« meeting | Main | I've got a lot of fond memories of that dog. »

UMD Area Rental Moratorium

In an attempt to fix a bad idea that went horribly wrong, Council President Roger Reinert is going to present an even stupider idea to make no houses within a certain distance of UMD & CSS rental properties.

Ready, Set....argue!

Comments

My cross post reply: This is the most ridiculous lack of common sense I've ever heard. Why would you push students AWAY from their college?! What is this push to create family housing around the college & have students live further away? Has Duluth lost it's mind? Look at every other major college - build a student area AROUND the college. Let students walk to their classes instead of having to drive to get to school. Put more college businesses in the UMD/CSS area. I just don't think that Reinert is applying common sense to his brainstorming, here. There are other, more obvious solutions. The 300 foot rule was a bad idea. The moratorium is a worse one. At least the 300' rule gets students to live WITH diverese neighbors. Why is Duluth out to make students' lives difficult? It's sad that Duluth has constantly been up in arms for years now about problems caused by a very small percentage of students. You want to solve that? Tell the administration to start capping enrollment & having higher admission standards. Let's start at the beginning, instead of working backwards.


It's not a stupid idea. What the HRA is doing is a stupid idea. This was a problem 40 years ago and is still a problem today. Let's face it. This town doesn't care about the college kids. Just like tourist, they want them to spend money then go away. This town is dead unless it gets it's shit together.


tam and i were talking about this on the way back from Bruce, WI a little while ago...

IMO, (and T differs from me slightly) What the city needs...NEEDS to do is quit pussyfooting around and start holding UMD and its students accountable for its actions. We NEED to drag UMD to the table, kicking and screaming if we have to, and let them know that we're tired of the hands off lazez faire, silent partner bullshit. They need to start being more proactive in their community and provide more housing for their enrolled population.

The unfortunate part (and thank you very much Mr. Reinert...not.) is that workaday Joes like us who aren't students get caught in the middle of this rental ordinance mess.

My solution is rather simple, and is followed by several universities and colleges with great success:

Compulsory campus residence for all non-resident students until Junior year, and then only with approval of UMD admin...approval would hinge upon a Code of Conduct to which students would have to adhere to or be compelled to return to campus residence or face dismissal...period. No rental ordinances...no unenforcible laws...no innocent families getting caught up in the mess.

it still seems like the root of the issues here remains the relationship that students have with the rest of the community. If we also begin holding students accountable to not only UMD, but to their parents in central WI (or wherever...), problems would magically disappear.


I think UMD would be completely willing to be held accountable. Once they finish building that small technology business incubator in the Soft Center Technology Village.


Wait, why not use the existing laws to punish the students who are causing the problems?

Typical response from the politicians: create another law to try to fix an already broken one.

zra, compulsory on-campus residency? Come on. Are the students not adults? Don't they have a choice in where they would like to live? Even communist China allows its citizens the freedom to choose where they live


Compulsory campus residence? Maybe that would work on a campus that's actually integrated with its city, but UMD is an isolated compound surrounded by a giant parking lot. Why, as a student, would I want to live there? There's not even a bar or restaurant or grocery store within walking distance. Once we develop a real live student neighborhood around campus then we can talk about compulsory residence and that's certainly not gonna happen by banning rentals around campus. Where do they expect us to go? I like this town, dammit. I like living in the community of my choice. So I wish the city council would stop trying to relegate us students to the neighborhoods they see fit, just because we're seen as some sort of inconvenience. It's insulting, frankly, and I'm surprised more people don't see how draconian these measures actually are.


Quite a few higher-level universities (including most Ivy leaguers) have compulsory residence conditions. Works for them.

AND...and...most of the UNIVERSITIES in China also have compulsory residence regulations.

nice try.


Mel, what you call a bad idea is what I call growing a strong community INTENTIONALY not at the whim of out of townwers. Saying that the rental ordinance is targeted at students is like saying that you need a flu shot to loose weight. REALLY! I dont know how many time I have to say it, I LIKE LIVING IN A COLLEGE TOWN, I DONT LIKE MY ENTIRE TOWN TURNED INTO A DORM ROOM so mom and pop Edina can send their kid to UMD for free while his friends on the football team pay him rent. We're NOT ALONE! There are many other towns like us and they have the NARDS to do something about it.

