Is Boston's new student occupancy ordinance unconstitutional?
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Charlie Denison
Apr 8, 2008, 8:56:01 AM4/8/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
Interesting article about Boston's new ordinance limiting households
to no more than 4 unrelated students:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/boston_threatens_property_righ.html
April 06, 2008
Boston Threatens Property Rights
By Richard L. Cravatts
In a move that may prove shortsighted and misguided, the Boston Zoning
Commission, with support from City Councilor Michael Ross and Mayor
Menino, recently enacted an ordinance ostensibly designed to curb the
anti-social behavior of college students who, living as groups in
rental units, are accused of having a negative effect on neighborhoods
with overcrowding, noise, and raucous parties. Additionally, say
families of renters in student-dense neighborhoods, when property
owners rent to groups of students, they are able to charge higher
rents, thus pricing out families who cannot pool their rent resources
in ways students can.
The solution to these problems is a new ordinance which will make it
illegal for landlords to rent to more than four students in a single
rental unit, even, presumably, if existing zoning laws would normally
permit more than that number of individuals to occupy the same unit.
The ordinance permits, for example, families or extended families of
any number to occupy rental units.
This new housing regulation, like rent control before it, attempts to
create some social good -- affordable rental housing, quiet
neighborhoods -- but looks to private property owners to remedy what
should, as a matter of equitable policy, be solutions borne by
taxpayers at large. Having experienced continual pressure from
neighborhood residents and affordable housing activists, City
officials have reacted with a solution riddled with thorny
constitutional questions and issues of practicality and fairness.
The new ordinance stipulates that landlords henceforth will be
enjoined from renting to more than four students in a single dwelling,
the thinking being that larger student households are more likely to
become magnets for parties, rowdiness, and general anti-social
behavior. There is a second, even more troubling, intent of the new
ordinance, however: if property owners can no longer rent to larger
groups of students, it is hoped that rents will thereby be reduced,
making units more affordable to traditional families.
While the ordinance was fashioned with good intentions, and hoped to
address a significant social issue in Boston neighborhoods, there are
some serious flaws in its conception and execution:
* A zoning ordinance that has as one of it objectives to limit the
amount of rent an owner could potentially realize in an unregulated
market, thus reducing his profits and the value of his property, has
been seen by some courts, as it has with rent control, as a "taking"
of private property by the government for "public use, without just
compensation," a violation of the Fifth Amendment. In his 1960
decision in Armstrong v. United States, for instance, Justice Hugo
Black noted that this protection for owners of property "was designed
to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public
burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the
public as a whole." It may seem like a reasonable solution to some
housing advocates and politicians to create rental housing
affordability for non-students by depriving owners of the higher rents
they could charge to students willing to pay them, but they thereby
not only deprive students of equal protection under the law, but also
introduce regulations that are confiscatory, limit the free use of
one's private property, and harm one group of citizens-property owners-
while trying to ameliorate the living situations and economic concerns
of some other groups.
* Landlords legally cannot proscribe or police the private
behavior of tenants -- nor should they have to -- even if it was
permitted by housing law. After the tragic 1988 murder of a Boston
police officer during a drug raid at a rental property, city officials
floated a similarly misguided idea of making property owners liable
for the illegal drug activities of tenants living in their rental
properties. The concept was legally unworkable, for many of the same
reasons that the current proposal involving students will prove
impracticable: landlords are specifically prevented from violating the
privacy rights of their tenants, and do not have the legal ability to
either enter a unit to search for evidence of drug dealing or
determine the personal relationships, status, or lifestyles of their
tenants. College students are not in themselves what the law
recognizes as a "protected class" -- that is, a group whose rights are
specifically protected from discrimination in housing -- but how would
a property owner deal with a group of more than four students who
wished to rent a unit and happened also to be minorities, or
physically handicapped, or members of other protected tenant groups?
* The courts have also repeatedly asserted that tenants, when they
live in units that conform to zoning regulations, are entitled to an
expectation of privacy from government intrusion, something they
seemingly would be denied if Boston officials can prevent them from
living together merely because they happen to be college students. In
his dissent in a 1974 case in which the town of Belle Terre, New York
had enacted a similar provision to restrict the number of unrelated
students who could occupy a rental unit, Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall suggested that "Zoning officials may restrict the
use of land, but may not properly restrict who the persons living on
land may be, 'what they believe, or how they choose to live.'" "That
decision," he concluded, alluding to Louis Brandeis' own reverence for
the necessity of government to "leave citizens alone," "surely falls
within the ambit of the right to privacy protected by the
Constitution."
* While the Boston ordinance specifically prevents more than four
college students, and only students from living together in a unit, it
will allow families, even extended families, to occupy the same units
that will now be unavailable to students. That is a very broad and
cynical determination that assumes that all students are inherently
more likely to be bad neighbors than, say, a related group of illegal
immigrants, or five employed motorcycle gang members, or even a
conventional family with six vehicles, loud and destructive teenagers,
and a propensity for weekly beer-infused barbecues in the backyard.
Justice Marshall saw the same inherent unfairness in the Belle Terre
statute, since it denied equal protection to all citizens and
discriminated
"on the basis of just such a personal lifestyle choice as to
household companions. It permit[ed] any number of persons related by
blood or marriage, be it two or twenty, to live in a single household,
but it limit[ed] . . . the number of unrelated persons bound by
profession, love, friendship, religious or political affiliation, or
mere economics who can occupy a single home."
* There are other measures to address the social problem of rowdy
student behavior which are more practical to implement and less
intrusive than regulations which have tended to harm, rather than
ameliorate, housing markets. If students misbehave and become
nuisances in their rental units, why make property owners bear the
burden for this anti-social activity? Existing public nuisance laws
and noise ordinances give police and other officials the ability to
punish offenders with civil violations. Instead of blaming a landlord
for providing living space for a group, why not fine or punish the
students themselves if they break the law, just as we would for any
group that became a nuisance in a neighborhood? Why not enlist the
universities in putting pressure on off-campus students who regularly
misbehave, with the threat of sanctions, holding back of transcripts,
and, if necessary, expulsion? And what about the students' parents,
who, as is generally the case, co-sign their leases and have both a
financial and legal responsibility to insure that their children have
trouble-free tenancies
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., advertising and publications manager at
law firm Nixon Peabody LLP, writes frequently about real estate
development, affordable housing, and banking.
to no more than 4 unrelated students:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/boston_threatens_property_righ.html
April 06, 2008
Boston Threatens Property Rights
By Richard L. Cravatts
In a move that may prove shortsighted and misguided, the Boston Zoning
Commission, with support from City Councilor Michael Ross and Mayor
Menino, recently enacted an ordinance ostensibly designed to curb the
anti-social behavior of college students who, living as groups in
rental units, are accused of having a negative effect on neighborhoods
with overcrowding, noise, and raucous parties. Additionally, say
families of renters in student-dense neighborhoods, when property
owners rent to groups of students, they are able to charge higher
rents, thus pricing out families who cannot pool their rent resources
in ways students can.
