not to harp any further but, please contact your city coucilors and ask them to MAINTAIN the current ordinance. It's the only thing telling families that it's oka to move back to these effected areas. When and if they can get some other law inplace that addresses these concerns then repeal away but this ordinance needs tyour support until that is IN PLACE. Otherwise kiss your neighborhood goodbye. I speak no more of this.

I'm with you, Baci--up to a point. There are 19 houses on our Hillside block--and 11 of them are college rentals (there are also 4 "for sale" signs). Some renters are good residents, some are complete inconsiderate idiots, some are just clueless to the fact that other people live in the neighborhood--just as I was when I first came to Duluth as a college student. (Baci, even you and I were sometimes "bad neighbors" when we were renting hillside houses back in the 80s...). Besides the usual party nonesense and trash, our block rental units with car batteries discarded on the front yards and the landlords have instructed their college tenants to park on the lawn on Sundays to deal with alternate-side parking. I often feel like we live in a trailer park.

We obviously don't have a bunch like the ones who live next to you, but it's annoying as hell when you have to park two blocks away from the house you pay property taxes (up 29% last week!)on because each rental house has 4-5 residents and a car for each one, not counting their visiting friends (maybe I'm just jealous: all these college kids drive newer, nicer vehicles than mine...).

The problem is that Duluth keeps looking for "panacea answers" to complicated problems. The 300 foot ordinance causes as many issues as it resolves, and forcing off-street parking will turn lawns into parking lots. Maybe we need limits on cars-per-house resident parking sticker as well--I don't know what the answer is. But UMD has to get involved. It was UMD Chancellor Kathryn Martin, after all, who initiated the enrollment increase that has caused a great portion of this problem. UMD needs to be more proactive to solve a probem caused --for the most part--by their clients and customers. Remember, folks, a college is in business for the same reason other businesses are: to make money. More students = more money. The Chancellor's job is to keep the college profitable.

What can UMD (and CSS...) do? Well, perhaps they can do what they should do best: educate--teach those whose tuition money pays the faculty and staff to be considerate neighbors.

But that alone won't solve the problem, and neither will overly-simple ordinances. It's a complicated issue, and quick-fixes have gotten us nothing but empty fish tanks and a $20 million pizza place.

Baci, why do you keep defending a law that doesn't solve the problem? Please people, come to the meeting tomorrow and support Little. ALL THIS LAW DOES IS PUT A MONOPOLY ON CURRENT RENTAL PROPERTIES!

UMD needs to get involved, CSS, the city, etc.. This 300 ft ordinance doesn't solve the root of the problem. Do you think college kids are going to stop partying? Do you think that they are going to respect property that is a monopolistic piece of trash?

What needs to be done is the enforcement of current laws that are on the books. People aren't supposed to park in their yards, ticket them. What I don't get is why the cops would ticket a car on the wrong side of the road, but not in the yard.

Another solution would be to make a law that only 2 parking permits will be given for each property.. CITY WIDE. A developer ripped down a house and built a big office builiding on my block, then he tells the employees to park on the residental streets to save spots for the customers. Some sort of parking permit law would help my block tremendously..

This town was built before the automobile was around, re-zoning and accomidations may have to be done. Some yards may become driveways, but when most of us live on blocks with tons of rentals this hurts the rest of us.

Why would you fix anything in your home if your value is going to go down. Can't you see that a house is an investment and by limiting what you can do with that investment makes it less valuable?

You seem to think that I am only looking out for my pocketbook, but that is not the case. I am looking ahead a few years down the road and this ordiance does NOTHING. It is too late, and what you don't realize is that it lowers your property value at a time when the market is correcting itself.

College kids throwing parties is nothing new, trash in yards is nothing new, and these issues are nothing new.

What is new is some crazy law stating that no rental licenses will be given within 300 feet of another rental. I bought my house and if I need to rent to a roomate to help out someday that is my right as a property owner. It is unconstitutional to dictate what I use my property for.

Baci, would you close McDonald's because people are fat just to "send a message"? Do you think that things would change?

All these types of laws do is make people like you feel better for the moment that someone acutually did "something".. But when that "something" hurts the entire property values of all houses in the city it is wrong.

There will be many people who will say by repealing this that the problems will return, but has the problem disappeared all of a sudden?

I love the idea of permits for cars, stricter rules to getting a rental license, and enforcement of current laws. Why not do this instead?

I support it because it's IN PLACE! Until some other solution to the issues here is IN PLACE and ENFORCED I support the 300' ordinace..it holds everyones feet to the fire..yes a malformed, imperfect solution to an f'd up problem. But if we dont have something IN PLACE it's OPEN SEASON on our neighborhood. BTW I'd close macdonalds for so many reasons. BTW MANY college towns have responded with similar measures....Andrew, if you make money from rentaing to a roomie, you are running a small business...get a lic. and the city DOES have the right and responciblilty to regulate you. let's call a horse a horse.

Both of you are repeating yourselves. Just agree to disagree and encourage everyone that has something to say, one way or the other, to show up at the meeting and offer their opinion to the people who actually decide whether the ordinance stays in place. Sound like a plan?

What can UMD do? UMD doesn't have to do shit. Expect that in full.

"...come and show your support of [Tim] Little." Lawl.

If this is not enforced it will just lead to more rental properties that have tenants and are not under the law. There are laws like this to protect the tenants and they are just getting screwed on this.

The mention in the paper to people to 'just move into campus park' is totally bullshit. That place is worse than any dorms. The thing to do would be to take 40 houses by eminant domain that lie right by the college and build apartments. End of story.

If the problem is students then provide for them. If the problem is the rental managers then restrict them.