Reduce the Number of Unrelateds
>
> [currently 4 in Urbana]. Provide a sunset provision which requires that any current rentals will have to conform to the new occupancy rate within a specified number of years. Examples of the number of permitted unrelateds in other communities and when current level enacted are:
>
> ♦ Carbondale, IL, 2, 1974
>
>
>
> ♦ Normal, IL, 2, long-standing
>
>
>
> ♦ Macomb, IL, 2, 2001
>
>
>
> ♦ Columbus, OH, 2, long-standing
>
>
>
> ♦ Madison, WI, 2, long-standing
>
>
>
> ♦ East Lansing, MI, 2, 1997
>
>
>
> ♦ Salisbury, MD, 2, 2003. Included a sunset provision of 3 years for existing rentals.
>
>
>
> ♦ Lawrence, KS, 3, 2003
>
>
>
> ♦ Provo, UT, 2, 2003
>
>
>
> ♦ Lincoln, NE, 2 [Survived challenges at the State Supreme Court level, 1997]
>
>
>
> ♦ Bloomington, IN, 3 [Survived challenges at the State Supreme Court level, 2003]
>
>
>
> ♦ Allentown, PA: Student overlay district, limiting the number of unrelateds permitted in this district compared to other parts of town. [Upheld in court challenges.]
>
>
> Enforce Codes and Standards
>
> Ordinances to encourage compliance with existing codes include:
>
> ♦ Bethlehem, PA: Tenant & Landlord must sign supplementary agreement that stipulates an understanding of legal # of occupants; obligations of landlord for maintenance; obligations of decent conduct by tenants.
>
>
>
> ♦ Gainesville, FL: Requires rental occupancy permit to be maintained on premises.
>
>
>
> ♦ Iowa City, IA: Have info disclosure form on responsibilities and # occupants. Post legal # occupants for every rental property on the Web.
>
>
>
> ♦ West Lafayette, IN: Nuisance inspector who inspects key neighborhoods 3-4/x daily. Has resulted in a major change in appearance of area.
>
>
> Issue Residential Parking Permits
>
> ♦ Manhattan, KS: issues two permits per property at nominal fee. Overnight parking in neighborhoods near campus prohibited without a permit.
>
>
>
> ♦ Newark, DE: No more than 2 residential parking permits will be issued per address for any non-owner occupant single-family type dwelling requiring a rental permit.
>
>
>
> ♦ Columbus, OH: Limits number of 'stacked' cars in a driveway; also limits to area devoted to parking and maneuvering of vehicles in the University District Overlay to 35% of lot to prevent the "auto salvage yards" syndrome.
>
>
>
> ♦ Eugene, OR: One permit per address, with a limited number of additional permits for a 2-hour parking limit only.
>
>
> R
>
> EGULATORY AC T I O N S TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NE IGHBORHOODS - JANUARY 2 0 0 5 PAGE 2
>
> ♦ East Lansing, MI: 24/7 program in select neighborhoods, which limits number of permits [up to 3 or 4, depending on area] per address. No on-street parking 2am-5am. Grandfathered businesses exempted.
>
>
>
> ♦ Bloomington, IN: Limits number of permits issued to Greek houses in the neighborhood. Greek Houses do not receive visitor passes.
>
> Inspect Rentals and License Landlords
>
> "Safe rental housing and a record of responsible parties for each property are additional benefits of such a program."
>
> ♦ Columbia, MO: Requires certificate of compliance, HVAC inspection, and city inspection. Registration and inspection fees required.
>
>
>
> ♦ Gainesville, FL: Yearly fee for rental properties. Website promotion of licensed properties. Landlord point system, in which revocation of license possible for non-compliance [passed 2003].
>
>
>
> ♦ Iowa City, IA: requires rental permit [fee assessed every 3 years per structure and per number of bedrooms] and one-time Certificate for Structure Compliance [one-time fee].
>
>
>
> ♦ West Lafayette, IN: Requires certification of all rental housing. Annual fee of $300 per structure in 2002, and additional per-unit fee. Different fees depending on whether owner-occupied, # of relateds and/or unrelateds, and multi-housing/single-family unit, etc.
>
>
>
> ♦ East Lansing, MI: Annual inspections.
>
>
>
> ♦ Boulder, CO: Baseline and safety inspections required. Fines up to $2000 if unlicensed. Exempted properties include: owner-occupied or sabbatical rentals.
>
>
> Implement Rooming House Programs
>
> These programs may be permitted in certain zones or overlay districts and may be prohibited in single-family districts.
>
> ♦ Adopt ordinance making a Student Rental Home a use by special exception
>
>
>
> ♦ West Chester, PA
>
>
>
> ♦ Merrion Township, PA
>
>
>
>
> ♦ Limits on density of student houses:
>
>
>
> ♦ West Chester, PA: bans new student housing within 400' of other such housing.
>
>
>
> ♦ Newark, DE: student homes must be at least 10 lot-widths apart.
>
>
> Target Disorderly Houses
>
> Minimizing nuisance and over-occupancy violations. Drafting ordinances to preserve the spirit of single-family zoning.
>
> ♦ East Lansing, MI: Landlord fined daily if over-occupied. Landlord must prove tried to evict. Can fine landlord or tenant. If there are too many noise violations, the landlord is notified and ultimately liable. $1,000 fines and possible incarceration for serious repeat noise violations. Enforced twice and never needed subsequently, as of 2004.
>
>
>
> ♦ Columbus, OH: Owner liable for over-occupancy.
>
>
>