The solution to these problems is a new ordinance which will make it
illegal for landlords to rent to more than four students in a single
rental unit, even, presumably, if existing zoning laws would normally
permit more than that number of individuals to occupy the same unit.
The ordinance permits, for example, families or extended families of
any number to occupy rental units.
This new housing regulation, like rent control before it, attempts to
create some social good -- affordable rental housing, quiet
neighborhoods -- but looks to private property owners to remedy what
should, as a matter of equitable policy, be solutions borne by
taxpayers at large. Having experienced continual pressure from
neighborhood residents and affordable housing activists, City
officials have reacted with a solution riddled with thorny
constitutional questions and issues of practicality and fairness.
The new ordinance stipulates that landlords henceforth will be
enjoined from renting to more than four students in a single dwelling,
the thinking being that larger student households are more likely to
become magnets for parties, rowdiness, and general anti-social
behavior. There is a second, even more troubling, intent of the new
ordinance, however: if property owners can no longer rent to larger
groups of students, it is hoped that rents will thereby be reduced,
making units more affordable to traditional families.
While the ordinance was fashioned with good intentions, and hoped to
address a significant social issue in Boston neighborhoods, there are
some serious flaws in its conception and execution:
* A zoning ordinance that has as one of it objectives to limit the
amount of rent an owner could potentially realize in an unregulated
market, thus reducing his profits and the value of his property, has
been seen by some courts, as it has with rent control, as a "taking"
of private property by the government for "public use, without just
compensation," a violation of the Fifth Amendment. In his 1960
decision in Armstrong v. United States, for instance, Justice Hugo
Black noted that this protection for owners of property "was designed
to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public
burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the
public as a whole." It may seem like a reasonable solution to some
housing advocates and politicians to create rental housing
affordability for non-students by depriving owners of the higher rents
they could charge to students willing to pay them, but they thereby
not only deprive students of equal protection under the law, but also
introduce regulations that are confiscatory, limit the free use of
one's private property, and harm one group of citizens-property owners-
while trying to ameliorate the living situations and economic concerns
of some other groups.
* Landlords legally cannot proscribe or police the private
behavior of tenants -- nor should they have to -- even if it was
permitted by housing law. After the tragic 1988 murder of a Boston
police officer during a drug raid at a rental property, city officials
floated a similarly misguided idea of making property owners liable
for the illegal drug activities of tenants living in their rental
properties. The concept was legally unworkable, for many of the same
reasons that the current proposal involving students will prove
impracticable: landlords are specifically prevented from violating the
privacy rights of their tenants, and do not have the legal ability to
either enter a unit to search for evidence of drug dealing or
determine the personal relationships, status, or lifestyles of their
tenants. College students are not in themselves what the law
recognizes as a "protected class" -- that is, a group whose rights are
specifically protected from discrimination in housing -- but how would
a property owner deal with a group of more than four students who
wished to rent a unit and happened also to be minorities, or
physically handicapped, or members of other protected tenant groups?
* The courts have also repeatedly asserted that tenants, when they
live in units that conform to zoning regulations, are entitled to an
expectation of privacy from government intrusion, something they
seemingly would be denied if Boston officials can prevent them from
living together merely because they happen to be college students. In
his dissent in a 1974 case in which the town of Belle Terre, New York
had enacted a similar provision to restrict the number of unrelated
students who could occupy a rental unit, Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall suggested that "Zoning officials may restrict the
use of land, but may not properly restrict who the persons living on
land may be, 'what they believe, or how they choose to live.'" "That
decision," he concluded, alluding to Louis Brandeis' own reverence for
the necessity of government to "leave citizens alone," "surely falls
within the ambit of the right to privacy protected by the
Constitution."
* While the Boston ordinance specifically prevents more than four
college students, and only students from living together in a unit, it
will allow families, even extended families, to occupy the same units
that will now be unavailable to students. That is a very broad and
cynical determination that assumes that all students are inherently
more likely to be bad neighbors than, say, a related group of illegal
immigrants, or five employed motorcycle gang members, or even a
conventional family with six vehicles, loud and destructive teenagers,
and a propensity for weekly beer-infused barbecues in the backyard.
Justice Marshall saw the same inherent unfairness in the Belle Terre
statute, since it denied equal protection to all citizens and
discriminated
"on the basis of just such a personal lifestyle choice as to
household companions. It permit[ed] any number of persons related by
blood or marriage, be it two or twenty, to live in a single household,
but it limit[ed] . . . the number of unrelated persons bound by
profession, love, friendship, religious or political affiliation, or
mere economics who can occupy a single home."
* There are other measures to address the social problem of rowdy
student behavior which are more practical to implement and less
intrusive than regulations which have tended to harm, rather than
ameliorate, housing markets. If students misbehave and become
nuisances in their rental units, why make property owners bear the
burden for this anti-social activity? Existing public nuisance laws
and noise ordinances give police and other officials the ability to
punish offenders with civil violations. Instead of blaming a landlord
for providing living space for a group, why not fine or punish the
students themselves if they break the law, just as we would for any
group that became a nuisance in a neighborhood? Why not enlist the
universities in putting pressure on off-campus students who regularly
misbehave, with the threat of sanctions, holding back of transcripts,
and, if necessary, expulsion? And what about the students' parents,
who, as is generally the case, co-sign their leases and have both a
financial and legal responsibility to insure that their children have
trouble-free tenancies
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., advertising and publications manager at
law firm Nixon Peabody LLP, writes frequently about real estate
development, affordable housing, and banking.
Jim Creamer
Apr 9, 2008, 6:59:42 AM4/9/08
to AllstonBrighton2006, Charlie Denison
Frankly, I find little interesting in the article, which I think is biased
toward landlords and betrays a libertarian slant by those who insist
government at large and taxpayers must bear the burden of the problems that
the market and landlords create.
toward landlords and betrays a libertarian slant by those who insist
government at large and taxpayers must bear the burden of the problems that
the market and landlords create.
