The Predictable Outcome of Bad Policy [Workshop]
“3 BDRM Home just outside of Student Rental Ban Area! 2 blocks to Macalester! 235 Amherst Ave!!”
These words will probably scare anyone who owns a home just outside of the Student Housing Overlay District. It is a headline for a rental housing advertisement in St. Paul. The description continues:
“This is a beautiful home that is one block outside of the Student Housing overlay district. That means that as a St. Thomas student you can rent this house without having to worry if your landlord has a Student housing permit because this house does not need one!!”
[Quick Note: It's not clear why the renting students would care if the is inside or outside of the overlay? If someone could fill me in here it would be appreciated. My guess is that it's just a poorly worded advertisement, unless there stricter noise or alcohol regulations (or similar) inside the zone?]
What is clear is that the student housing overlay district is already starting to fail after only a year. The demand for student housing hasn’t ceased and the limited supply near St. Thomas is spreading students further apart, and deeper into other neighborhoods. This is why I was surprised that the Mac-Groveland and Highland District Councils were in overall supportive of the measure.
[Another Quick Note: This is a nice house in a nice neighborhood - Google Streetview]
The issue revolves around the University of St. Thomas and its long battle against its neighbors. In this case, the City of St. Paul passed a moratorium on converting owner-occupied dwellings into rentals. The stand-off is summed up brilliantly by a local Twin Cities blogger, Spencer of City of Lakes Urbanism and Streets.MN;
Lots of houses near the campus have been converted into duplex or triplex housing for students over the years. This angers homeowners, who prefer quiet at all hours and unhindered access to on-street parking in front of their homes. Given the nature of local politics, City Council members are more likely to respond to the needs of their homeowner constituents than their student renter constituents. In this case, St. Paul City Council members are considering banning students from entering into the neighborhood, purely because the homeowners don’t want them [Link].
He’s 100 percent right.
Homeowners are not happy about the spreading student population, and you can get a feel of their negative reactions in Finance & Commerce articles. Residents have reason to be concerned because students aren’t always the best neighbors.
Here’s a small work sample (circa 2004) from my days as a student in the neighborhood. It was a friendly prank on a group of friends who happened to live on Portland Avenue, but neighbors were likely displeased.
To really understand the problem in 2012, you need to rewind to 2003 / 2004. St. Thomas had just spent a decade expanding its student population to around 4,500 plus, and despite new on-campus residential buildings, student populations started to creep further and further into the neighborhood. Part of this was a result of affordability. On-campus housing at St. Thomas (and almost everywhere) is expensive!
Well-intentioned members of the City Council decided to increase restrictions on rental properties and limiting each rental home to include only up to four (4) unrelated people per household. Meaning, large 5, 6 or 7 bedroom houses could only house 4 students.
St. Paul tried to defy the laws of supply and demand. Now, this is where the law of unintended consequences kicks in. They restricted the supply of student housing while the demand remained the same. The market reacted and two things happened as a result:
- 1. Property owners did what was reasonable and responded by splitting large homes into duplexes so they could fill up the empty space. The market had an increase in duplexes, and often times, landlords took the time to add extra attic studio apartments. This lead to the situation to actually become worse. Now, instead of 5 people in a 5 bedroom house, you now have 6 or 7 people in a recently split duplex or triplex.
- 2. By initially limiting supply coupled with increasing demands, the ordinance increased overall rents; thus making it more appealing to convert a single-family home into a rental unit. In a way, the 2003/2004 zoning restrictions actually motivated more homeowners to convert smaller homes into rental properties.
Today, we now see advertisements boasting that they are close, but not too close, to the University. Who could have predicted this? Well – lots of people. The City of St. Paul just didn’t listen. Beside fellow bloggers, there was a student group that unsuccessfully lobbied against the proposal via Facebook. They produced a decent opinion piece in the Star Tribune about a year ago, but it was greeted with silence.
In an article on Tommie Media, there are two comments that I wanted to share;
If the problem is noise due to weekend parties, wouldn’t the proposed ordinance just contribute to the problem? By spreading out student housing, there will be a greater need to walk to get to another student’s house. The student noise would be spread out to a greater area. Also, if students are forced to live in housing farther away from campus, there may be an increase in student cars to accommodate the distance. With limited room to build more parking structures, there will be more cars parked in the neighborhood, an issue neighbors have raised in the past.
[Last Note: This is a workshop piece - please give me your opinions! I'm going to redo it for Streets.MN, Strong Towns or the Star Tribune. I haven't decided yet ...]
The other quote goes like this;
Molly Pichler makes an excellent point. By spreading out the student properties across a wider area all that is achieved is the creation of a mobile noise disorder. It makes far more sense to create areas of housing where student living is concentrated, rather than spreading it thinly over a wider area, disturbing more people in the process.
First, I’d like to say that I’m sorry to all of my non-student neighbors that I lived by in college. Toilet paper in the yard would have been easier to clean up than the dignity that my friends and I lost.
For starters, just making a casual observation by pulling up Google maps I see this is only slightly more than a keg toss away from Macalester College. Being half the enrollment size, do they not have the same weight in the area?
It seems like with the policy created, the student housing with flow over from one to college to the other. Density is key, and the Council missed that mark. Instead of focusing on how many people per house, they should have said fine, but keep it within these geographic boundaries.
Sadly, more and more homes will be converted (meaning less young families or older residents will repurchase). The current non-student residents will uproot and probably move to the “overlaying” districts of the city. What will be left behind are homes which are lived in pretty hard and kept up less.
Are there any opportunities for either college to embrace a public/private mixed-use development? Benefiting not only the neighborhoods from these from more non-owner occupied houses as well as streaming some money into the college coffers? Seems like university funding is being cut more and more, maybe this is a way to supplement their revenue?…
Lots of issues here …
The area abuts Macalaster College, which is smaller than the University of St. Thomas (say, 1,000 graduating per class at St. Thomas and approx. 400 – 600 at Mac). St. Thomas had a worse reputation, and it’s not a small liberal arts college (anymore). Politics of the neighborhood are the reason why the boundaries are where they are.
You ask a good question: “Are there any opportunities for either college to embrace a public/private mixed-use development?” — Yes, but it won’t happen. The two colleges wedge together what is essentially two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the State (and probably Midwest). The schools are surrounded by nice homes and streetcar oriented commercial nodes. Those who own property in the neighborhood, I imagine, are scared that students will destroy their property values. That’s the basic rundown.
I’m going to be writing more on this. I’ve got a few interviews lined up and really want to expand and bring more light on this topic. Thanks for reading! Keep up the good work on your blog. Best -Nate
This is all sorts of win. How about a St. Paul density rally over pints at the Groveland Tap?
I’m planning to setup something like this in September. Possibly mid-September. Remember: August 30th in MPLS @ Glueks at 6pm for Strong Towns on Tap …