The thing that bothers me most about this law:
We have existing laws already on the books to deal with "problem" tenants.
Partying too loud? Charge them with noise violations. Too many drunks laying in the middle of the road? Charge them with public drunkenness. Too many rental properties looking like crap? Enforce existing rental codes.
If Duluth spent time actually enforcing the laws already meant to handle these problems, then we wouldn't have to worry about "bad rental slums".
A few people may find that their neighbors are a bit more polite and quiet, but most people will find that their neighbors are just abandoned houses, or are trucks leaving Duluth because they can't find any rental housing that is affordable.
I used to be a college student in a crappy rental (viva la Alamo!), but I was a considerate college student who was on speaking terms with my neighbors, did not park like ass-hats, and when we had a party, worked overtime to make sure it didn't affect the neighbors in any way.

@ndy, point taken, and I'll recede into my retro science fiction lounge music oblivion...but b4 I do, I'll just say I HAVE gone before the council and I helped get an ordinance passed to address this issue. Now that's being threatend and I'm planning to rent my house to the UMD hockey freshman. Coors light anyone?

I also support the 300 foot rule, because I grew up in a neighborhood (not in Central Hillside) where probably 80% of the houses were rentals, including my own family for a few years, and likewise more recently out on East Superior Street when I was a renter myself. I didn't get any sense of "ownership" that you want out of your neighbors. It seems like people who know they aren't staying long will not give a shit how they impact those around them. You wanna talk about property value? Who's going to buy a house next door or across the street from a known college house (lemon drop anyone?) or similar? Hell, that should be in the abstract.

One minute you're saying laws in place or landlords should take care of problem tenants, but I bet in the next post you'd be complaining that landlords or the law don't have the right to come into your home (whether you own it or not) and tell you what to do. So which is it?

The current home ownership situation is screwed up enough, but, personally, I'd like to hang onto the $130,000 I've laid down for my little box of warm.

[Reading that article in the paper the other day, I didn't understand what was going on with the people on Arrowhead whose parents bought the house and whose roommates were paying rent, and now all of a sudden the parents were going to have to foot the whole thing because it was an illegal rental? WTF? It's called "sharing expenses", guys. Electric, gas, house. Everyone chips in and doesn't call it rent.]

So you want people to basically "lie" or as you refer to it "share expenses"?

So lets have a law that makes people lie, good philosophy.

The problem with this law is that if you live next to a rental that is a lemon now it will forever be a lemon. You will ALWAYS live next to that party house because the landlord knows its new value. That crappy party house will get more beat up and the only thing the landlord will do is enough to keep that ever-growing valuable rental license.

And people who buy a house for their kids will tell them to lie to the inspectors until they get caught. Like the Arrowhead Road kids.

Let the democratic system of property ownership and use play out like it has for over 200 years.

That is why this law is so ridiculous.

What are some of the best college town living situations you guys have come across? Let's try and think of some college areas around the state that actually work for student renters (and the rest of the town).

In my experience, I think a large concentration of college students in close proximity to the college works the best. If UMD kids lived next to UMD kids it might not be such a big deal if someone is having a party on the block. The kids that don't want to live in the loud/messy neighborhood (AKA the nice, quiet renters) will move into rentals through the rest of the city.

When I first came to UMD (as a transfer from UW-Milwaukee, where the "college town" was well defined) I was appalled at the lack of rentals next to campus. Do you think college people LIKE living a quiet neighborhood that is too far away from school to walk--which means they have to get up an hour early to catch the slow-ass bus, buy a ridiculously priced parking pass, or trudge through the snow (on bike or feet) uphill? What about the utter absence of any college-geared businesses in walking distance from UMD? Ohh, I can't wait to get out of class and walk 10 minuets to Bixby's to have coffee with a bunch of old ladies. Then maybe we can go to Bulldog pizza...luckily my taste buds were destroyed by beer so I won't notice that it is the blandest pizza ever created.

OK enough insults of St. Marie and Woodland. But come on, if that is all you had near by campus, wouldn't you rather go to a party in Chester? The absence of a concentration of rentals by UMD is more than just annoying to students. If kids could live next to campus less of them would be forced to have a car. The big party houses would be next to school and next to, well, partiers, and not next to families. It'd be easier for law-enforcing, too.

Does anyone recall a reason why this hasn't happened? I believe UW-Milwaukee used some sort of eminent domain to get the houses surrounding campus to become rentals. Like, did College St. homeowners resist any pressure to move out in the past, or maybe it was never an issue.

UMD was never meant to be a large campus just as minneapolis was never meant to be a large city. the infrastructure built to subsidize the UMD business venture was adequate by simply housing the students in attics around the east side of town & a few groovy dormitories. but it all got away & like everything else on earth grew exponentially.
we are now in the process of taking stock & evaluating an incredible pile of dust that's been for many years swept under the rug. welcome to the future. americans bred a lot of children that like to go to school where it's maniac town & nobody's in control of anything.
if UMD drove the tuition over the top of mainstream americans' reach most of these kids that are mostly coming here because UMD is a college of drinking wld go somewhere else.
actually my idea is to start a movement that encourages kids who just came here to drink to quit school & stay at the party constantly until the bottom falls out & they have to move back home w/their parents & find a job in the service industry.

Hi,
i am writing a story about this topic in the UMD Statesman, I would like to talk to any of you who have something to say... please email me if I can ask you a few questions.
[email protected]
Thanks!

Hi,
i am writing a story about this topic in the UMD Statesman, I would like to talk to any of you who have something to say... please email me if I can ask you a few questions.
[email protected]
Thanks!

Hi,
i am writing a story about this topic in the UMD Statesman, I would like to talk to any of you who have something to say... please email me if I can ask you a few questions.
[email protected]
Thanks!