Landlords might as well be saying we had nothing to do with this! It's
another seemingly reasonable argument for laissez faire treatment of a
seller's market, particularly in the student housing areas. But there are no
thorny constitutional issues. The issues are well settled. Rent, eviction
and condominium conversion control is settled and is, and stood
constitutional tests. Condominium conversion of four or more units is still
regulated by law in Boston and Massachusetts.
Rent control was voted out of Boston, not by Boston residents or voters
where rent control existed, but narrowly and by a vast expenditure of
private landlord money to fool the rest of the state into believing it was
wrong. Rent control came out of the abuses in the housing market during and
after World War II. I believe as long as you have abuse by the powerful over
the less powerful, it is the role of government to step in and moderate.
Government has the power to regulate for health and safety.
As Thomas Jefferson said on TV the other night, and much earlier in time, if
we were all angels, there would be no need for government. And as an ancient
rabbi once said, and forgive me as I paraphrase this, pray for the welfare
of the state, for without it, men would eat each other alive.
I was a student in Allston and Brighton in the 60s. We partied hearty, we
played loud music and drank and did other things. But parties did not take
over neighborhoods as it has in South Allston, bordered by Harvard Ave,
Brighton Ave and BU. We did not live in converted built for family houses
made attractive by landlords deciding to rent to 10-15 people in one unit.
You might as well call these houses Frat houses but without a fraternity
offering some semblance of control.
There is a good reason to call Allston Rock City now. It's the city that
never sleeps. But still, it's time students and others woke up and saw who
the real problem is-the guy offering them a lease, or should I say leash?
If landlords don't police themselves, they deserve what they get.
Jim Creamer
Charlie Denison
Apr 9, 2008, 8:18:30 AM4/9/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
Great points Jim.
Disruptive partying and ever-increasing rents due to many people
sharing one apartment is most definitely a problem in Allston-
Brighton, one worth trying to address. There are a few things that
bother me about the ordinance as it was passed, however.
Why limit it just to students? Why not apply to all unrelated people,
regardless of academic status?
Also, why set a hard limit of 4? As others have mentioned, what
happens with houses that have more than 4 bedrooms, for example?
Would it be more appropriate to set the limit based on the number of
bedrooms?
In general, though, I have not yet even been convinced that the
ordinance will have the desired effects at all. Will rents go down
because fewer people can share one apartment or will they go up
because now there are fewer options for the same number of people?
Will it curb loud partying at all, or will this still take place
anyways?
I am just very reluctant to limit where and who people can live with
when the effects are so unclear. There are many other ways to deal
with loud parties and other undesirable behavior by ALL people, not
just students, without limiting their choices of who they live with.
Charlie
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/boston_threatens_property_righ...
> ...
>
> read more »
Disruptive partying and ever-increasing rents due to many people
sharing one apartment is most definitely a problem in Allston-
Brighton, one worth trying to address. There are a few things that
bother me about the ordinance as it was passed, however.
Why limit it just to students? Why not apply to all unrelated people,
regardless of academic status?
Also, why set a hard limit of 4? As others have mentioned, what
happens with houses that have more than 4 bedrooms, for example?
Would it be more appropriate to set the limit based on the number of
bedrooms?
In general, though, I have not yet even been convinced that the
ordinance will have the desired effects at all. Will rents go down
because fewer people can share one apartment or will they go up
because now there are fewer options for the same number of people?
Will it curb loud partying at all, or will this still take place
anyways?
I am just very reluctant to limit where and who people can live with
when the effects are so unclear. There are many other ways to deal
with loud parties and other undesirable behavior by ALL people, not
just students, without limiting their choices of who they live with.
Charlie
>
> read more »
AngelaT
Apr 9, 2008, 8:31:20 AM4/9/08
to Charlie Denison, AllstonBrighton2006
It is nightmare for us as family of five with three children that have
neighbors/students/young adults partied hearty, play loud music and
drink.
neighbors/students/young adults partied hearty, play loud music and
drink.
Thanks God that Jim was not our neighbor: "that we partied hearty, we
> played loud music and drank and did other things."
Otherwise, we'll need call the police every night.
Best,
Angela
Alex Selvig
Apr 9, 2008, 11:07:37 AM4/9/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
Charlie,
Thanks for posting this. My guess is that this article is part of a
campaign by the speculator landlords to get the zoning change
reversed.
I have studied this amendment, followed it's progress closely, and
stood up and spoke in favor of it at City Hall.
At no point was rent control discussed, or even hinted at by anyone
other than the real estate speculators who are lining their pockets
with cash at the expense of our quality of life. Mention is of rent
control is a scare tactic.
Alex Selvig
www.AlexSelvig.com
On Apr 8, 7:56 am, Charlie Denison <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Interesting article about Boston's new ordinance limiting households
> to no more than 4 unrelated students:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/boston_threatens_property_righ...
Thanks for posting this. My guess is that this article is part of a
campaign by the speculator landlords to get the zoning change
reversed.
I have studied this amendment, followed it's progress closely, and
stood up and spoke in favor of it at City Hall.
At no point was rent control discussed, or even hinted at by anyone
other than the real estate speculators who are lining their pockets
with cash at the expense of our quality of life. Mention is of rent
control is a scare tactic.
Alex Selvig
www.AlexSelvig.com
On Apr 8, 7:56 am, Charlie Denison <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Interesting article about Boston's new ordinance limiting households
> to no more than 4 unrelated students:
>
AngelaT
Apr 9, 2008, 11:30:37 AM4/9/08
to Alex Selvig, AllstonBrighton2006
Thanks Alex for standing up and spoke in favor of it at City Hall.
My neighbors full of college students and/or young adults who, living as groups in rental units, having parties until 2 and or 3 am definitively have negative effect on our neighborhoods with overcrowding, noise, and raucous parties. How can our residents have quality of life while the college students/young adults do not respect our neighbors?
Angela
-----Original Message-----
From: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Selvig
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:08 AM
To: AllstonBrighton2006
Subject: [AB2006] Re: Is Boston's new student occupancy ordinance unconstitutional?
Charlie Denison
Apr 9, 2008, 12:49:02 PM4/9/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
Exactly. I think trying to "connect" young people to their
neighborhoods and instill a sense of pride and responsibility for
where they live is key. I don't know how best to do this, but I think
there needs to be more opportunities for young people to interact with
other residents, whether it be older folks, families, etc., as well as
business owners.
