Submitted by GhostOpera406 t3_y8mm64 in RhodeIsland
Comments
totoop t1_it2mfjr wrote
The reality is they are just pandering to the vocal minority of wealthy homeowners that are very active in the local political system and are tired of having rambunctious college kids (and probably just poor people in general) living around their neighborhoods so they concoct some BS spin to accomplish their goal.
I mean.....I could be wrong but I don't know what is worse; a political system full of corrupt asscracks that don't have the publics best interest in mind or a political system full of complete idiots that have no idea how their policies will actually impact the public. Both are scary and we probably just have both anyways....
Coincel_pro t1_it2mocs wrote
We have both
Desperate_Expert_952 t1_it3kezt wrote
100% pandering. It’s dumbed down thinking. Less people in house = less problems. Doesn’t work like that but the average smooth brain can’t comprehend. Less good lord better ugg ugg
Auto_Animus t1_it3971v wrote
It’s why the pawsox bounced I believe.
WrathWise t1_it27bf4 wrote
Ironically I am now and have been a resident for 15 years thanks to coming here specifically to attend college. Love RI. (& I was born in NY, moved around, + lived out of the country so it’s not like I’m inexperienced in comparing).
UltravioletClearance t1_it2ot0s wrote
I mean they think banning new residential construction will stop gentrification without realizing the lack of new housing is what causes gentrification in the first place. Zoning boards aren't the smartest bunch.
dc_dobbz t1_it2r43z wrote
For someone to propose this instead of loosening building regulations to allow denser building near colleges is a level of stupidity I am at a complete loss to understand
[deleted] t1_it1y4q9 wrote
[deleted]
fishythepete t1_it20ioy wrote
The proposed ordinance also has the lovely unintended consequence of increasing demand for housing, putting more upward pressure on rent.
RosaPalms t1_it256z5 wrote
"unintended"
fishythepete t1_it28ce6 wrote
Correct. Unintended. Per the sponsor:
>“We need to do what we can to preserve housing for our residents and to maintain our neighborhoods,”
degggendorf t1_it29x09 wrote
I think the "quotes" in the previous comment were to denote dishonesty.
They might be saying that's their goal, but the real purpose is just to keep certain people out of certain neighborhoods...a tale as old as time.
degggendorf t1_it29qoy wrote
> “We need to do what we can to preserve housing for our residents and to maintain our neighborhoods”
by........making students occupy even more housing units? This is doing the exact opposite of what they're saying they want it to.
bungocheese t1_it1sv3j wrote
Same thing they're trying to do in narragansett, which I'm pretty sure they haven't been able to fully pass
Grainger407 t1_it26ey3 wrote
It’s in effect now. I think a lot of people are fighting it. But I know for a fact landlords are enforcing it.
Kids also getting around it aswell. Really stupid if you ask me.
TheCyborganizer t1_it2uhh1 wrote
A state judge halted enforcement of the Narragansett rule about a month ago. Who knows how it will play out.
Grainger407 t1_it3ddlu wrote
I saw that. Unfortunately everyone already is locked into a lease. Hopefully it sticks for next year
AleutianMegaThrust t1_it2c3fx wrote
So no more renting out houses in Scarborough and Bonnet shores?
Grainger407 t1_it2g02y wrote
Not exactly. A lot of kids are being forced to live with 3 instead of say 4 or 5. The owners have to jack up the rent to break even. It sucks. I know plenty of kids who are just “renting with 3” and having 1 or 2 kids stay there even though they rnt on the lease. It’s hurting the local economy and it shows. Kids will party regardless of how many kids live in a house. Personally, I think it’s a dumb rule and I can see it being turned over.
AleutianMegaThrust t1_it3yr5l wrote
Jesus that's dumb. Back from 2009-2012 it was 500 per month for 5 people in a house in eastward. I could only imagine what it costs now.
DeanOMiite t1_it58ygc wrote
I paid $400 for Bonnet for a couple years (four beds) and had a three bedroom at point Judith for....I think $450? Now I have a client (I'm a realtor) who gets $1000 per bed near PC (utilities included). Times have changed.
Human-Ad2370 t1_itbj18m wrote
It’s a minimum 800 - 1500 per room
AleutianMegaThrust t1_itbk9h2 wrote
Holy sheit. Bye bye 56 Exeter, 6 Alexander ct, and 6 Ashton Ln. Sorry about the ragers and that one house fire. Fuck all the out of state roommates I had that one year.
Desperate_Expert_952 t1_it3knyz wrote
If you go to gansett their are plenty of college kids living together over 3 heads. It’s not an enforceable ordinance.