> ♦ West Lafayette, IN: Requires Occupancy Affidavit, which must be displayed on premises. Fines of $1000-$2500 imposed on landlord for over-occupancy. Owner and tenants must sign occupancy affidavit.
>
>
> R
>
> EGULATORY AC T I O N S TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NE IGHBORHOODS - JANUARY 2 0 0 5 PAGE 3
>
> ♦ Springfield, IL: Website of landlords with excessive violations. http://www.springfield.il.us/CITY_GOV/ComServ/TopTen.htm
>
>
>
> ♦
>
> Ames, IA: Aggressive enforcement of over-occupancy. Landlords and tenants found in violation of the occupancy limit for their area will be fined $500 for the first violation and $750 for additional violations.
>
>
>
> ♦ Carbondale, IL: Second offense for over-occupancy: fine owner and tenants. Burden is on the owner to inform tenants of legal occupancy rate. Burden of proof on residency is on the tenant.
>
>
>
> ♦ Bloomington, IN: Everyone on lease gets a ticket if there is a noise complaint, whether present or not at party.
>
>
>
> ♦ Boulder, CO: violation for over-occupancy and nuisance violations can be up to $2,000 and 90 days in jail.
>
>
>
> ♦ Manhattan, KS: If tenants get more than 2 serious violations within a year, the city can shut down the rental house.
>
>
>
> ♦ Normal, IL; Boulder, CO; Ft. Collins, CO; Ames, IA; Tuscaloosa, AL; and Blacksburg, VA: ban of indoor [upholstered] furniture outside, "based on national fire safety standards and tragedies that have occurred with fires on porches or with waterlogged furniture causing collapse of the structure. Couches outdoors also attract vagrants who may find them a nice place to sleep and smoke."
>
>
>
> ♦ Eugene, OR: Requires bike storage – number depending on type of building and number of units.
>
>
>
> ♦ West Chester, PA: For drinking offenses, can impose the maximum state penalty – loss of driver's license.
>
> Other Solutions
>
> Encourage Owner-Occupancy and Responsible Management
>
> ♦ East Lansing, MI: Occupancy limits based on dwelling size and whether owner-occupied.
>
>
>
> ♦ West Lafayette, IN: rental registration program assigns different category of fees and fines for rental properties, depending on whether or not it is owner occupied. Properties with out-of-town owners must have a local manager if property owner lives outside of designated area [e.g., city or county limits].
>
>
>
> ♦ Carbondale, IL, Ann Arbor, MI, and Boulder, CO: Must have a local agent to manage property, even if owned by out-of-town parent.
>
>
>
> ♦ Ann Arbor, MI: UMich has Website listing of approved landlords.
>
>
>
> ♦ East Lansing, MI: Considering buying back rental licenses and converting rentals back to single-family, owner-occupied properties [as of 2004].
>
>
> Limit Occupancy Based On Parking Availability
>
> ♦ East Lansing, MI. Under consideration.
>
>
> R
>
> EGULATORY AC T I O N S TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NE IGHBORHOODS - JANUARY 2 0 0 5 PAGE 4
>
> Reverse Grandfathered Non-Conforming Uses
>
> ♦ Tallahassee, FL: Elimination of non-conforming status for properties that have had three or more violations of a rental housing ordinance during a six-month period.
>
>
>
> ♦ Bloomington, IN: Require all owners to register, and rescind non-conforming status if they do not register.
>
>
>
> ♦ Utah: Abandonment and Amortization of Nonconforming Uses: "The right to continue a nonconforming use may be lost if the use is abandoned for a period of time. State law does not define the period of time so it must be done by municipal ordinance. Most municipal zoning ordinances allow six months to one year of non- use, after which the property cannot be used except in conformity with the current zoning ordinance." Elsewhere, applies towards abatement of nuisances.
>
>
>
> ♦ Mason County, IL: "Whenever a nonconforming use has been discontinued for a period of 12 months, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished, and use thereafter shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance."
>
>
>
> ♦ Elgin, IL: "Multi-Family Conversion Program" with funding to encourage conversion of grandfathered properties back to single-family.
>
>
> Establish A Conservation District Or Overlay Zones to Discourage Demolition Of Historic Properties
>
> and insure new development is architecturally compatible with existing fabric of the neighborhood.
>
> ♦ Portland, OR, 1977
>
>
>
> ♦ Cambridge, MA, 1983
>
>
>
> ♦ Raleigh, NC, 1988
>
>
>
> ♦ Lake Forest, IL, 1990
>
>
>
> ♦ Arlington, VA, 1998
>
>
>
> ♦ Palos Verdes, CA, 1998
>
>
>
> ♦ Austin, TX, 1999
>
>
>
> ♦ Arlington, VA, 1999
>
>
>
> ♦ Boulder, CO, 2002
>
>
>
> ♦ Chapel Hill, NC
>
>
> Develop Deed Restrictions and Covenants
>
> for specified neighborhoods
>
> ♦ Newark, DE: Limits on number of student homes permitted: "A student home is permitted on a lot only if any portion of the lot is no closer to any portion of another student home, than a distance determined by multiplying times 10 the required lot width for a single-family detached dwelling in the zoning district in which the proposed student home is located."4
>
>
> 4
>
> http://www.udel.edu/towngown/HousingRentalGuide.html
>
> R
>
> EGULATORY AC T I O N S TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NE IGHBORHOODS - JANUARY 2 0 0 5 PAGE 5
>


