Michael Ross comes up with new weapon in war on student-crammed apartments
By adamg - 8/31/09 - 11:12 am
You may recall Mike Ross's last effort to get students more spaced out - using ISD to cast out excess students - proved unenforceable and possibly illegal.
Scott Van Voorhis reports this time, the councilor is seeking an ordinance that would levy a $300 fine on any real-estate brokers who rent a single apartment to five or more college students.




Comments
UGH!
By Meghann (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 11:39 am
Why just college students? I get that some are loud and destructive, but are young people who are in college more disruptive than young people who are not in college?
What IS it with Ross (and to
By anon (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 11:45 am
What IS it with Ross (and to a lesser extent these days, Menino) anyway? I know he's just vote-chasing with the locals, but it strikes me as unreasonable to expect the colleges to build enough dorm space in the Boston area to handle upperclassmen, especially in this economy. If they did build that much dorm space, it would practically have to be at the cost of residential space available now.
Maybe he should look up what happened when Menino pushed a local college too hard. Emerson was ready to split for LAWRENCE before Menino backed down and actually worked with them instead of just blustering.
And when they DO build more
By jeveuxsavoir - 8/31/09 - 12:05 pm
And when they DO build more dorms, or even mention the idea, the "community" gets so pissy about it and screeches about how they're being forced out by the university. Well, they can be forced out by new dorms or by students who are also paying good money to rent an apartment, just like they are.
Hell, living off-campus is less expensive anyways.
I'm so glad that I'm registered to vote here. People like Ross and Menino think they can get away with this shit - well, they have, let's face it - because so many college students are registered to vote elsewhere than Boston.
(Full disclosure: I'm student without roommates who isn't a crazy destructive partier)
Maybe the solution is to
By ShadyMilkMan - 8/31/09 - 12:36 pm
Maybe the solution is to move one or two colleges to a place like Lawrence that could use the economic pick me up that comes with dorms and students while building some dorm buildings on the outskirts of town right over new rail stations. We could have one or two such massive dorm complexes right above rail stations with students from all the Boston colleges eligible for residence.
Expand the Blue Line into Lynn and add an extra spot along the way for a college megaplex stop to help finance it.
To the phones!
By Kaz - 8/31/09 - 2:11 pm
Quick! I'll ring up Harvard and tell them to start packing the ivy-coated bricks immediately!
That was actually on the
By anon (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 2:13 pm
That was actually on the table for Emerson College, back when Menino thought he could just make them buy more Boston real estate. To say the economic consequences if Emerson had actually left would be devastating is...lowballing it. The Theater District and DTX would have taken substantial hits, which is ultimately why Mumbles discovered diplomacy.
The same is true of a good chunk of the colleges here. One of them leaving would pretty much condemn the neighborhood that supports it to some lasting economic damage. Like 'em or not, the colleges here are integral to the city's health and well-being.
Actually
By Dea (not verified) - 9/1/09 - 9:44 am
Emerson's near-move to Lawrence happened in the late 80's. I was a student there at the time. Menino didn't become Mayor of Boston until 1993. As I recall, it was loud and vociferous opinion from students and faculty alike which killed the plan crafted by then Emerson Presdient Koenig. He left that post shortly thereafter.
Also, the Lawrence proposal was floated and debated well before Emerson moved to the Theater District. Back then, it was located in the Back Bay, and made a killing selling off those properties. The city of Boston gave Emerson a sweetheart deal on the Theater District properties to boot.
That's a terrific idea.
By anoniwhat (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 2:15 pm
That's a terrific idea.
Except.....who will be paying the $500 million dollars or more to relocate even a small liberal arts school like New England Conservatory or Emmanuel to a new location?
$300 dollar fine? Just call
By ShadyMilkMan - 8/31/09 - 11:52 am
$300 dollar fine? Just call it a tax, it is not high enough to twart any brokers from doing it they will just jack up the fee. That is only 60 dollars a person split five ways. He obviously kept it low as to not discourage brokers from renting the units out but high enough to rack in some cash for the city.
For Mr. Ross' edification,
By anon (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 11:58 am
For Mr. Ross' edification, since he seems to think a commercial background check is like pulling a CIA file:
A background check does not necessarily check education. I run them for employers all the time, and the two key pieces are generally credit and criminal record.
They CAN run educational background, but the information to do so has to be provided by the person you're running the check on, and it's costly. There's no reason for realtors to ask for that and they certainly can't legally compel a prospective renter to hand that over for an apartment check. I'm fairly sure that a legal challenge to that requirement would be accepted by a judge as an unnecessary invasion of privacy. This is also time-consuming and expensive.