Grainger407 t1_it3uv0o wrote
I graduated recently from URI. Some landlords absolutely enforce it. Others turn a blind eye like I said in my last comment. People will have 100+ person parties if 3 people live in a house or 5. It doesn’t solve anything other than make college kids lives harder.
DeanOMiite t1_it593ob wrote
Right? I mean if anything it just means the drunk kids have another room to pas out in without worrying about sleeping in someone else's bed. It's not like they walled off every fourth bedroom.
barsoapguy t1_it40vve wrote
Could people sue the colleges then for the behavior of their member’s or perhaps the colleges could expel the students then ? If this is about the behavior of the students that should involve the parent organization .
Grainger407 t1_it417l4 wrote
Students definitely face repercussions when they live off campus. I have heard of multiple people getting in trouble with the school for disturbances/ breaking laws/ rules of the school. Sue? Not entirely sure.
sibly t1_it25yh7 wrote
Smithfield did this too. I never understood how it’s not considered discrimination under the fair housing act.
HotConcrete t1_it27tlw wrote
It is. When laws like this are challenged, they’re struck down.
Dextrous456 t1_it29aij wrote
The RI Supreme Court found in a prior case that students are not considered a protected class under the fair housing act. This link says something different, so I may be misremembering.
https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/SupremeOpinions/18-114.pdf
dishwashersafe t1_it5hhn5 wrote
Thanks for the links. That was a good read. Obligatory "I'm no lawyer, but" even without being a suspect class (and I'm not convinced they aren't), it can still be discrimination. The main argument as far as I can tell is that concerns about maintaining the character of the neighborhood are legitimate. Now replace "college student" with [racial minority of your choice] and suddenly those arguments don't seem okay.
Dextrous456 t1_it6xviw wrote
I get what you're saying. It can be discrimination in a practical sense, but not in a legal sense, since - so far - they've only defined certain protected classes. Those are drilled into everyone who takes a real estate class. The closest thing to "student" is "familial status."
dishwashersafe t1_it7aseg wrote
Makes sense! What about occupation or age? Those seems like closer parallels. Are they not protected in a legal sense? Can a neighborhood legally decide "we're a 55+ community now" and everyone younger isn't allowed to renew their lease? Can a neighborhood legally say no factory workers are allowed anymore because they're ruining the character of the white collar neighborhood? Maybe the answer is "yes", but I feel like it shouldn't be!
Dextrous456 t1_it982un wrote
Age is definitely a protected category. I don't know how 55+ communities get away with it, tbh.
There are also different rules depending on whether you are a landlord-owner-resident or a landlord who doesn't live in the building. Most building over 3 units have stricter requirements, too.
Here's some detail.
The employment* and public accommodations statutes prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), disability, ancestral origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and age. The credit statute, in addition to prohibiting discrimination on these bases, also prohibits discrimination based on marital status, familial status, military status, and association with members of a protected class. The housing statute covers all of the previously mentioned areas in addition to status as a victim of domestic abuse, housing status, and lawful source of income.
peanutj00 t1_it2a67h wrote
This is so fucking dumb. As if college weren’t expensive enough.
mpm4q2 t1_it2krnw wrote
So go to another state!
peanutj00 t1_it2s7wq wrote
I’m already in MA and I’m 15 years out of school. It’s not about me. 😊
mpm4q2 t1_it2vx7w wrote
Then mind your business
Styx_Renegade t1_it3kodf wrote
You are still actually stupid.
mpm4q2 t1_it3mw97 wrote
And you are a leach
josie-gg t1_it3t0jn wrote
Leech*
Styx_Renegade t1_it3v1lx wrote
You can’t prove I’m a leech or not. But I can easily prove that you’re stupid.
mpm4q2 t1_it3vcyd wrote
No just that I can’t spell. You can’t hide that your a douche bag though!
chatendormi t1_it2t5if wrote
Because it’s cheaper in any other state? Lol
peanutj00 t1_it31d35 wrote
How many other states have this kind of occupancy limit though? (Actually wondering—I haven’t heard of this before!) I came to RI for college because I got a pretty great scholarship which saved me enough to graduate without debt. Part of what saved me money was renting a beach house in the off-season with classmates. It makes sense to me that landlords would prefer students renting from September-May than having their properties standing empty until the summer.
I feel for today’s students because tuition and rent have both gone up steeply. I wonder what benefit anyone gets from this bill.
Styx_Renegade t1_it3kn4m wrote
You are actually stupid.
