Boston and Student Housing
In March of 2008 Boston implemented a new zoning ordinance limiting the number of “full-time undergraduate” students allowed to live in an off-campus housing unit. Leases prior the the passing of the zoning amendment weren’t grandfathered in — they had about six months to comply, and even had to file a declaration that they were in violation and were going to rectify the situation (see page 2).
What exactly did the amendment entail? A few people misunderstood the amendment, claiming it to change what the definition of “family” was. It actually changed, or rather, clarified, the definition of what a family wasn’t.
Only a group constituting a “family” can be theoretically limitless (aside from health or safety violations) in occupying a “dwelling unit,” or “a room or group of rooms forming a habitable unit for one family, or one group residence limited as defined…”
That “as defined” takes us back to “family.” The aforementioned group of full-time undergraduates are declared to not “constitute a family,” and hence, can be subject to occupation limits. The new occupancy limit for that group was set to four.
A few developers spoke out, off the record mostly, that this code would not stand up to a legal challenge. They’re probably right, but they didn’t challenge it.
Urban planning classes will usually subliminally teach you that developers are evil, evil people. So if they’re for it, you have to wonder: who was the ordinance meant to protect?
The developers knew that the college students (and their parents, or the universities subsidizing their units) were willing to pay more for the same unit than the people they were going to push out. So the developers were better off with this ordinance passing.
What of the neighborhood folk of Boston, who seemed to overwhelmingly support it? Well, they seemed to be running simply on a distaste of rambunctious college students escaping their quarantined campuses of heathenism and infiltrating their peaceful neighborhoods.
But they should have been pushing for a lower number than four, to attempt to make the model less profitable for the developers, and thus deterring them. Or better yet, they should have continued their fight to make the colleges expand their dorm facilities on campus, instead of simply building athletics facilities left and right, as is the trend.
The neighborhood residents made the mistake of acting on a gut feeling. The opportunity to limit the number of hooligans per unit had the potential to be lowered to a mere four. And in this way, they won a small battle. But they absolutely forfeited the war. They set a precedent for those “post secondary educational institution[s]” to be in cahoots with developers so long as it is a quick fix for the former (cheaper and easier than mass-construction) and a profitable model for the latter.
The ordinance was masqueraded as a compromise, but it wasn’t. The “evil” (perhaps “cunning” is a fairer word) developers knew better, and bit their tongues.
Reference: Article 2A, Boston Zoning Code and Enabling Act [PDF]