This is starting to happen now in Allston. A group of BU students
started a new organization called Keep Allston Decent, that has
regular cleanups of their neighborhood and the business district.
They've reached out to other local organizations such as Allston
Village Main Streets and PCGC, which hosts regular Ringer Park
cleanups, both of which have gladly partnered with them. This is
exactly the type of thing that needs to happen.
In some ways, however, I think the new ordinance very much works
counter to this, by setting up an us vs them situation. What
motivation do young people have to do the right thing when those in
charge keep vilifying them and blaming them for the neighborhoods'
problems? Will students and young people step up and improve their
behavior or will they simply dig their feet in and say "screw 'em"?
Charlie
neighborhoods and instill a sense of pride and responsibility for
where they live is key. I don't know how best to do this, but I think
there needs to be more opportunities for young people to interact with
other residents, whether it be older folks, families, etc., as well as
business owners.
This is starting to happen now in Allston. A group of BU students
started a new organization called Keep Allston Decent, that has
regular cleanups of their neighborhood and the business district.
They've reached out to other local organizations such as Allston
Village Main Streets and PCGC, which hosts regular Ringer Park
cleanups, both of which have gladly partnered with them. This is
exactly the type of thing that needs to happen.
In some ways, however, I think the new ordinance very much works
counter to this, by setting up an us vs them situation. What
motivation do young people have to do the right thing when those in
charge keep vilifying them and blaming them for the neighborhoods'
problems? Will students and young people step up and improve their
behavior or will they simply dig their feet in and say "screw 'em"?
Charlie
Greg Lyons
Apr 9, 2008, 8:04:00 PM4/9/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
I agree with Angela's remarks. It is really irritating to be wakened at two
in the morning by loud carousing college students. A single family home was
torn down next to me and two huge buildings with twenty four bedrooms total
were put in in its place. I was glad to see the new ordinance because
having a potential dormitory right next door would be more than I could
bear. There are certainly many good and studious college students, but
having attended a Boston college I have to say that the badly behaved ones
seem to out number the well behaved ones...
L. McDonough Allston
in the morning by loud carousing college students. A single family home was
torn down next to me and two huge buildings with twenty four bedrooms total
were put in in its place. I was glad to see the new ordinance because
having a potential dormitory right next door would be more than I could
bear. There are certainly many good and studious college students, but
having attended a Boston college I have to say that the badly behaved ones
seem to out number the well behaved ones...
L. McDonough Allston
Clamp, Christina
Apr 9, 2008, 2:25:04 PM4/9/08
to Charlie Denison, AllstonBrighton2006
I came to Boston for graduate school at BC. I lived in the neighborhood in resident owned housing throughout my studies. While here, I became involved with working on Tom Gallagher's campaign. It was a great way to learn about the community and ultimately, got me involved for and motivated to live here after I graduated.
I think that service learning opportunities with local groups as well as opportunities to be active in local politics can be a great way to engage students.
C.Clamp
From: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Charlie Denison
Sent: Wed 4/9/2008 12:49 PM
To: AllstonBrighton2006
Subject: [QUAR] [AB2006] Re: Is Boston's new student occupancy ordinance unconstitutional?
Joan Pasquale
Apr 10, 2008, 12:56:27 AM4/10/08
to Charlie Denison, allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Charlie:
I work side by side with college students all of the time and they know that they are welcome to join everything that we do. We have worked on many projects together, but it truly concerns me when students are telling me that they pay $700 a month and sleep on a mattress in a hallway beside a stairwell. My own daughter in looking for an apartment was shown many properties in which she was expected to pay $700 - $900 a month for a room in a house, with a padlock on the outside of the door. She was shown these properties yet had clearly stated that she was looking for an apartment - preferably a studio. These kids are being taken advantage of, and the quality of their life as a result is poor. If the Dorm rent is too high, or there isn't enough of it, then what are these kids supposed to do - and is it fair that they should have to live in substandard housing as a result. I don't have a problem with the students. I have a problem with the lack of responsibility to house the students properly that the colleges exercise. It's not fair to the kids. Granted they are choosing to attend these colleges, but for the price that they pay for tuition - they should have better living conditions available for them when they arrive. It's only fair!
My concerns are always for my Neighbors, my Neighborhood and my Community. These kids are my Neighbors, and I will argue the point that I am disgusted by the fact that they live in substandard housing conditions, and feel trapped by the fact that they cannot afford anything else. I care about and respect my Neighbors, and I am tired of seeing these students victimized by a lack of affordable, quality housing. Something affirmative needs to be done. If it takes Zoning, or lobbying for Affordable Campus Housing to do it - then we should be doing something to make that happen.
Re:The parties. Is anyone remembering what they were like at 18-20?! If you develop a relationship with your younger neighbors as we have, you will soon see a difference in their relationship to their neighborhood and their neighbors. People who are welcomed into a neighborhood will often return the respectfull kindness. It is also their Neighborhood, their place of Residency, their Town. I don't have a problem with Students as Neighbors - I have a problem with seeing their homes which are in total disrepair. I have a problem with their being charged outrageous amounts for rent. I have a problem with knowing that many of them can't afford to eat properly because of the cost of their rent. I have a problem with the lack of responsibility that the colleges seem to have for these students regarding their housing situation, and I feel very strongly that something needs to be done. But please don't ever misinterpret my statements as negative feelings for the student population. I would be expressing the same opinion, if these students were middle-aged or elderly. I am expressing my disappointment that my Student Neighbor's needs and quality of life issues are being neglected. The Colleges need to provide better housing for their students.
Joan Pasquale, Executive Director
The Parents & Community Build Group, Inc. (PCBG,Inc.)
The Ringer Park Partnership Group (RPPG)
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:49:02 -0700
I work side by side with college students all of the time and they know that they are welcome to join everything that we do. We have worked on many projects together, but it truly concerns me when students are telling me that they pay $700 a month and sleep on a mattress in a hallway beside a stairwell. My own daughter in looking for an apartment was shown many properties in which she was expected to pay $700 - $900 a month for a room in a house, with a padlock on the outside of the door. She was shown these properties yet had clearly stated that she was looking for an apartment - preferably a studio. These kids are being taken advantage of, and the quality of their life as a result is poor. If the Dorm rent is too high, or there isn't enough of it, then what are these kids supposed to do - and is it fair that they should have to live in substandard housing as a result. I don't have a problem with the students. I have a problem with the lack of responsibility to house the students properly that the colleges exercise. It's not fair to the kids. Granted they are choosing to attend these colleges, but for the price that they pay for tuition - they should have better living conditions available for them when they arrive. It's only fair!