Forbidding new rental licenses for a period of 18 months is not going to drastically change anything. You'll have the same number of rentals you have now, the problems will be exactly the same and the same people that are already upset will stay upset.

Changing our zoning code to 'permanently forbid or severely restrict additional rental homes around the colleges' simply means that henceforth the neighborhoods surrounding UMD will increasingly be occupied by students whose wealthy parents have bestowed a house upon them and their friends paying rent under the table without a rental license. Thus the city, rather than having to work with a landlord to try and evict troublesome tenants, will now be forced to try and remedy the problem solely through enforcing criminal statutes.

Why don't we just save the trouble of changing the zoning code to prevent students from living near their school and instead start enforcing the law? To this day I have not heard a single explanation from the police department or anyone else as to why it can solve homicides and burglaries but is incapable of cracking down on loud drinking parties. No matter how many laws you make, if the police are unable or unwilling to enforce them, the problems will persist.

The city has no business in saying who should live where or who has the right to rent their home to someone else (assuming that home is up to code and they pay taxes). The city has the obligation of saying how people should behave and enforcing laws designed to keep our neighborhoods safe and hospitable.

The fact of the matter is that as long as there are two colleges in that area, and especially if UMD continues to expand its enrollment, students will want to live in that area. If you want students to stop taking over formerly singly family dwellings, UMD either has to stop increasing their enrollment or someone has to build cheap student housing near the campus.


Why are a few people, who also rent rooms, the ones complaining so much about rentals in that article? If they move to cover Endion that is a bit too far reaching. I hate this rule becuause it effects resale value for anyone stuck owning a house in that area. If you are the one who lives in a house surrounded by rentals than your value drops in this mess. If you own the rental it becomes like gold. This, like everything else up here, is all about how people can make more money. The city treats the people like a joke. Look at the Lakewalk situation by Beacon Point Condos... The developer and the city knew what they were doing when they put the condos that close to the lake... The people have been complaining and that probably wasn't expected... and if you do walk the lakewalk there and try to go in back of the condos the people living there try to run you over with their Hummers on Water Street...