Nor can they really deduce who's a student based on the information they do get. A young person with five or six figures worth of student loans is pretty typical in this day and age, so that doesn't tell them anything. Ditto a young person with a limited credit history. And what are they supposed to find based on the criminal check?
Perhaps Mr. Ross could bother to acquaint himself with how these systems work, before writing legislation.
Stupid
By Kaz - 8/31/09 - 12:01 pm
Nearly all of these are probably "subleases" and if they aren't, that's all the broker is going to do is make it a sublease situation. Are you going to hold the broker liable for whether a single student renter wanted to rent out to 4 other students?
Here's what I posted at the Globe site (they never seem to approve my comments...maybe I'm too erudite for them to understand given the general crap that does get through):
If you live in District 8
By Kaz - 8/31/09 - 12:22 pm
Please do the rest of us a favor and vote for "the other guy" next time Ross is up for election. Thanks.
District 8 = West End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Fenway/Kenmore, Mission Hill
Rowdy students aren't the real problem
By Stevil - 8/31/09 - 12:52 pm
The neighborhoods have had a long relationship with rowdy students - and my understanding is that for the most part that doesn't last - while you get the occasional party at college apartments - the true "Animal Houses" get dealt with and are not really that prevalent - but make for good press fodder.
According to a presentation I heard the real reason is that the neigbors are getting priced out of their homes. Say you have three 2 bedroom apartments with den in a triple decker in Brighton. You live in one unit and you have say a young couple living in the two rental units. Total value of the building is your unit plus the investment value of the other units at say $1500 per month - whole thing comes to about $400k and you pay say $3000 a year in taxes after taking the residential exemption.
Now let's say your long time neighbor sells to a landlord who takes each unit and rents out space for $700 a head (perhaps $3500 a month all under one lease). Your tenants are 5 college kids each paying $700 a month where the guy on the lease gets the den and the other four split the two bedrooms. You have a triple decker with 15 kids in it and now the lanlord is clearing well over $100k per year. Now that $400k triple decker gets valued at $800k and the gross taxes go to almost $9000 - chump change for the landlord who pays it.
The city can't discriminate in tax assessments based on "ownership style" so what happens is the house next door owned by the family renting to the young couples has to also get assessed on $800k of value and the $4500 in extra taxes comes out of their hide without a lot of cash flow to support it. They can either pay it or sell out to another landlord (granted for a lot of money). Gradually more and more sell out and we end up essentially with neighborhoods full of boarding houses instead of families.
The "animal house" stories are just spin because people have little sympathy for someone whose house doubles in value even though most of these people are good landlords and long time residents who own their homes and really just want to stay there, not cash out. I don't think Ross' policy is correct on this due to the difficulty of enforcement. I go toe to toe with him on many issues, but his head and his heart are in the right place on this one - we just have to figure out a workable solution.
More on this
By JohnAKeith - 8/31/09 - 1:58 pm
I couldn't quite understand what you were saying so if I say the same thing here, sorry.
One of the things I'd like to see studied is, has the new regulation forbidding rentals to 5+ students had any effect on the value of multi-family homes in the neighborhoods where students live.
If a landlord bought a multi-family home with the expectation he'd be able to make $3,500 per month off one five-bedroom apartment ($700 for each tenant) but can now only rent it to four students (making, $2,800) isn't his property worth less?
Did Councilor Ross just take hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the hands of a private business owner?
Will the landlord raise rents on the unit to cover his costs? That would do the opposite of what Councilor Ross wants.
And, Mike Ross is up for re-election, this year, and has a competitor in the race. His name is Oscar Brookins, Northeastern professor and, unlike Councilor Ross, a long-time Mission Hill resident. http://is.gd/2JPzm
Any other competitors?
By Kaz - 8/31/09 - 2:10 pm
Judging by numerous complaints in the comments under your linked story, Oscar Brookins isn't the correct answer either. Based on the testimonials there, he's a slumlord who wouldn't want this bill purely because he likes shoving people into tenement with him no matter what and then pillaging their accounts when they go to leave even though they're tenant-at-will.
There has to be a happy medium represented by someone in that area who feels like the status quo is decent and yet out-of-control landlords AND renters need to be slapped down by tighter enforcement of the rules.
Good Question
By Stevil - 8/31/09 - 3:30 pm
not sure if it has had any effect on prices. my guess is no because it doesn't sound like they've been able to do much to enforce the law, but in theory it should make it worth less.
