bachelors, and my two kids were in school.
We owned our own home, but this still sounds stupid to me.
Furthermore, I have known graduate student couples - we are talking 31, 32 year olds - sharing large houses and an au pair. Not allowed under this foolish ordinance.
Since when have graduate students been an issue? Sounds like they don't care who they trample in their anti-intellectual snitshitfit.
Nothing will change
This is not going to make any difference at all. The city has never done much to enforce limits on the number of people in a unit. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of illegal apartments all over Boston, and nothing is done. Overcrowding is harder to prove than an illegal apartment. Inspectional Services is just not serious about these types of problems.
It will take a tragedy on the order of the Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island for the building department, and the media, to pay attention. Hope it never happens, but that is the record so far.