Ok, not Hummers, but you know what I mean. The rental problem though stems from the many landlords that own tons of properties and take little care of them. The joke is that now they have a monopoly on rentals and are trying to make the area around UMD a socialist state. Lucky that Burrito Union is there with its communist theme, it fits what that area is becoming. Why can't we let the free market work for itself?

WHY CAN'T WE ENFORCE LAWS ON THE BOOKS DESIGNED TO FIX ISSUES WITH BAD LANDLORDS AND NAUGHTY COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO ARE LOUD? Why not suspend students from college for alcohol offenses? Underage drinking, DUIs, and all those things could be grounds for suspensions.

The problem is that these houses get trashed by people braking the law... Why would college kids have a huge party? They are usually too young to drink legally at a bar. If law enforcement turns away from the little issues and doesn't bust the party then the underagers get wasted and end up inviting more minors over, which causes the music to be loud and people outside smoking cigarettes at 4am.

BUST THE PARTY, SUSPEND THE STUDENTS FROM COLLEGE! Do that stuff and these neighborhoods will clean up pretty quickly. Once the true offenders lose thousands of dollars for not being responsible in life they will learn a valuable lesson. Why treat people who are "adults" with kid gloves? These renters need to respect their neighbors, their property, and the people who live around them. Great lessons for becoming an adult period...

The landlords need to be held accountable also for crappy properties that invite young people to not respect them. If a house is nice the people living there will treat it that way, if it is a hole the renters will make it worse. All of these are reasons why the current 300 ft law or any law that comes at the ownership level does nothing to solve the root of this issue. On another blog someone wrote that all of this stems from some new apartments built up by campus that are overpriced and not selling. This whole thing is to get those things filled and make a buck for the developer.

We are, as Bob Dylan once sang, " A pawn in thier game." When will this city look out for the greater good of the people?


And... The best move would be to put a limit based upon square footage and parking space on the number of people who can live in a rental house. THEN ENFORCE THE HECK OUT OF IT!

1000 sq/ft house should have no more than 2-3 people living there.

If the cops stopped parties then people would be forced to make sure they are contained inside the house. The problem is that people can be outside at all hours and loud. If the cops busted them then they would be forced to stay inside, be quieter, and not piss off their entire neighborhood.

The old basement party needs to return. Underagers sitting on the front porch on a wet and infested couch drinking while cops drive by happens a bit too often.

At the college I attended they forced families to move near campus and passed laws to give them tax breaks... But you could never have a party trickle outside without the cops eventually banging at the door.


If we are focusing on the student part of this (which, yes, it's targeted at baci - why else focus on merely the UMD area and not the city as a whole?) then I also gota say that maybe those "families" need to man up and be proactive themselves. I'm not a student, but I live with students, and the moment we moved in our neighbors came to us and said if we refrain from having loud parties they will snowblow our driveway & sidewalk. Worked like a charm. Who wants to shovel? No one. This year it changed to "Keep bringing us baked goods and we'll keep blowing your driveway" :-)


Eric, you can't manage to walk from UMD to Mt Royal for a grocery store and restaurants? I'm a mile farther away and do it all the time.

I completely agree that UMD needs more dorms and a mandatory living on-campus rule unless the student is living with family in the area. I got through undergrad and grad schools living on campuses the whole time, and think it's better for both the school and the community.


A good discussion about things here. Watch out Baci you keep doing research like this and they will be talking about you. I spent my four years at the main U on campus and I don't recall it being a bad thing. You could walk to Dinky Town or over to the West Bank. What I see missing in this debate is any kind of imput or leadership from UMD. Maybe I'm missing something, but you would think they would be a major player in this discussion.


Between this proposal and the Red Plan, it makes it very hard when house hunting to make decisions that are good for your family and appease the re-sale gods. It's not an easy time to relocate to Duluth -except for all the friendly folks on PDD.


I have been undecided about this issue since it came out. I am in full support of having college student housing in town and around campus. I have also never had to live in the middle of all of it though. I have a friend who just had a baby and lives on a block with 3 college rental properties. He says that almost 4 nights a week his baby is woken up by excessively loud parties and has caught people peeing in his yard at least 5 times. He is not a dick head and hasn't called the police because he remebers being in college and that is all part of it, but they won't tone it down. On the other hand, my grandmother used to live around 4 college rentals right by UMD and she couldn't have been happier. I was away at college myself and my parents live on the Range so she was kind of on her own. She never had to shovel her sidewalk or driveway and never had to mow her lawn or weed her gardens(which she took a lot of pride in). The college kids loved her because she would always cook and bake for them in exchange for these acts of decency. I think there has to be an agreement between students and residents. Duluth will welcome college kids with open arms but they have to follow neighborhood standards that include not peeing on neighbors lawns I think the problem would self correct. We need the college kids in town and need to find a way to co exist. I think property owners need to lighten up and not play watchdog for people who might be having a good time and college renters need to show a little more respect to neighbors with families.


I used to do it all the time, eco eco, but do you really think that Mount Royal meets the requirement for a legitimate college neighborhood? It's a mini-mall. Put up a coffee house, a bar or two, maybe a bookstore and cheap movie theater on St. Marie or some other street near campus and then I think we can say we've got a student neighborhood. For now, though, I think I'll stay living in Duluth proper - where there's some interesting architecture to look at and nightlife beyond drinking in someone's dorm. My apologies to everyone I'm upsetting by doing so.


Mel, I'm glad to hear that you've worked out a relationship with your neighbors...souds like extortion to me. I prefer dont piss on my front steps and I wont call the cops or better yet dont have loud parties unitl midnight on a monday where you're 20 feet away from my two year old's window swearing at the top of your lungs because your homey spilled your bongwater on your abercrombie and I wont need to spend my nights being a pro-active neighborhood advocate.

REALLY! Unitl there is an INTENTIONAL PLAN which includes creating a vibrant student residential epicenter and activity hub ..oh..how about DOWNTOWN, I will continue to be a polarizing force. Admit it Mel, there IS a problem...it takes communities to fix problems...thats what this is..the status quo COULDN'T contiune..Give me 300' or give me your parent's address in New Brighton so I can go party next to their house on a work night.


Wow i think it goes a little far to call nice neighborly actions (trading baked goods for snowplowing) extortion. I think my neighbors were brilliant. We weren't planning on having parties anyway. I think it speaks volumes to someone if their neighbor offers to do something nice for them like blow their driveway.

Blanketing all students together - especially when the troubling percentage is so small - is ridiculous, especially this whole New Brighton, Rich Parts, Abercrombie Bong thing...but I think we've covered that multiple times before.

Do you suggest we move the campuses downtown? I think what people are saying here is an activity hub surrounding campus within walking distance. It's a good idea, and one worth thinking about. The whole idea of building a student district AWAY from the colleges to me just sounds ridiculous.

But I agree with people here, a lot of it needs to go on the college & the current law enforcement. I just don't think that it should degrade into blanketing, name-calling, and stereotyping.


No, Eric, I don't think Mt Royal is a great college neighborhood. I was just replying to your statement that there weren't any grocery stores or restaurants within walking distance. There isn't a great college neighborhood in town and if that was a potential student's biggest concern, they should have gone elsewhere.

Do you think a neighborhood where people get up at 6 or 7 to go to work or elementary school or church is a good place for college students to be partying and yelling in the wee hours? How do you feel about cars parked across the sidewalk you're trying to walk on? These are the kind of things people object to; they don't give a damn if college students, doctors, or janitors are living next door as long as the neighborhood isn't disrupted.

The funny thing is that while you're complaining about living on campus, I think UMD is the best entertainment venue in town--dance, music, theater, movies, lectures, planetarium. I think alcohol and parties are the biggest reason people wouldn't want to live there and so those students and UMD inflict those issues on the community instead of taking responsibility for them.


Of course I don't feel that's a good place for partying. And as far as cars parking on the sidewalk goes, I have a problem with that as well. I personally wish more people who are able would give up on driving. That certainly won't happen by preventing students from at least living near their campus. But these aren't the issues at hand here. The fact of the matter is, this isn't an issue of legislation. You can't legislate college students out of existence. And you can't force people to live in a place where they don't want to live. UMD isn't going anywhere, and even if they encourage more people to live on campus, more and more people still will be enrolled every year. Where will these people live?

I agree with what you say about responsibility, but I disagree with who you cast the blame upon. It's the responsibility of each and every one of us to create a community based on mutual understanding. If homeowners are annoyed by their college student neighbors, it should be expected that they talk to those neighbors about their issues and work to resolve them through good communication. Likewise, students should keep their more family oriented neighbors in mind when they decide to engage in drunken debauchery. I realize things don't always work out that way, but what else do we have to work with? In a community, like it or not, we have to live with eachother. Any accusations we make and any city ordinances passed aren't going to change that fundamental fact.


I think Eric has the right of it. Kudos. I anoint him Winner.


what we need here is 6,000 neighbors JUST like Eric.

for real.


College students are adults, and they are going to be your neighbors whether you like it or not. They have every right to be. I for one see attempts to restrict apartment residency as elitist and wrong. I am not a student, but am a recent college grad (not from either school in question) living on a low income while I look for full-time employment. I don't know where everyone else on this list is coming from, but I rent in a duplex, and I simply can't afford to live with fewer than two other people. For students spending tens of thousands on their education and wracking up huge loan debt, the decision to live communally in a neighborhood (often cheaper than a dorm room) may be motivated by finances, not just personal preference. This situation shouldn't make them any less able to participate in the community.

OO, draconian zoning rules are not "socialism," but rather just the opposite. A pleasantly socialist (root word=social) way to handle the situation would be to build community dialogue through neighborhood and block associations that could discuss each resident's needs and concerns. Make it mandatory for each place of residence to send a representative to such an organization for quarterly or monthly meetings, and they are responsible for their house meeting the neighborhood guidelines, whether they own or rent. Another idea, less based on coercion, could simply be for someone to offer mediation to residents who are at odds, which can help the conflicting parties lose their distrust of one another and reach a better understanding. The agreements worked out could be made legally binding.

Bottom line: you want college students to behave as adults, treat them as adults. Don't blame the majority of law-abiding, peaceful, friendly young people in your neighborhood for a rowdy minority, who won't be easily gotten rid of by force. Older residents can lead the way in creating a welcoming, vibrant community, rather than an elitist, exclusive zone of distrust.


that door swings both ways. if they wish to be treated as adults, they should also conduct themselves as such. it's bad enough for them coming into a situation where they're already down two strikes because they're a.) young and b.) in college, given the reputation of such...therefore if they want to be taken seriously, they need to not only be doing it better and cleaner than the next guy, they also need to apply a little peer pressure on their fellow students to do the same.

all in all, both sides of the fence have a long way to go to make things right. if UMD is too chickenshit to take some initiative, the it's up to the rest of use to straighten things out, and unfortunately a key player in this game is perpetually out of the picture. the universities' blatant silence throughout this whole ordeal tells me that they really don't give a shit about anything but money. the city around them can continue to go to hell so long as the tuition duckets keep rolling in.

"Dear landlord,
Please don't put a price on my soul.
My burden is heavy,
My dreams are beyond control.
When that steamboat whistle blows,
I'm gonna give you all I got to give,
And I do hope you receive it well,
Dependin' on the way you feel that you live.

Dear landlord,
Please heed these words that I speak.
I know you've suffered much,
But in this you are not so unique.
All of us, at times, we might work too hard
To have it too fast and too much,
And anyone can fill his life up
With things he can see but he just cannot touch.

Dear landlord,
Please don't dismiss my case.
I'm not about to argue,
I'm not about to move to no other place.
Now, each of us has his own special gift
And you know this was meant to be true,
And if you don't underestimate me,
I won't underestimate you."


Mel et al,

The "winner" here is Duluth. If we can become a proactive community...I may come across as draconian and a stereotyper...I'm really not that bad of a person and have hand crafted relationships with my neighbors...students and long term residents alike...I blow the sidewalk, donate furniture, meet my neighbors...even going to their door at 3am to ask them to turn it down...and I REALLY like living in a college town...really. I'd be glad to live in a "college district" as long as that is what it was...and had all the enforcment and block parties and regulated housing , which meets humane standards, and ample parking.

Here's the deal...None of this would be a part of the greater public dialouge without people like me, Duluthians who want our neighborhoods to be healthy, rasing awareness....we're too friggan nicey nicey or there are those (many seniors) afraind to confront their obnoxious neighbors...Do you think I WANT to be mr. downer-pants? I want a diverse, healthy, SAFE place to live. After YEARS and YEARS of dealing with situations I wont even go into here related directly to in-action on the part of the players in this growth challenge, I and other are acting....all the solutions offerd here are GREAT!! I applaud any and all efforts to get over this hump....just know it wouldn't have happened without neighbors rasing a stink. Now, call me what you will...down me for being polarizing but it's what I needed to do to get this issue moving...dig? And, I'll keep the pressure up until I feel it's been resolved.

BTW your rowdy minority isn't that small..the warm weather last weekend brought forth countless groups of roving freshman to the 17th/16th ave block of 5th street for parties..they trolled up and down woodland going from house to house...they have NO INVESTMENT in this community...it's 13th grade for them...and they piss cheap beer on our best intentions.


Baci, I wouldn't consider thousands upon thousands of dollars spent on tuition, food, rent, clothes, entertainment, books, and yes, beer, to be NO INVESTMENT. Perhaps the cheap beer is a poor investment, but those students are paying someone's salary. Not that that gives them any right to violate the law, but this town would really, really go downhill if we didn't have thousands of students coming to support our economy every school year.

And the minority is that small. You can't possibly think that a large percentage of students are trolling the east hillside looking for house parties. Count the number of students you see committing crimes (including public intoxication) next weekend. Then take 11,000 and divide it by the number of students you witness committing crimes.


This is all great dialouge about students and where they belong in the community, and we could debate it for ages (and have...) but in the end the root of this issue isn't all that, but merely that Reinert's idea is forever flawed & upstaged by so many other better, more viable solutions.

The idea is, in a very basic summary, to move renters out of the proposed zone (around UMD/CSS) and force them outside of that area - to what ends? "To protect families"? All I can think of this is: Do families not live outside of this zone? Are there no families in Central Hillside? Downtown? Duluth Heights? Who are all those mothers with children that get on my bus every day? Do they not mind loud parties waking their children up? Is that why we're pushing all the "troublemakers" toward them? I'm sure they'd be glad to hear that Duluth is looking out for all the families...in east Duluth.

Because really, that's what this plan looks like. Appeasing the complaints of the wealthy. Protecting the families with the big houses & the nice neighborhoods from the evil lowly renters. There are some things money can't buy...for everything else, there's special interests.


It's NOT about a supposed displacemnet of googie two shoes students, it's about density...Mel, and others, your tune will change when you own a home in areas effected by this lack of intentional plan. By then, it'll be too late for the rest of us. And, at 3am when they're outside your bedroom window puking and yelling for megan to come get you, one is too many ... I havent heard ANYthing to change my mind. We need a legislated solution to this...unitl a beeter one is INPLACE, give me 300' or give me death!


Yes, density. Which is why I think it's silly to push people out of one place and into others - you're just condensing them even more. Which is why the 300 foot rule looks wonderful compared to this. But I still think the 4 person rule that got shot down was even better than both of these. Although none of them great solutions


please excuse my early morning splelling errors. For the record, I'm not intolerant and do enjoy living in a college town, I just want change for the better and so far, the vehemence of myself and others have served to bring about that change...it will continue until this is resolved for the better for ALL parties..it's possible.


Goodmorning baci ;-) trust me, I understand where you're coming from, and that you're not intolerant. I can separate a good debate from reality. I'm enjoying your banter, really. And I agree that a solution is needed - but perhaps from a collaboration, and not necessarily from some guy sitting on the council. Have a great Tuesday!


I'm rather dissapointed in what many people in this community are saying about college students. I pride myself on being a good neighbor and know many more like myself who SOMEHOW maintain college attendence and a friendly neighborhood relationship. One thing many are forgetting is that a majority of the problem for the city is in parking and not in partying. Sure the parties are sometimes an inconvenience but parking is a daily problem and that's what they're mainly intending to solve. That's why their idea is to limit the density.

I'm starting to understand what the hispanic culture is going through down south. Unappreciated. We do a lot for the community. We serve food at restaurants, find you some jeans when you can't find your size, and basically do the things you don't want to do, and we do it while attempting to maintain grades. Occassionally we party on the weekends but you may be forgetting that the main problem lies with the students currently living on campus. The younger and newly released highschool grads that are finally out from underneath their parents' wings. Hence, telling students they are forced to live the rest of their college career in student housing twin beds, is slightly unfair.

Also, on a sidenote, the partying will never stop. It went on when you attended college and will continue to go on regardless of law enforcement, that's why we have police, because people will break the law. Just be happy that those tons of kids walking around this weekend weren't driving around. Sounds like they were a nusiance, but at least they weren't being unsafe.


Post a comment


Seriously: If you click "post" more than once, you're going to end up looking really stupid.

If you don't see your comment after it's published, try refreshing your browser.