As for the hundreds of thousands in losses - perhaps - but there's always a risk of the laws changing (and any landlord that basically tries to skirt the law and set up a rooming house should see this coming - they can fight it -but the politics are virtually guaranteed to go against them). I'm a pretty rabid free marketeer - but I do believe that government has to be the arbiter of some reasonable rules. Per another post here - the best approach is probably to take away the economic incentive by reclassifying these properties and taxing them accordingly - but that may be another difficult legal maneuver under our constitution and current tax laws.
My understanding is that one of the problems we have is a changing student demographic. A lot of students at BU, Northeastern, Suffolk and other schools used to commute from the suburbs. As competition for university space nationwide has heated up - we are drawing more students from out of state and overseas, which is what is fueling the demand for more local rentals as commuters become a smaller percentage of the population. That's fine - but we need to sit down with the universities and figure this out - Berklee and Back Bay residents are doing this now in a very structured and amicable way to figure out how we can satisfy the needs of both. Not saying we will agree on all or even anything - but the open dialogue and a willingness to recognize the needs of the school and the community seems to be working for both sides so far. I've been pretty impressed with what I've heard and seen from Berklee in their respect for the opinions of the neighborhood.
So, essentially: rising
By anon (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 2:07 pm
So, essentially: rising demand versus limited supply. Ross can fight a lot of things: economics isn't one of them.
If the problem is how taxes are assessed, then it strikes me that's what to target. I think it's fair that a property be taxes on the actual income it makes for the owner instead of somebody charging less rent being lumped in with somebody else.
So what's the student solution
By questonymous (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 2:11 pm
A few questions, having not heard the presentation you reference. Was this presentation something only the Lake Street Warriors were privy to?
Mr. Ross has historically claimed his legislation helps those priced out of *rental* stock. Since students can obviously pay to live there, supply and demand is working, right?
Second, full-time residents originally raised concerns on the basis of noise/parties/students being students. Defending Mr. Ross's newest "solution" as a way to preserve the tax base is a change in the argument, correct?
In your example, does the city have a net increase in revenue?
So here we are:
1) when landlords cannot rent to 5+ students, AND
2) when neighbors scream about additional college construction to provide housing,
the simple math says there will be a greater number of students seeking rental stock. Doesn't this INCREASE the saturation of students in the neighborhoods?
If every student lives legally, hasn't Mr. Ross's solution has made the "students steal our houses" problem worse, while increasing revenue? Doesn't the city have a vested interest in *not* enforcing Mr. Ross's initial ordinance?
How about better enforcement of existing laws on noise complaints, fire safety systems, etc.?
So, When is Ross up for
By anon (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 12:57 pm
So, When is Ross up for re-election? Because this nitwit can’t be kicked to the curb fast enough.
Any pioneering young BC or BU politicians want to run a campaign against him and his anti-student policies? I bet you could sign up a few thousand new Boston voters and get yourself an easy seat.
Ross seems to be hedging bets that you’re all apathetic and tuned out, ie an easy group to demonize and legislate against in a calculated mini identity politics play. In other words, exactly the sort of thing that can horribly backfire with a little activism.
When I bought my first
By City Council President Michael Ross (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 3:05 pm
When I bought my first condo, a one-bedroom on Beacon Hill in the late ‘90s, I paid $73,000 for it. I was several years out of college, and it was the perfect starter home for me. But today, a similar property can cost almost $400,000. What recent college graduate can afford that kind of mortgage?
There are many reasons why housing has become more expensive in Boston, which far exceeds the scope of this comment. But one thing is certain: If we don't make provisions to ensure that the talented students who attend our city's world-class colleges and universities can afford to start their lives here when they graduate, we will lose as a city. Without a supply of affordable starter homes, we’re going to lose our young people—-the lifeblood of our city—-to places like Phoenix, AZ or Charleston, SC.
When I meet with area CEOs and business leaders, they complain that the major issue facing their Boston-area workforce is the high cost of housing. The law that limits four students to each unit does so much more than prevent the proliferation of "animal houses" in our neighborhoods. It allows for that property to serve as a future home to a college graduate, a young professional, or a family. Without that law, certain units will always be student-only units, and would essentially block out other possible uses.
This policy alone cannot restore balance and allow us to compete with other cities for new housing opportunities. Institutions need to continue dormitory construction while not increasing enrollments, and city policies that promote affordable and workforce housing need to continue. Obviously, integral to all of this is the private market, which must continue to build new housing to add our city's housing supply. But as one of the many policy options available to us, this law will help with the delicate balance that college towns like Boston deal with on a daily basis.
