City Council Proposal Limiting Students to 4 per Apt.

I live outside the city so maybe someone can clarify for me: is four students per apartment instead of five going to end the parties, noise, and crime (if those things exist) and preserve family life in areas like Mission Hill?

I was always under the impression that having lots of people on neighborhood streets at all hours (kids and family during the day, worker/commuters in the morning and evening, and college kids at night) was a good thing. If the streets are busy won't that keep Christopher Crack-head and Michael Mugger off of them?

How can something like this hold? As long as there isn't a code issue, it seems wrong to tell people that they can't live with someone.

Well, it passed 9-0 so shows how much I know.
 
I don't agree with the law at all, but the purpose is to make it less profitable for landlords to rent to groups of students.
 
I understand where the proponents of this bill were coming from, but it remains to be seen what the actual effects will be.

Choose one or more:

1. Landlords will have to charge less for rent because only 4 unrelated people will be able to split it amongst them, therefore rent prices will go down.

2. More people will be vying for the same number of housing units, driving rent prices even higher, and making them less affordable for each person.

3. Landlords with 5+ bedroom houses will have unoccupied bedrooms because a 5th (or 6th, 7th, etc) person will not be able to live there.

3. Parties will suddenly stop because the 5th person is the one who really caused the ruckus.

4. Parties will continue because people don't have to live in a house to party there.

5. Nothing will happen at all because Inspectional Services will continue to not enforce any ordinances.
 
^I'm gonna go with #5, but also with a healthy side of, "Mike Ross Pats Himself on the Back for Passing Legislation Whether it Works or Not."
 
"Mommy, I GOT MY NAME IN THE NEWSPAPERS!!!" was the phone call Mikey Ross made last night.
 
He is worse than a disaster, he is actually dangerous. He does not believe in the United States Constitution. He wants the government to regulate what you eat, what you say, what you wear, what signs you put on your property, what type of business you rent to, what types of people you rent to, how many people you rent to, what type of lighting you use, what color you paint your house, what kind of car you drive, etc. etc. There is no end, he is a communist at best and a fascist at worst. To him, all decisions must be run through the State Ministry so that they can decide what is best for the communal good -individual rights be damned.

I hope someday this kid gets out of government and gets an actual real job. In business. He might learn something.
 
City Councilor Wants To Tax Boston Students
Joe Shortsleeve, WBZ-TV

If college students who come to Boston think they're already paying a lot -- the I-Team has learned they could be paying even more.

Chief Correspondent Joe Shortsleeve has learned that one city councilor wants to charge a fee to every private college student in the city.

He says it's not because students don't pay enough, but because colleges are paying too little for the city services students use.

Boston is the ultimate college town, drawing students from all over the world. But they are expensive guests to host, using all types of municipal services.

Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy says someone needs to help pick up that tab. The I-Team has learned Murphy has filed legislation to do just that.

Murphy says, "It requests a per student fee of $100 per student per semester for students who are not permanent residents of the city of Boston that go to our private non profit colleges..."

How much money is that? It's estimated that if the 80,000 college students who come to school in Boston paid $100 each semester -- the city would collect an additional $16 million a year.

Councilor Murphy adds, "The only thing growing around here are enrollments and endowments, and I want colleges and universities to step up and say we are going to be a better partner. We agree that we bring some cost to the city's taxpayer, and we are going to compensate by offering this money on behalf of the students we accept."

Murphy says the cash-strapped city has no choice when you consider the numbers. As the I-Team recently reported colleges and universities are exempt from paying property taxes. Take Northeastern University for example -- with real estate valued at more than $1.3 billion -- it contributes only about $30,000 in what's called a "pilot" or payment in lieu of taxes. Other schools are like Emmanuel College and pay nothing on property valued at $165 million.

Many of these schools have endowments into the billions, and it's a proposed fee they could easily just pass along to the students, many of whom are already paying more than $50,000 a year to study here.

Students at Northeastern had these reactions"

"I don't think I would be OK with that. I already pay a lot of money to go here," one student said.

Another said, "I am already broke because we go to school, and we are here to learn and not pay money."

No surprise colleges don't like Councilor Murphy's legislation.

In a statement to WBZ an association representing area colleges says, "Colleges and universities have not been immune from the current economic situation. They are facing their own budget issues. To try to fix these problems on the backs of a sector that is critical to the economy of the city and the state would undermine efforts to steer Massachusetts towards economic recovery."

Councilor Murphy says he is planning a public hearing on the student fee in the fall. And everyone is invited free of charge.

Under this proposal the fee would be waived for students who are residents of the city. Similar ideas have also been floated in Worcester and Providence, Rhode Island.

(? MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
 
Will someone please remind this idiot that students inject billions into the economy and attract or create businesses whom pay taxes to the city?

I also believe a discriminatory tax or fee levied based on residency for attending a private service may be potentially illegal. If a rich private school was apply such a fee, to keep 'the wrong people out' from a poor town next door, one would assuredly be hearing about that in the media from dusk till dawn.

The harping over PILOT in parts of the city is also absurd. Many institutions with low PILOT payments are making the real estate tax payments voluntarily and provide other services the city.
 
Lurker your 100% right.

Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy is a disaster to make a statement like that.
The sad part is that half of Beacon Hill Law Makers will listen to him.
 
Murphy's proposal is little more than the public policy equivalent of pouring sugar in the City's gas tank.

Ablarc was onto something when he suggested that the assessed value on undeveloped land (i.e. parking lots) should be based on maximum gross square footage allowed through (what passes as) zoning in Boston.
 
I hope JohnAKeith doesn't mind too much, but his response at Universal Hub on this was too funny to not preserve:

Best quote from Councillor Murphy
By JohnAKeith | Fri, 06/19/2009 - 9:01pm

From the minutes of the April 29 task force meeting:

Councilor Murphy stressed that non-profits consume essential City services and sited specific examples including: student riots, death benefit payouts, false alarm fire responses / calls in District D associated with college students, and others.

Obviously, Stephen Murphy is the biggest tool in City Hall.

Yes, it was the students' fault that a Boston Police officer shot a woman in the eye and she died which resulted in the City having to pay her a death benefit after being sued by her parents.

If you follow his thinking to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't tax students but should outlaw Red Sox games.

Anyway, I don't understand the proposed legislation.
 

Back
Top