Ban on College Students Living Together- March 29th 5:30PM

Submitted by Due-Pickle8392 t3_122nvkm in providence

https://providenceri.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=14227&MediaPosition=&ID=36617&CssClass=

​

There is a meeting this Wednesday March 29th at 5:30PM which could ban more than 3 college students from living together. Kind of absurd. Coincidentally the meeting is scheduled as Brown U students and others are on Spring break so they can't speak out against it. this will make housing even more unaffordable and substantially increase demand for the limited housing options that we have. how are they even considering passing this ordinance?

103

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

gravytrain2112 t1_jdre5uv wrote

Narragansett passed that law, but it was struck down by superior court. I believe it was just because they didn’t go the correct route for it to become an ordinance.

“SOUTH KINGSTOWN — A Superior Court judge has once again struck down a Narragansett town ordinance limiting rentals to three students, dealing yet another blow to the town’s controversial efforts to control the rental housing market.”

44

Good-Expression-4433 t1_jdr22id wrote

Important to speak against it if you can but it's unlikely to go anywhere. It's such an asinine bill that will only make the housing crisis in Providence worse and ultimately fix nothing.

Ordinarily NIMBY bills like this would have a chance but with housing the way it is, passing it would get whoever voted for it tarred and feathered.

Helen Anthony just doing dumb NIMBY shit again like she always does because boomers think housing with multiple college students isn't great to live near and we need to think of the poor property values in those areas.

38

fishythepete t1_jdr8q3r wrote

You’re assuming the local voters realize they’re screwing themselves not college students with this bill.

14

Good-Expression-4433 t1_jdrkhbn wrote

Many of the older people don't care but if they did this then I guarantee the news, effects, and yes votes would circulate like wildfire with the under 40 crowd that are already increasingly politically active.

This isn't some small thing that would be easily swept under the rug with how bad people are already struggling to secure housing.

6

hbk2369 t1_jdu0c09 wrote

The next time a boomer realizes they fucked up a vote will be the first time.

4

Previous_Floor t1_jdswq5y wrote

>because boomers think housing with multiple college students isn't great to live near

One need not be a boomer to recognize that this is true. And everyone posting here knows it's true. You're simply concerned with housing costs going up. And that's definitely a valid concern, but the argument being used is dishonest and hypocritical.

−10

FunLife64 t1_jdr1319 wrote

It’s prob not gonna go anywhere. But most students aren’t residents. It’s not like this one meeting will dramatically shift the outcome.

18

Jimmytowne t1_jdrgxac wrote

In the late 90’s they tried to do this to break up Greek life. Labeling 3 or more unmarried women residing together = a brothel.

It was nice to have Buddy on our side. He knew PVD was run by 25 and younger residents… and the boys on Federal Hill

18

commandantskip t1_jdvlw6u wrote

>Labeling 3 or more unmarried women residing together = a brothel.

Jesus, who authored that judgmental bullshit?!!!

2

Sarcofaygo t1_jdremmf wrote

Sounds like a good way to make the housing shortage worse. Big brain idea

10

Marrsvolta t1_jdsripw wrote

They are trying to say this is to prevent the cost of housing going up but it will do the exact opposite. Out of town college kids who come from money will be able to afford being spread out. This will make a shortage of apartments for those who grew up here and have seen rent triple over the last 10 years. Whoever is pushing this is either an idiot or got the idea from one of those student housing companies that have been taking over Providence.

7

lightningbolt1987 t1_jdszvqj wrote

It only drives up housing costs in that you can squeeE more rent out of each unit so the cost of the building goes up. In other words: more people crammed into one space makes BUYING more expensive but not renting. Wannabe east siders are griping that they can’t compete on the housing market with investors renting to students.

−5

Marrsvolta t1_jdviezy wrote

Care to explain further? I don't know if it's your phrasing but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_jdvkeiy wrote

One of the reasons east siders are pushing for this policy is that currently, individual families are having trouble competing with slumlord investors when trying to buy single family houses in college hill and fox point.

Normally, in suburbia, single family houses are priced based on the single family housing market (ie how much a family is willing to pay for a single family house). In the parts of Providence near Brown, however, rent is high enough now where the the economic gain from renting a shingle family house to a lot of students has surpassed the single family housing market. So if the market for single family homes in this part of Providence is, say, $800,000, but renting to 8 students allows for a 10% return to investors if they pay $1 million, then the highest value of the house ($1 million) is based on its investment potential, not the single family housing market.

