TJ Parker, a 23-year-old student of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences (MCPHS), followed his father’s footsteps when he chose to move to Mission Hill to attend MCPHS.
Mission Hill has changed drastically in the past 15 years, according to Parker. Due to safety reforms, housing improvements, and its prime location, “…students started flooding in,” he said.
Michael Ross, Boston City Council president, argues the infiltration of students has deteriorated neighborhoods and inflated market values. Ross wants to stem the influx of students into neighborhoods, such as Mission Hill, with the “No More Than Four” zoning ordinance.
The “No More Than Four” ordinance passed unanimously in March of 2008. The ordinance amends the definition of a “family” to exclude five full-time undergraduate students and as a result, no more than four undergraduates can live together in an apartment.
In February of 2009, Ross proposed another ordinance to increase university cooperation in the enforcement of “No More Than Four.” His proposal would build upon a law passed in 2004 that mandated universities to report how many students were living off-campus in a breakdown by Boston zip code, according to the Boston City council website. Ross’ February proposal would require universities to list the exact off-campus addresses of its students as well.
On March 10th, the committee on Government Operations held a hearing to discuss the newest proposal. At the hearing, universities opposed the proposal because their lawyers advised them that providing exact addresses would violate Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a federal law that protects students.
Jeff Doggett, a representative of Northeastern University, testified that the university accountability proposal was a violation of FERPA. He said, “we are directly challenging a federal law that has been in place for the very protection, and in some cases, put together to avoid this very kind of situation, which is providing information to municipalities.”
“The penalties when universities violate FERPA are massive because you stand to lose your federal aid, which includes work study and financial aid,” Doggett said. Instead, Doggett suggested a “solution that is more FERPA-friendly.”
Meanwhile, a lawsuit is still in court about the legality of the original “No More Than Four” zoning ordinance. Stephan Greenbaum, an attorney for Greenbaum, Nagel, Fisher & Paliotti, LLP, filed suit in April of 2008 against the city of Boston and the Zoning Commission.
Greenbaum represents property owners, managers, and students who oppose the law. Though the verified complaint lists several legal arguments declaring the zoning ordinance is illegal, the main criticism is that this law targets a certain age group thereby violating the right to equal protection under the law and freedom of association. The verified complaint also states the enforcement of this law would require a violation of the right to privacy.
Councilor Ross disagrees with Greenbaum and restated his conviction that the zoning ordinance and the university accountability proposal are on “very firm legal ground” at the March 10th hearing.
Ross explained in his opening statements at the hearing that the “No More Than Four” rule was to address the loss of community and maintain a certain quality of life for residents, not an attack on students. He cited rising property values in his PowerPoint presentation during the hearing and argued the “No More than Four” law would make housing more affordable.
However, Parker said he believes adjusting housing prices is not within Councilor Ross’ jurisdiction. “City Council shouldn’t affect housing prices. No one has a birthright to live in a neighborhood in a free market. It’s absolutely a form of rental control,” Parker said.
Aside from the legal arguments, many claim the ordinance is unenforceable. Greenbaum said, “this is clearly unenforceable, especially given that the universities are adamantly opposed to the newest proposal.” Ross, himself, conceded that the ordinance was unenforceable standing alone. That is why, Ross argued, the second proposal should be passed immediately.
Bill Good, the commissioner of Inspectional Services Department (ISD) testified at the hearing to update the committee on the enforcement so far. “As of this date, we have not received a specific complaint that there are more than four students,” said Good
Good explained their strategy to enforce this law so far has been to focus on public information and in response to complaints. According to Good, ISD has relied on complaints instead of going door-to-door due to ambiguous legal conditions.
“Frankly, we’re not certain yet of the enforcement procedure in terms of what information we can collect, or whether we’d have to interview students. Those issues are still in a grey area,” said Good.
Annie McCormack, a Boston University junior, is currently living in Allston with five other undergraduate females. She said the number of parties is completely independent of how many students live together.
“Living with more girls has made it harder to have parties and host events. On any given weekend, one of the housemates has an exam or a paper, has guests coming to visit, or other such events, where it would be rude for the other housemates to host a party at the house,” McCormack said.
A Boston landlord, who wished to remain anonymous, also raised doubts about the effectiveness of the law. “What if you have five 19-year-olds who work at full-time at Starbucks? What if you have students who work at Starbucks and go to B.U. full-time? What happens if you have four undergraduates and 1 graduate? Is that okay? I think so.”
The landlord said he was skeptical about Ross’ intentions. “I think this whole thing is political driven.” He said he attributes the loose enforcement guidelines to the idea that, “Ross does not really care what happens with this law. He doesn’t have to win on this. He just has to get his name in the paper.”
“It’s an easy topic for a politician because it appeases his voting constituents and faces no real opposition; the students in opposition are a transient body that doesn’t vote,” said the landlord.
Similarly, Parker said, “he’s just supporting his voters in Mission Hill. He’s just supporting who is going to keep him as City Counselor. He doesn’t care about students because students don’t vote.”
“The city is making a huge mistake by not embracing the students. The students keep the economy from turning into Detroit. Without the students, you’re screwed. You should be doing everything you can to make these kids fall in love and stay,” said Parker.
Several residents of Mission Hill and Boston testifying in support of this law said they were not anti-student at all. Rather, they said they are urging for a restored balance in their neighborhoods. Several residents described the effect of apartments over run by students on their families and the housing market. Kate Weldon, a recent graduate, began to cry when she described the frustration of her newborn waking up in the night due to a noisy party.
John R. Connolly, City-Councilor-At-Large, had a less moderate policy. “I come at this as a zero percent guy. I’d like to see the council, elected officials, and universities work to get dormitories built in the right place, so we can see 100 percent of students housed in dormitories.”
Though Parker is frustrated with the general student apathy he has faced, he plans to continue fighting. He began a Facebook group last year that had about 1,300 student members at its peak. His goal was to simply keep students up-to-date. “I didn’t think it’d actually pass because it seemed so ridiculous at that time,” said Parker.
Now, he says his main concern is that, “it [the ordinance] sets a precedent to pass legislation that discriminates students.”
Similar laws limiting the number of unrelated people living together exist in Philadelphia, Gainsville, Fla., Salt Lake City, and Boulder, Colo. Laws specific to students living together exist in Bowling Green, Ohio, Newark, Del., and Bloomsberg, Pa.
Greenbaum predicts the ordinance will go to trial and whoever is unhappy with the outcome will file an appeal. Even if the accountability report does pass, the landlord said the law would continue to be unenforceable. Students will report home addresses or find ways around the law. Instead he feels the responsibility to control overcrowding, noise, and market values should be left to the property owners of Boston.
However, Councilman Ross and supporters of this bill argue the future of Boston’s neighborhoods cannot be left to the increasing number of absentee landlords who are only looking for profit.