My concerns are always for my Neighbors, my Neighborhood and my Community. These kids are my Neighbors, and I will argue the point that I am disgusted by the fact that they live in substandard housing conditions, and feel trapped by the fact that they cannot afford anything else. I care about and respect my Neighbors, and I am tired of seeing these students victimized by a lack of affordable, quality housing. Something affirmative needs to be done. If it takes Zoning, or lobbying for Affordable Campus Housing to do it - then we should be doing something to make that happen.
Re:The parties. Is anyone remembering what they were like at 18-20?! If you develop a relationship with your younger neighbors as we have, you will soon see a difference in their relationship to their neighborhood and their neighbors. People who are welcomed into a neighborhood will often return the respectfull kindness. It is also their Neighborhood, their place of Residency, their Town. I don't have a problem with Students as Neighbors - I have a problem with seeing their homes which are in total disrepair. I have a problem with their being charged outrageous amounts for rent. I have a problem with knowing that many of them can't afford to eat properly because of the cost of their rent. I have a problem with the lack of responsibility that the colleges seem to have for these students regarding their housing situation, and I feel very strongly that something needs to be done. But please don't ever misinterpret my statements as negative feelings for the student population. I would be expressing the same opinion, if these students were middle-aged or elderly. I am expressing my disappointment that my Student Neighbor's needs and quality of life issues are being neglected. The Colleges need to provide better housing for their students.
Joan Pasquale, Executive Director
The Parents & Community Build Group, Inc. (PCBG,Inc.)
The Ringer Park Partnership Group (RPPG)
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:49:02 -0700
> Subject: [AB2006] Re: Is Boston's new student occupancy ordinance unconstitutional?
Kit Baum
Apr 11, 2008, 4:44:27 PM4/11/08
to Joan Pasquale, Charlie Denison, allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
On Apr 10, 2008, at 24:56 , Joan Pasquale wrote:
> If the Dorm rent is too high, or there isn't enough of it, then
> what are these kids supposed to do - and is it fair that they
> should have to live in substandard housing as a result. I don't
> have a problem with the students. I have a problem with the lack of
> responsibility to house the students properly that the colleges
> exercise. It's not fair to the kids. Granted they are choosing to
> attend these colleges, but for the price that they pay for tuition
> - they should have better living conditions available for them when
> they arrive. It's only fair!
> The Colleges need to provide better housing for their students.
The dorm rent at BC is not too high, in the sense that many students
who do not have four years of housing guaranteed would gladly move on
campus if there were space. But if we in A-B want that to happen, we
have to allow the dorms to be built. Saying NO to dorms on Brighton
under any circumstances and NO to dorms on Shea Field is not the
bargaining stance that can achieve that result. There just isn't
enough space to house everybody on BC's lower campus unless something
like 2000 Comm Ave is erected, and that isn't going to happen (for
one thing, it's filled reservoir land, so building mass is an issue).
If we in the neighborhood want BC to increase on-campus housing, we
have to negotiate constructively to ensure, for instance, that
anything built on the Brighton land is well insulated from the Lake
St., Foster St., Glenmont Ave. abutters. But that can be done if an
unconditional NO becomes 'maybe, under the right conditions.'
Kit Baum
Oak Square, Brighton
trenchesf...@riseup.net
Apr 11, 2008, 5:23:33 PM4/11/08
to allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Just to chime in, I think what Joan said was spot on. As a college
student myself, I'd much prefer to live in a neighborhood with a diverse
crowd of people than in a dorm (which, I don't know about BC, but for my
school is way out of most of our price range). And housing costs isnt
just an issue for college kids, its an issue for almost everyone.
Landlords often assume (and often correctly) that they can get more
money out of college students so they raise the price. When this happens
every one looses out, as long-time residents, workers, families,
immigrants and students alike are priced out.
Joan mentioned building community in order to give students a sense of
responsibility to the community that they are a part of. This is an
important point. Instead of calling the cops on kids having a party, if
neighbors are first friendly and inviting and say, "hey kid, most of us
have to work and cant stay up 'till 3am!," I think most college kids
would understand this and tone it down after hours. And more
importantly, if they see their neighbors are people who respect them,
then maybe they wil respect their homes as well, not leave trash
everywhere and etc. This process should be applied to all of our
neighbors, instead of calling the cops or other officials on each other
for every little annoyance or code infraction, we should talk like to
each other normal humans!
Now about the cost of rent, this issue is the responsibility of the
colleges, but also of the landlords who seem to get increasingly
greedy. The colleges and other developers constantly contribute to the
gentrification of neighborhoods, and the landlords (at least the bigger
ones) gladly play their part by raising rent or evicting current
tenants to make room for luxury condos.
This needs to be stopped, and it can only be stopped by neighbors like
us getting together, building a stronger community and defending each
other. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that landlords are
scared of rent control. Well, to bad, let's bring it back!
As the economy gets worse and worse, we will continue to be forced out
of our homes, and we need to get ready to help each other out. Look at
Dorchester, where neighbors have resolved to defending each other from
evictions caused by loan foreclosure! This is the kind of solidarity we
need for our neighborhoods to survive this period of economic
depression and institutional land-grabbing. Demonizing students or
immigrants or any other easily scape-goatable and voiceless group will
not get us anywhere. We know who is responsible for the destruction of
our neighborhoods, they are the only ones with the money enough to do
it. We need to unite as neighbors in defense of our neighborhood.
-Jake Carman
The Allston/Brighton Neighborhood Assembly
student myself, I'd much prefer to live in a neighborhood with a diverse
crowd of people than in a dorm (which, I don't know about BC, but for my
school is way out of most of our price range). And housing costs isnt
just an issue for college kids, its an issue for almost everyone.
Landlords often assume (and often correctly) that they can get more
money out of college students so they raise the price. When this happens
every one looses out, as long-time residents, workers, families,
immigrants and students alike are priced out.
Joan mentioned building community in order to give students a sense of
responsibility to the community that they are a part of. This is an
important point. Instead of calling the cops on kids having a party, if
neighbors are first friendly and inviting and say, "hey kid, most of us
have to work and cant stay up 'till 3am!," I think most college kids
would understand this and tone it down after hours. And more
importantly, if they see their neighbors are people who respect them,
then maybe they wil respect their homes as well, not leave trash
everywhere and etc. This process should be applied to all of our
neighbors, instead of calling the cops or other officials on each other
for every little annoyance or code infraction, we should talk like to
each other normal humans!