Hi, Councilman. My name's
By Dan Seitz (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 3:43 pm
Hi, Councilman. My name's Dan Seitz. I moved here from Vermont to attend Emerson College for my graduate degree. I moved to Somerville, got a job, and have been paying state taxes ever since. Furthermore, I am a former resident assistant, having spent two years working in Residential Life, the general aegis that schools fall under.
There are a few questions you really need to answer in regards to these policies, and there are a few points I think you need to hear.
Institutions need to continue dormitory construction while not increasing enrollments
1) Where are the colleges supposed to find this land? There is a limited supply of land in Boston, and even without a real estate boom, it's getting more expensive all the time.
2) If they find this land, how are they supposed to afford it without enrollments, which are their primary source of income along with endowments?
Take my school, Emerson. As you're probably aware, they have quite a few buildings in Downtown Boston. I'm sure they would LIKE to expand, as every year they have to put up some of their freshmen in a local hotel.
However, none of their options are palatable, in ANY sense. For Emerson to expand, a local business will have to leave, fail...or be forced out.
But one thing is certain: If we don't make provisions to ensure that the talented students who attend our city's world-class colleges and universities can afford to start their lives here when they graduate, we will lose as a city.
I think you need to hear one of the reasons why, exactly, this young professional is leaving when he graduates. It's not the cost of housing: I've found very nice apartments in the Somerville area, and there are plenty of families in that area as well.
I'm leaving because of politicians like you.
It's really that simple. In the four years I've lived here, I have never, ever felt welcomed. Bad house prices I can deal with. A state legislature that treats me like a piggy bank while abusing and cutting the one state service I use with regularlity? City councilmen scapegoating my friends and trying to force them out of their homes because he thinks he can magically lower rents that way?
Would you stay in a place like that? Would you feel welcome? Or would you come, get the degree you need to succeed elsewhere, and leave?
Until you and quite a number of local and state politicians change their attitudes, you won't lose as a city. You have already lost.
Amen
By anon-a-mouse - 8/31/09 - 4:52 pm
I wish this wasn't the place I have always known as home. That is the only thing keeping me here. My family is here, this is home. The politics here are enough to make me wish I was from somewhere else...
That is indeed a rather
By jeveuxsavoir - 8/31/09 - 4:32 pm
That is indeed a rather elegant-sounding post, but guess what -
a) limiting the number of undergrads living in a dwelling is not only discriminatory, but it does not prevent "animal houses" - unless you are going to somehow physically restrict the number of people allowed in an apartment at once, which is obviously...ridiculous
b) I love Boston, but having been treated by the city has a second-class citizen when I am a resident who pays her taxes and votes here just because I am working on a bachelor's degree makes me not want to stay here after I graduate.
You want yuppies to take over Boston and squeeze the students out, but as long as we pay our rent and our taxes, we have just as much of a right to live somewhere as anyone else.
What planet ...
By anon (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 5:40 pm
Do you spend most of your time on, Mr. Mike Ross? Creating more competition for housing lowers rents?
You need remedial maths, sir. Srsly.
Something smells, sir!
By Kaz - 9/1/09 - 1:16 pm
Your supposition here is that your proposal is less about "animal houses" and more about brokers renting to multiple students in the same apartment pushing up the property cost?
What part of renting out units to more than four people at once has anything to do with them being students?
You are full of crap.
Mike Ross is a joke, and
By anon (not verified) - 8/31/09 - 3:35 pm
Mike Ross is a joke, and uses his "power" to manipulate the system any way he can. He's been busted for trying to use his city councilorship to get out of parking tickets, he uses it to push cases further in court then they should go, and seems like he is pushing the issue again with this nonsense.
He rallies against the "college kids", but doesn't seem to care when the "residents" are mugging, robbing, stabbing, etc. random people walking down the street in the neighborhood.
a real stand up guy Ross is.
The Big Dig
By BlackKat (not verified) - 9/1/09 - 8:07 am
Why not just build a new mega-dorm in Menino's hole where Filene's used to be? Solves two problems at once.
BRA: Please send me a consulting check for my work. Thanks.
Not a bad idea
By SwirlyGrrl - 9/1/09 - 10:01 am
Lots of small student residences = lots of people downtown at all hours, lots of people buying stuff downtown, people using otherwise lightly used sections of the T, people around to work retail jobs and Beacon Hill internships, etc.