Zaizu t1_it2h88d wrote
Half the city are college kids this is idiotic
dishwashersafe t1_it2m0nf wrote
This is discrimination plain and simple. So 4 people can live together if they're not going to college?? But if they decide to get an education, let's punish them?
>"We need to do what we can to preserve housing for our residents"
Oh so students aren't residents?? Fuck off.
And don't get me started on affordable housing... so say there's a 5 bedroom house available, but sorry, you're only allowed to have 3 students live there. Way to simultaneously increase costs AND reduce supply.
Moelarrycheeze t1_it2jpdh wrote
What’s the point? The kids are gonna party regardless of the occupancy limit. All this does is raise everyone price
barsoapguy t1_it4198d wrote
Can’t they crack down on the schools then if them partying is the problem ?
If the behavior of the member’s of these respective colleges are out of control shouldn’t those groups be held to account ?
Moelarrycheeze t1_it4cefh wrote
Not really because these apartments are not on university property.
barsoapguy t1_it4mhfy wrote
Don’t the colleges have a code of conduct ? I know my company can fire me if outside of work hours I massive breach our code of ethics .
How do these organizations not maintain oversight on their members ?
Dinosquid t1_it10uet wrote
Ok, Pol Pot! 🙄
pinkiepie1212 t1_it2he1h wrote
Are they just *trying* to make it harder for ppl to afford to have a place to live while going to college?
karvus89 t1_it2jeml wrote
What a dumb proposal
D-Spornak t1_it2qmuh wrote
If apartments were affordable then most people would probably not choose to live with 800 other people.
Keelija9000 t1_it2gbpo wrote
Does this apply to families with 4 children living at home commuting to college?
bluehat9 t1_it2iql0 wrote
No. It’s about unrelated tenants
Keelija9000 t1_it2lmf3 wrote
Thanks for clarifying!
Open-Mood-3755 t1_it30vwr wrote
Watch them lose a giant portion of their own economy since no one can move here for college anymore. A giant portion of the incoming freshman batch ended up delaying or going elsewhere because they couldn't find housing, since the Narragansett "ban" forced so many students to live on campus. Plus, once their old ass rich benefactors die off, who's going to line their pockets? Who's going to want to move to RI because of the high cost of rent? No one wants to relocate here because cost of living is simply too high. Fabulous thinking dollface this is how you turn prosperous places into ghost town imo.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_it3cnf7 wrote
This is an excellent opportunity to point out that we should probably reverse the existing ordinance already doing this in single family homes already. I was shocked to realize that hadn't been shot down by the courts years ago.
bluehat9 t1_it442oy wrote
It’s totally unenforced
Proof-Variation7005 t1_it4dqu6 wrote
Maybe. I don't know how many single family homes are student rentals anyway. Most seem to be duplexes or triple deckers. Some landlords might disregard it if there's no enforcement, but I'm guessing as many/more probably don't risk getting themselves in trouble if there is enforcement someday.
Either way, it never should've passed in the first place.
bluehat9 t1_it4kyu0 wrote
Quite a few many around brown, especially
christopher1983 t1_it3as61 wrote
tl;dr Here’s a relevant YouTube video on the Case Against Single-Family Zoning
Limiting the use of residential land benefits white people who own property at the expense of non-white renters who do not (even in totally separate parts of the city). The sponsor of the legislation represents Ward 2 (Blackstone & Wayland) which is primarily zoned R-1, R-1A. It is the whitest ward in the city with 69% non-Hispanic Whites. The areas around Providence College are similarly zoned very low density. The highest density R-3 and R-4 zones are found in the Wards 13 & 15, with the greatest non-White populations.
With this proposal, the Councilwoman seeks to further limit the use of housing stock in the already constrained residential zones of her ward. This is no solution for the city’s housing shortage.
Single-family housing has been recognized as a form of exclusionary zoning. Based on zoning map and demographic data by ward (see the bottom of the map) alone, it seems to have worked out exceptionally well for Ward 2.
Intentional or not, this measure would further limit the use of low-density housing stock around Brown and most other Universities, but will have its greatest impact in the knock-on effect it continues to exact against less-affluent wards. In actual fact, the cost of housing has gone up considerably across the city in the last 20 years, but has risen most sharply in Silverlake, Elmwood & Olneyville.