Now about the cost of rent, this issue is the responsibility of the
colleges, but also of the landlords who seem to get increasingly
greedy. The colleges and other developers constantly contribute to the
gentrification of neighborhoods, and the landlords (at least the bigger
ones) gladly play their part by raising rent or evicting current
tenants to make room for luxury condos.
This needs to be stopped, and it can only be stopped by neighbors like
us getting together, building a stronger community and defending each
other. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that landlords are
scared of rent control. Well, to bad, let's bring it back!
As the economy gets worse and worse, we will continue to be forced out
of our homes, and we need to get ready to help each other out. Look at
Dorchester, where neighbors have resolved to defending each other from
evictions caused by loan foreclosure! This is the kind of solidarity we
need for our neighborhoods to survive this period of economic
depression and institutional land-grabbing. Demonizing students or
immigrants or any other easily scape-goatable and voiceless group will
not get us anywhere. We know who is responsible for the destruction of
our neighborhoods, they are the only ones with the money enough to do
it. We need to unite as neighbors in defense of our neighborhood.
-Jake Carman
The Allston/Brighton Neighborhood Assembly
brighton resident
Apr 12, 2008, 8:38:26 AM4/12/08
to Kit Baum, Joan Pasquale, Charlie Denison, allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Oh Please - it is simply not true that in order to house all students on the
middle campus a "Reservoir Tower" would need to be built. You can review
the many statements submitted to the BRA by interested parties in regards to
B.C.'s recent I.M.P.N.F. in regards to this. B.C. does not need to remove
the 790 beds at Edmonds to put new dorms on Shea Field or Brighton Campus.
Please. Where are you coming from? And by the way - in regards to 2000
Comm. Ave., students themselves have commented to me that place is already
"like a dorm". Why is it O.K. for B.C. to "house" their students there and
not on campus? Why is it o.k. to leave the ramshakle "temporary" mods for
the next ten years and not remove those for denser Housing? Where are you
coming from? Oak Square? So the Reservoir and the Brighton Campus is not
even your front, back, or side yard? I'm really upset about this pardon me.
middle campus a "Reservoir Tower" would need to be built. You can review
the many statements submitted to the BRA by interested parties in regards to
B.C.'s recent I.M.P.N.F. in regards to this. B.C. does not need to remove
the 790 beds at Edmonds to put new dorms on Shea Field or Brighton Campus.
Please. Where are you coming from? And by the way - in regards to 2000
Comm. Ave., students themselves have commented to me that place is already
"like a dorm". Why is it O.K. for B.C. to "house" their students there and
not on campus? Why is it o.k. to leave the ramshakle "temporary" mods for
the next ten years and not remove those for denser Housing? Where are you
coming from? Oak Square? So the Reservoir and the Brighton Campus is not
even your front, back, or side yard? I'm really upset about this pardon me.
> From: Kit Baum <kit...@mac.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:44:27 -0400
> To: Joan Pasquale <jpasqu...@hotmail.com>, Charlie Denison
> <cden...@comcast.net>
> Cc: "AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com"
> <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [AB2006] Re: Is Boston's new student occupancy ordinance
> unconstitutional?
>
>
>
Kit Baum
Apr 12, 2008, 9:07:16 AM4/12/08
to brighton resident, allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
I'm sorry to hear that you are anonymously upset. Personally, I think
living in the neighborhood (even if I do not live on the other side
of the road from BC's property) makes me an interested party. We in
Oak Square are all more or less directly affected by these issues. We
have noise at 3 AM from student parties across the street, and a lot
of racket when the neighborhood bars close. We had a softball-size
rock thrown through a very large old window one night. The cops never
found out who did that, and it _might_ not have been drunken students
heading out at closing time, but...
living in the neighborhood (even if I do not live on the other side
of the road from BC's property) makes me an interested party. We in
Oak Square are all more or less directly affected by these issues. We
have noise at 3 AM from student parties across the street, and a lot
of racket when the neighborhood bars close. We had a softball-size
rock thrown through a very large old window one night. The cops never
found out who did that, and it _might_ not have been drunken students
heading out at closing time, but...
I do not know why BC is insisting that some of the "Mods" should be
kept for a number of years. Personally, I think that the entire area
of the "Mods" should be converted to low-rise (no more than 4-5
story) housing with green space. I do understand why BC wants to tear
down a older high-rise dorm; student housing in that sort of
accommodation is as obsolete a concept as high-rise low-income
housing projects. The lower campus footprint can accommodate some
fraction of the desirable increase in on-campus student beds --
especially if the "Mods" space is used more efficiently -- but I
think that if the neighborhood goal is to get the highest percentage
of students living on campus, some additional options must be
explored. The percentage need never be 100%, because an increasing
fraction of students go on foreign study for one or two semesters.
But as a neighbor (even if not an abutter) I am all for pushing that
percentage to the level where every student who can be enticed to
live on campus will choose to do so, and not live (and, often, be
exploited by landlords) in the neighborhood.
Kit Baum
Oak Square
brighton resident
Apr 12, 2008, 9:47:47 AM4/12/08
to Kit Baum, allstonbr...@googlegroups.com
Mike Pahre (bless his heart) has written about how Harvard has "highrise"
house system dorms that work great. Reading about that, and also in
consideration of how bringing dorms to the Conservation Protection
Subdistrict of the now Brighton Campus as B.C. has proposed to do, which
appears to require the removal of the beautiful stone walls that line Comm.
Ave., and the removal of numerous healthy mature trees and rock
outcroppings, strikes me a a very poor idea. Additionally, the foot traffic
from the Newton Campus to Middle Campus at the corner of Beacon and Hammond
is non-stop all day long. It is very hard to make a right hand turn in a
car onto Hammond from Beacon there any time of day. So B.C. proposes a
"skywalk" to connect new dorms that will blockbust the entire Historic
Commonwealth Avenue. entryway to Boston as a good remedy to their "housing"
problem? Hello?????
house system dorms that work great. Reading about that, and also in
consideration of how bringing dorms to the Conservation Protection
Subdistrict of the now Brighton Campus as B.C. has proposed to do, which
appears to require the removal of the beautiful stone walls that line Comm.