This means people who are trying to buy houses to live in them can’t compete with investors, and the whole neighborhood turns into a student ghetto at the expense of being a family neighborhood. This is the logic.

All that said: I’m still against this policy. If College Hill residents want fewer students and more home owners then they should just make their neighborhood more appealing to home owners. Plus, non-single family housing neighborhoods already face this challenge of investment being the basis of cost, why should fancy college hill be protected? In fact, why is there still single-family zoning at all in Providence?

2

NodularFalse t1_jdryudt wrote

They have something like this in Boulder and people hate it, the rents are wildly expensive too.

4

Jerkeyjoe t1_jdr7q62 wrote

Na it's crazy, not well thought out and will drive the cost of renting up for everyone.
On the other hand I feel that this bill is trying to prevent packing apartments and exploitation of students by landlords. having too many people in a small space is a problem.

3

fishythepete t1_jdr8zkj wrote

If students would rather cram 4 into a 2 bedroom (or even 4 into an 4 bedroom) instead of staying in dorms, that’s hardly exploitative. If the problem is having too many people in a small space, whether they’re students or not really isn’t material.

13

Due-Pickle8392 OP t1_jdrec0k wrote

Agreed and it isn't even about students cramming into small spaces. I live with 5 other students in a two family and we each have large bedrooms and a huge living room but if the ordinance passes only 3 of us could live in the large apartment. it would be way too much space for 3 people and the rent would be crazy split between 3 instead of 6

6

Due-Pickle8392 OP t1_jdrevb2 wrote

its really about the rich east siders who don't want pesky college students bothering them

14

Jerkeyjoe t1_jdrmtvd wrote

I live in a building with students and have no problems at all. concern is particular situations like I've seen first hand such as a landlord deciding to modify 2 bed apartments in to 3 or 4 bed apartments, and renting out the tiny rooms individually for insane money. maybe it's fair game but to me it's shady. Weather or not the tenants, student or not, are cool with it is not my concern.

Personally I feel limiting 3 per unit is asinine, and discrimination against students or marketing apartments only to students is wrong. Landlords will likely find ways around it anyway, though. That said, I feel there should be a square foot per person limit for the sake of safety and consumer protection which applies to all.

1

aednichols t1_jdr8jym wrote

Boston has had a 4-maximum rule like this since 2008. There was renewed interest in enforcement after an overcrowded apartment burned down and a student died (Binland Lee).

7

Good-Expression-4433 t1_jdrk8hj wrote

If people are forced into cramming in like that to have any housing or pay rent to begin with, they should be looking at that problem first.

Kicking people out with an ordinance change is going to fuck us all over hard. If they want to punish and prevent exploitative landlords, they can do it in a way that doesn't punish everyone else who actually live in PVD and are struggling to find non absurdly priced housing as is.

6

Locksmith-Pitiful t1_jdswdxy wrote

Says this meeting was last May. Am I missing something?

2

PVDPoetry t1_jdsqavn wrote

Here's the story about the last time it was discussed at the city council:

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/10/19/providence-proposes-limiting-number-of-student-renters-per-unit/10546283002/

OP, the link provided, I don't see anything about a March 29 meeting.

Meeting History May 19, 2022 6:00 PM Audio/Video City Council Regular Council Meetingdraft Draft COUNCILMAN TAYLOR Moves to Waive the Reading of item number 11, Seconded by COUNCILWOMAN RYAN.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT IGLIOZZI Refers the Ordinance to the Committee on Ordinances.

RESULT: REFERRED Jun 9, 2022 5:15 PM Audio/Video Ordinance Committee Regular Meetingdraft Draft RESULT: SET UP PUBLIC HEARING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Rachel M. Miller, Councilwoman SECONDER: Mary Kay Harris, Councilwoman Ward 11 AYES: Nicholas J. Narducci, Mary Kay Harris, Rachel M. Miller ABSENT: Carmen Castillo, Pedro J. Espinal Oct 19, 2022 5:00 PM Audio/Video Ordinance Committee Public Hearingdraft Draft RESULT: PUBLIC HEARING HELD Nov 16, 2022 5:00 PM Audio/Video Ordinance Committee Public Hearingdraft Draft RESULT: CONTINUED WITH VOTE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Mary Kay Harris, Councilwoman Ward 11 SECONDER: Carmen Castillo, Vice-Chairwoman AYES: Nicholas J. Narducci, Carmen Castillo, Mary Kay Harris, Rachel M. Miller, Pedro J. Espinal

1

Lonnie_Shelton t1_jdul6t9 wrote

I thought that was always the rule but it went unenforced.

1