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
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
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?
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
> 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?
>
>
>
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
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.
> 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.
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
> Eva,
>
> The link may be between Boston Greener and BC probably relates to the
> Environmental Studies program at BC...
> ...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.
> ...isn't going to happen (for one thing, it's filled reservoir land, so building mass is an issue)