The repeal of single-family housing has been successful in many areas of the United States, most notably in Minneapolis & California. At the beginning of the year H-6638 was proposed in the RI legislature to do the same here. I think we should all pressure our representatives in the State House to make movement on this issue. We can all hem and haw about the percentage of low-income housing allocated within new developments. But let’s remember the housing affordability issue is strongly related to overall housing stock and that overall housing stock simply cannot increase within vast tracts of Providence.
silverhammer96 t1_it3mxny wrote
This would literally do the opposite. Limiting the number of students means the students would be more spread out therefore occupying more buildings. What the hell is wrong with our state?
Swamp_yankee_ninja t1_it2mibz wrote
Keep voting for these idiots… so many fundamentals and rights being ignored and infringed upon, here I don’t have the time to list them. Buy by all means house 30 illegal immigrants in one house.
Jerkeyjoe t1_it2qycd wrote
Not sure how I feel, but in my personal perspective, the dude who bought my building modified two 2 bed apartments to 3 beds, and is renting room by room marketed to students. I mean whatever, but I'm not pleased about the packing there's just too many people in too small a space.
The_Dream_of_Shadows t1_it3i89n wrote
The thing is, this isn't about the packing at all. The Council isn't proposing this because they care about college kids being too tightly packed. They're doing it because college kids are supposedly "taking away" homes from actual city residents.
Which, in theory, should mean the Council would support more college kids per home, not fewer, in order to free up more buildings...
ranchdressing01 t1_it38q4m wrote
What exactly would the proposed benefit for this be? Can't seem to wrap my head around it...
Styx_Renegade t1_it3jgug wrote
Wait what? That makes no sense.
abstractrobotica t1_it2crng wrote
I dunno, I thought this proposal was meant to deal with noise and quality of life issues, and not about affordable housing. I guess I should read the article. It will never pass.
Aleyoop t1_it2g3sf wrote
It might pass, Narragansett and Smithfield have enacted similar ordinances already.
abstractrobotica t1_it2ju8s wrote
Are there colleges in those towns? I am new to state.
bungocheese t1_it2mikf wrote
URI students live in Narragansett if not on campus and Bryant students live in Smithfield
MiIkTank t1_it2rocr wrote
There’s 13 colleges in RI, the furthest away you can get from a college is like 20 mins.
abstractrobotica t1_it4m5v4 wrote
I don’t think there are any schools in those towns, so no one to fight it effectively.
No way Brown would allow this to happen.
Aleyoop t1_it4mfvh wrote
There are colleges in those towns. URI students live in Narragansett and Bryant students live in Smithfield. That’s why those ordinances exist, people move to a college town and then get mad it’s a college town for some reason. But it’s true Brown has a lot of pull. I’m just saying, it very well pass.
abstractrobotica t1_it4mvai wrote
Thanks for taking time to explain. You have a point.
dc_dobbz t1_it2qscs wrote
This is unbelievably stupid, even for city politicians.
captainastryd t1_it2xhn9 wrote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly
Can this be easily fought with the ole freedom of assembly amendment?
powlacracy t1_it7br9u wrote
Where I went to college had a similar law, no more than two of us could be on the lease or something like that. How do you expect two college students to live in a 4-bedroom house? Most landlords didn't follow it. There was a very vocal part of the community who hated the fact they lived in a college town (something they chose to do). The cops didn't help either. They would go around to "introduce themselves" to try to figure out how many people were living in each house. A thing our landlord warned us about.
Laws like this only divide the community unnecessarily.
Thick-Error-6330 t1_it7jsc9 wrote
As a college student, this is so frustrating. Some of us just want to find affordable housing, which means living with multiple people.
[deleted] t1_itchimy wrote
[deleted]
DecemberDomenic t1_ithk1t8 wrote
To what end?
wyzapped t1_it2v9k5 wrote
How is this even enforceable? It seems so easy to circumvent. If kids are acting like animals when they are renting, then punish those kids (via violation of noise ordinaries, disturbing the peace etc.). Don't punish all students, and landlords to try and fix the bad behavior of only some.
mpm4q2 t1_it3t9la wrote
Like I said dyslexic! What’s your excuse?
AwayOpportunity8088 t1_it46ud5 wrote
This stinks
elporkco t1_it4mr8d wrote
There's something really messed up about a government, that tries to dictate how people live. And it seems pretty discriminatory to single out college students. They are over 18 and legally adult Are they not?
mpm4q2 t1_it2kn0g wrote
It has always been a law!
The_Dream_of_Shadows t1_it26byq wrote
“We need to open up more space for our own residents, not college students. Quick! Let’s make it so that you can’t have more than three college students in one house, meaning that they’ll necessarily have to take up more buildings, which will likely still be in Providence, thus invalidating our entire goal.”
We elect unfathomably stupid people…