Ave., and the removal of numerous healthy mature trees and rock
outcroppings, strikes me a a very poor idea. Additionally, the foot traffic
from the Newton Campus to Middle Campus at the corner of Beacon and Hammond
is non-stop all day long. It is very hard to make a right hand turn in a
car onto Hammond from Beacon there any time of day. So B.C. proposes a
"skywalk" to connect new dorms that will blockbust the entire Historic
Commonwealth Avenue. entryway to Boston as a good remedy to their "housing"
problem? Hello?????
My greatest objection to dorms at Shea field is the obvious result that then
the baseball playfield will of course no longer have room there, so that now
as also proposed in B.C.'s I.M.P.N.F. the field needs to be located in close
proximity (we're talking very close here) to the very densely populated
residential neighborhoods of Foster, Lane Park, Anslem Terrac, and Foster.
Oh and of course B.C. plans to enlarge their current playfield(s) (softball
too) to accommodate a stadium(s) for 2,000 spectators. Another terrible
idea!! To me it is obvious why this is such a bad idea - a no brainer bad
idea!!!!. Others have written intellectually and in great length as to why
this is a bad idea - again their comments are on the BRA web site.
I appreciate your opinions and the opportunity to communicate with you -
"protected" as I am anonymously - and will continue to respectfully disagree
with you Kit.
Excuse me while I go plant a tree to help grow Boston Greener. Oh and
thanks B.C. for providing the office space for these folks in Higgins Hall.
Eva Webster
Apr 12, 2008, 6:12:57 PM4/12/08
to brighton resident, Kit Baum, AllstonBrighton2006
On 4/12/08 9:47 AM, "brighton resident" <brighton...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Excuse me while I go plant a tree to help grow Boston Greener. Oh and
> thanks B.C. for providing the office space for these folks in Higgins Hall.
Which folks? What is BC providing space for in Higgins Hall? (and, while at it, where is Higgins?)
I thought the tree planting initiative was a City effort. What does BC have to do with it, if I may ask. I’ll be happy to learn if they are helping with tree plantings, but that message was unclear.
Kit Baum
Apr 13, 2008, 8:29:46 AM4/13/08
to Eva Webster, AllstonBrighton2006
Eva,
The link may be between Boston Greener and BC probably relates to the
Environmental Studies program at BC:
http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/envstudies/
"maps and directions" link on that page will point out Higgins
Hall, one of the science buildings on the main campus, overlooking
the lower campus.
BC hosts the Urban Ecology Institute on the Law School (Newton)
campus, which is a Boston Greener partner:
Best wishes
Kit Baum
Oak Square School
brighton resident
Apr 13, 2008, 8:52:34 AM4/13/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
As I understand it, the "Grow Boston Greener" effort is a
collaboration between the Urban Ecology Institute and the City of
Boston. Again, as I understand it, it is the non-profit group called
the Urban Ecology Institute that approached the City of Boston to join
them in an effort to increase the tree canopy over Boston from
something like 28% (current) to 35% in the next several years. There
have been several postings advertising different aspects of this
initiative on this public forums and others recently. I took
advantage of one yesterday. I went to a tree planting demonstration
and received three free trees, one for my property, and one each for
two of my elderly neighbors that I volunteered to plant in their yards
for them. The trees offered for free by the Urban Ecology Institute
to us (and anyone else in Boston - resident or tenant that may be
interested) were as follows: Red Oak (shade tree), Red Maple (shade
tree), Kwanza Cherry (double pink flowers, no fruit), Red Bud (purple
pink flowers), and Flowering Crabapples. Again, these trees are
free. All you have to do is agree to plant them (not on City
property, but on private property in the City) water them, and take
respsonsibility for future maintenance.
It is the Urban Ecology Institute that held the workshop yesterday,
and it is they who gave me the free trees. The Tab was there taking
pictures so there should be an article forthcoming. I say Thank-You
to Boston College because they currently make office space (including
email access) available to the Urban Ecology Institute on their
property at 355 Higgins Hall, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill,
MA 02467. Anyone interested in contacting the Urban Ecology
Institute directly can reach them via phone at 617.552.0592. Their
website is http://www.urbaneco.org
On Apr 12, 6:12 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/12/08 9:47 AM, "brighton resident" <brightonresid...@comcast.net>
collaboration between the Urban Ecology Institute and the City of
Boston. Again, as I understand it, it is the non-profit group called
the Urban Ecology Institute that approached the City of Boston to join
them in an effort to increase the tree canopy over Boston from
something like 28% (current) to 35% in the next several years. There
have been several postings advertising different aspects of this
initiative on this public forums and others recently. I took
advantage of one yesterday. I went to a tree planting demonstration
and received three free trees, one for my property, and one each for
two of my elderly neighbors that I volunteered to plant in their yards
for them. The trees offered for free by the Urban Ecology Institute
to us (and anyone else in Boston - resident or tenant that may be
interested) were as follows: Red Oak (shade tree), Red Maple (shade
tree), Kwanza Cherry (double pink flowers, no fruit), Red Bud (purple
pink flowers), and Flowering Crabapples. Again, these trees are
free. All you have to do is agree to plant them (not on City
property, but on private property in the City) water them, and take
respsonsibility for future maintenance.
It is the Urban Ecology Institute that held the workshop yesterday,
and it is they who gave me the free trees. The Tab was there taking
pictures so there should be an article forthcoming. I say Thank-You
to Boston College because they currently make office space (including
email access) available to the Urban Ecology Institute on their
property at 355 Higgins Hall, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill,
MA 02467. Anyone interested in contacting the Urban Ecology
Institute directly can reach them via phone at 617.552.0592. Their
website is http://www.urbaneco.org
On Apr 12, 6:12 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/12/08 9:47 AM, "brighton resident" <brightonresid...@comcast.net>
Charlie Denison
Apr 15, 2008, 9:18:04 AM4/15/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
A lawsuit has been filed by landlords and a student:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1087116
Suit takes on student rent ban
Crackdown 'unconstitutional'
By Scott Van Voorhis
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Mayor Thomas M. Menino's controversial crackdown on rowdy student
renters could wind up in the legal dustbin just weeks after it was
approved.
Some landlords have teamed up with a local college student to sue City
Hall in a bid to nix new rules that ban more than four students from
living in a single apartment. The rules, the suit contends, unfairly
single out college students.
"The plaintiffs would not be prohibited from leasing the same
properties to five or more age-contemporary Starbucks baristas, only
undergraduate students," according to the suit filed in Massachusetts
Land Court.
The Greater Boston Real Estate Board also is joining the fight,
calling the new housing rules "unconstitutional" and pointing out that
similar measures have been tossed out in other states.
But supporters of the crackdown say it's needed to prevent profit-
hungry landlords from packing houses full of students, driving up
rents and driving out longtime city residents.
"We are losing whole neighborhoods, we are losing whole families who
have lived here for generations," said City Councilor Michael Ross,
who championed the new rules along with Menino. "Government has a role
here."
The lawsuit comes less than a month after Boston zoning officials gave
final approval to the new rules.
Battling City Hall are four landlords, Mark Rosenberg, Anthony Dimeo,
Lazarus Pavlidis and Lloyd Rosenthal, who all bought homes in Allston
and Brighton over the past two decades with plans to rent them out to
students.
Now, they say they find themselves operating illegally because the new
rules didn't even grandfather in existing rental agreements.
In their suit, the landlords admit to renting out homes or units to
anywhere from five to eight students at a time. But they point out
that the student renters have more square feet of living space than is
required under state health codes.
Jessica Luccio, who lives with eight other students in a rental in the
city, also has joined in the suit. She argues that, under the new
rules, she faces an unfair restriction on who she can rent an
apartment with in the city.
Luccio and the landlords may have legal precedent on their side.
A Maryland court struck down a similar housing law, while a California
court nixed a law in that state that attempted to impose age
restrictions on various rental properties, according to the Greater
Boston Real Estate Board.
But Councilor Ross said the city isn't backing down.
"I believe we are on solid legal ground and that we will prevail,"
Ross said.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1087116
Suit takes on student rent ban
Crackdown 'unconstitutional'
By Scott Van Voorhis
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Mayor Thomas M. Menino's controversial crackdown on rowdy student
renters could wind up in the legal dustbin just weeks after it was
approved.
Some landlords have teamed up with a local college student to sue City
Hall in a bid to nix new rules that ban more than four students from
living in a single apartment. The rules, the suit contends, unfairly
single out college students.
"The plaintiffs would not be prohibited from leasing the same
properties to five or more age-contemporary Starbucks baristas, only
undergraduate students," according to the suit filed in Massachusetts
Land Court.
The Greater Boston Real Estate Board also is joining the fight,
calling the new housing rules "unconstitutional" and pointing out that
similar measures have been tossed out in other states.
But supporters of the crackdown say it's needed to prevent profit-
hungry landlords from packing houses full of students, driving up
rents and driving out longtime city residents.
"We are losing whole neighborhoods, we are losing whole families who
have lived here for generations," said City Councilor Michael Ross,
who championed the new rules along with Menino. "Government has a role
here."
The lawsuit comes less than a month after Boston zoning officials gave
final approval to the new rules.
Battling City Hall are four landlords, Mark Rosenberg, Anthony Dimeo,
Lazarus Pavlidis and Lloyd Rosenthal, who all bought homes in Allston
and Brighton over the past two decades with plans to rent them out to
students.
Now, they say they find themselves operating illegally because the new
rules didn't even grandfather in existing rental agreements.
In their suit, the landlords admit to renting out homes or units to
anywhere from five to eight students at a time. But they point out
that the student renters have more square feet of living space than is
required under state health codes.
Jessica Luccio, who lives with eight other students in a rental in the
city, also has joined in the suit. She argues that, under the new
rules, she faces an unfair restriction on who she can rent an
apartment with in the city.
Luccio and the landlords may have legal precedent on their side.
A Maryland court struck down a similar housing law, while a California
court nixed a law in that state that attempted to impose age
restrictions on various rental properties, according to the Greater
Boston Real Estate Board.
But Councilor Ross said the city isn't backing down.
"I believe we are on solid legal ground and that we will prevail,"
Ross said.
Eva Webster
Apr 15, 2008, 1:58:49 PM4/15/08
to Kit Baum, AllstonBrighton2006
On 4/13/08 8:29 AM, "Kit Baum" <kit...@mac.com> wrote:
> Eva,
>
> The link may be between Boston Greener and BC probably relates to the
> Environmental Studies program at BC...
Dear Kit,
Thank you for sending info. about the Urban Ecology Institute and the Environmental Studies Program at BC the other day. It’s great that there are some people at BC who care about the environmental and urban trees, which is what I personally care about too.
In my mind that actually relates to another issue you commented on in an earlier message, regarding BC dorms.
On 4/11/08 4:44 PM, "Kit Baum" <kit...@mac.com> wrote:
> ...many students who do not have four years of housing guaranteed would
> gladly move on campus if there were space. But if we in A-B want that to
> happen, we have to allow the dorms to be built. Saying NO to dorms on
> Brighton under any circumstances and NO to dorms on Shea Field is not the
> bargaining stance that can achieve that result.
I started asking myself, “But is BC applying environment-friendly thinking to its development plans for dorms”? And the answer, regrettably, is no.
BC absolutely should provide on-campus housing for all of their undergraduates -- but the way BC has been proposing to accomplish that would be very harmful to the neighborhood -- as well as environmentally irresponsible.
First, to demolish Edmonds Hall, a relatively new, large, space-efficient brick dorm that can be rehabbed into a state-of-the-art structure (with new windows and new systems), is extremely wasteful from the environmental standpoint. Environmentalists reuse buildings -- don’t send tons of debris into a landfill if they can help it.
Harvard has recently announced that they will be spending huge amounts (I think it’s $1 Billion) to RENOVATE old dorms, some of which are 150-years old. If Harvard can do that, why can’t BC renovate Edmonds Hall that is only about 30-years old — especially since BC keeps saying that they want to preserve open space on campus.
If you want to preserve open space, you do not get rid of a structure like Edmonds Hall and replace it with a bunch of smaller buildings that collectively end up having a much greater footprint.
You also wrote in your message that building tall dorms (presumably where the Mods are)
> ...isn't going to happen (for one thing, it's filled reservoir land, so building mass is an issue)
Well, then how do we explain that 8-9 story Edmonds Hall was built on that land (the former Lawrence Basin of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir) with no problems.
Second issue — equally, if not more important: Brighton is severely deprived as far as public open space is concerned -- so whatever we have should be cherished and protected by us, the City, and BC.
Many users of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, including myself, feel very strongly that building undergraduate dorms on Shea Field is a terrible, terrible idea that will hurt the Reservoir parkland. I have attached to this email a comment letter that was sent to the BRA, which explains what’s at stake, and urge you to read it to better understand those concerns.
Best regards,
Eva Webster
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages