Suppressing Student Housing
November 9th, 2006 | by David Daddio | Published in General College Park, Politics | 8 Comments
The following published in my biweekly column in today’s Diamondback. The views expressed don’t necessarily represent the views of this site or its other authors.
If you go to city council meetings on any given Tuesday, you are likely to find two students in attendance. One is student liaison Jesse Blitzstein, and the other a Diamondback reporter. Indeed, it’s hard for students to think of anything more boring than these weekly meetings. Zoning amendments, curb cut debates and speed bumps don’t draw students en masse. Despite its reputation as a powerless governing body, the council does wield some power. Recently, it’s discovered a series of ingenious and underhanded ways to sort out the city’s population and determine where and how students live. So I’m forced to come forward and reveal a disturbing and largely unnoticed trend – the council consistently attempts to suppress student housing in College Park.
It has developed a threefold strategy to achieve this goal and manipulate the city housing market. These policies, combined with the increasing demand students have for housing near the campus, translate into the desperate housing crunch we face today. This means high rents now and even higher rents in the near future.
Last year the council enacted its “rent stabilization ordinance,” capping single-family house rents at 1 percent of a building’s assessed value. Students were quick to realize this policy did nothing to address the real reason for the high cost of renting in College Park – sheer lack of housing. The city’s vacancy rate stands at an amazingly low 2.8 percent, and students have shown that they are willing to pay a premium to live near the campus in what basically amounts to slum housing. Indeed, the rent stabilization ordinance explicitly states the council’s goal of “reducing the number of single-family homes that are rental properties,” in order to “stabilize neighborhoods.” One might logically conclude that, after taking action removing students from neighborhoods, the council would do everything it could to facilitate more student towers like the University View.
That, unfortunately, is not the case. There are three major projects being planned: The 17-story Northgate Condos next to the University View, the 7-story Mosaic at Turtle Creek behind Hillel and the 9-story building slated for construction on the present-day City Hall site. The council requires developers of these projects to include covenants in deeds that prohibit most of the units from becoming rentals. This policy abandons the free market and pursues a blind and unsubstantiated whim that these sites are somehow amenable to non-student residents. College Park developers cringe at these sorts of exactions, as do the banks that finance their projects.
As if the situation weren’t already dire enough, the council has yet another trick up its sleeve. Along with the county council, the city council is pursuing a bill in the Maryland General Assembly that would arbitrarily designate a boundary outside which [they think] new student housing [should]
couldnot go, and charge a hefty “impact fee” on any new developments not within the boundary. The program already exists, but the council wants to narrow and complicate the existing boundary, thus distorting the land market around the university even further.Sure, students are rowdy, and it can be a pain to live next to us, but we have the same right to live in College Park as anyone else. Owner-occupancy requirements not only hurt College Park’s development potential, they are downright immoral – not all that dissimilar from discriminatory housing policies that excluded “undesirable” people before the 1968 Civil Rights Act. The perverse incentives the council has created amount to nothing more than a distraction from reality – College Park simply needs more housing. If the council truly wants to “strengthen neighborhoods,” it must work with the county to speed up and simplify the development approval process and stop pretending it knows who will live where. There is no other solution to high rents unless, of course, the council would rather students not live in College Park at all. Ultimately, city residents must embrace College Park’s more urban future. They can’t stem the tide of new construction that is upon us. Maybe, just maybe, we’ll get a truly great college town in the process.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:59 pm (#)
One could write many pages as to why this story is wrong in all its facets. I will keep it brief and just present some simple facts. Rent control was advocated for many years by many students and the Diamondback. We now have a modest version of rent control. Investors are still buying many properties; hopefully we have dissuaded the worst of the slumlords that student rentals are the path to becoming rich.
The City has recommended approval for every project for student housing that has been proposed. Mr. Daddio fails to mention the City’s support for more student housing in Lakeland (University House) and the Mazza project north on Route 1.
We do need more student housing projects and I am concerned that no one has come forward with a new project for student housing for a while. The Knox boxes represent an area with great potential as does the East Campus project.
While I believe some in the City are overly occupied with the fear of future “student slums”, such as what has occurred with the Knox Boxes and College Park Towers, the non student projects that have been proposed are not going to attract student housing investors. The cost would be too great. Investors would be paying over $100,000 a bed at these projects, as opposed to $60,000-$70,000 a bed at a University View and perhaps $50,000 a bed at a low rise apartment.
The boundary issue is also not true substance. The school impact fee waiver (about $7,500 a unit) was introduced and passed in the General Assembly without any notification of the affected municipalities. It allows for a waiver of this fee for student housing within 1.5 miles of campus. Try to define what that boundary means!
College Park would like to use this incentive to put students within walking/biking proximity to campus, have housing convenient to mass transportation, and have the housing in an area where retail is a permitted use, too. If College Park is to redevelop as a College Town it all seems to be obvious and necessary to me.
The condensed revised boundaries for the school surcharge exemption reflect the simple fact that all neighboring jurisdictions have stated that they are not interested in having any student housing. College Park cannot dictate to them that they accept student housing.
The City spent many long years to get the County to rezone the Route 1 corridor to permit housing. The City has no interest in suppressing student housing, but it would be useful if the student housing and non student housing contributed to the long range plan of the City to create a vibrant, walkable College Town.
With respect to the County, it is a simple fact that College Park makes up less than 2 percent of the County. The County does not consider the needs of our college students to be a high priority. No amount of talking is going to change that fact. Students are considered people who come from somewhere else, don’t pay taxes, and are not planning on staying in the County after they graduate. They are not a group that evokes any sympathy from the County.
I could say so much more, but this should be adequate for now to trigger some response.
Bob Catlin – City Council
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 10th, 2006 at 10:55 am (#)
I think that it is a mistake to imagine nefarious motives on part of the city council regarding their concerns about student housing. The simple fact is that student group housing in residential neighborhoods is a problem. According to the 2000 Census 51% of College Park’s population is in the 18-24 age range. The homeowners living in College Park neighborhoods are outnumbered by students. It is a basic responsibility of zoning and land use regulation to prevent incompatible uses. Student’s desires/needs for more housing does not entitle them to impact the property value of homeowners in the city. Having been one of those students in the past I know that I would not have bought a house next door to the one we rented. Single family houses represent an unsustainable inefficient way to house students. Single family neighborhoods represent a density that would require an area the size of Manhattan to house the students at this university. I think that the tone of this article implies that the city council is sneaking around plotting against students. Try asking them and my guess is that they will tell you straight out that they would prefer not to have students living in residential neighborhoods. To paint yourself as the aggrieved party is silly. Try taking our a huge mortgage and worrying if you are going to be bankrupted by some kids doing keg stands.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 10th, 2006 at 1:30 pm (#)
Brian, I think your point about density is interesting. If the Historic District passes it could effectively keep the density for a large part of downtown very low. Although it is true that you can demolish a house in a historic district, the design guidelines require large setbacks and other measures that would keep density low.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 10th, 2006 at 9:47 pm (#)
Mr. Catlin and Mr. Carroll have both hit on precisely what I was trying to convey in the column – this notion that student’s are a nonconforming use. The same logic has been used by the planning profession for nearly a century to sort out uses (in this case retail, office, and residential). You need only to look around College Park to see the results of these well intentioned policies voted on and advocated for by well intentioned people.
The City Council has been a strong proponent of progressive land use policy (Route 1 Sector Plan and an eventual form-based code) and I’ve supported their efforts all along the way (and wrote about them often). Indeed, we wouldn’t even be rethinking College Park without mix-use zoning on Route 1. However, I firmly believe that their attempts to sort out the city’s population are misguided and damaging to the city. They, nor any planner, nor any person can really know who will live where. While I was forced to gloss over the details of the city’s policies in the original column, the simple fact still remains that the housing market has become dangerously distorted and everyone is paying the price in the form of higher rents.
Never did I once say the City Council actively opposed any student housing complex. They are simply restricting and complicating the market. The central premise of my column was that we need to abandon the idea that private industry must provide student housing OR “real people” housing. There is no need to divide the city into turfs and Parkside, an apartment tower where anyone can live, is proof that projects like these are successful. Now of course new developments are going to differentiate themselves on luxury levels and price, but the presence or absence of students shouldn’t be a government mandated amenity. If a student rental unit is being too noisy or is overflowing with underage drinkers then call the police – that’s what they are for.
The following is a defense of my three points:
1)Rent stabilization is misguided in any circumstances no matter who advocates for it. It is only detrimental in cases where it’s binding and there seems little reason for a government to enact such an ordinance if it is not in some way binding. High rents encourage more housing. Zoning, historic districts, and painstakingly detailed planning requirements discourage more housing or actually make it impossible to build. We’ll see the full effect Rent Stabilization down the line, but the text of the ordinance, the exclusion of apartment buildings from rent control, and the enormous amount of opposition from landlords should be indication enough that rent stabilization is a mistake for College Park.
2)Owner occupancy requirements are not in any way defensible. In a college town they have the explicit purpose of excluding student renters. These policies hurt a developer’s financing capabilities (indeed I’ve spoken with CP developers who have told me just that). If the city is so sure students won’t pay for high rents at these complexes then why does it go out of its way to encourage these provisions? Where would we be today if the Knox Boxes and the Towers had requirements like this? How big does the student waitlist have to be for policy makers to understand the severe lack of housing in College Park?
3)The student housing impact fee, like all impact fees, is designed to make developers pay (and pass along to buyers and renters) the negative community impacts of a project. The only impact of a project built far away from the school is increased traffic, yet we should remember that the traffic is actually the same or in many cases less than it was before the project was built – the school still has the same number of students. The city council should focus on (indeed it has to some extent) reducing parking requirements and giving large incentives for public transit. They should not be hitting developers with more fees and pushing them towards building on the most expensive land…
As for PG County, I think they are missing a real opportunity in College Park. What during the day is the third or fourth largest City in Maryland becomes comparable, at night, to a tiny suburb with two lively strip malls – the only difference is that it contains a world class university.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pm (#)
I don’t think David was trying to imply that the city council is sneaking around plotting against students. He just meant that most students are unaware of what the city council is doing, and maybe to some extent that is my fault or students’ fault in general.
And you are right Mr. Carroll, the city council will freely admit that they don’t want students, at least not so many, living in residential neighborhoods. But the simple fact of the matter is that students have no other place to live. And, in addition, not all students want to be housed by the masses in high rise apartments. Some prefer to rent single family houses.
While these students may have little understanding of the concerns of College Park homeowners and permanent residents, such as mortgages, they in turn feel you have little understanding of the fact that this is a college town and there just happens to be a large university here that thousands of young people attend. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but as student liaison to the city council I am frequently asked the question, “Don’t they know it’s a college town?”
And Bob, I cannot help but think of the point that I brought up at the city council meeting the other night. Why, for example, is the City Hall site you hope to redevelop as housing not within your desired school impact fee waiver zone? Just because it is in your plans to redevelop as nice condos doesn’t mean that is set in stone or that is in the best interests of the city.
I believe student housing, or non-discriminatory housing, on that site would fit all your criteria for desired student housing: “to put students within walking/biking proximity to campus, have housing convenient to mass transportation, and have the housing in an area where retail is a permitted use, too.” Plus, please tell me what sane “adult” would want to live in a condo across the street from Cornerstone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 15th, 2006 at 4:24 pm (#)
Time to respond! With respect to Mr. Daddio’s principal argument that student hosuing should not be put into districts, I agree in part. Large complexes that target the student renter need to have strong management 24/7. Such an apartment building could of course rent to anyone who wants to live there. But wait, to get the $7,500 a unit surcharge exemption, the apartment has to only rent to students. So a negative impact related to the surcharge exemption.
The most logical place for students and non students to mix would be in small apartment units. The kind no one is building currently, even though it was the backbone of the new housing that was supposed to come to the Route 1 corridor under the 2002 Sector Plan.
We want a mix of housing types in all areas, though, which is why we can support things like a Northgate condominium next to a University View.
No one wants to call the police constantly about problem neighbors. People simply move away. One of my constituents, a homeowner, called me repeatedly,often after midnight, about his problem neighbors, who appeared to be students. Some of his calls led me to respond and see the problem firsthand. My advice to him was to move, because the problems came from so many nearby sources. Some people are very tolerant of their neighbors, while some people have children or jobs to go to at 6 am and can’t afford to be so accomodating. Up until this year the police could not be counted on to respond at all to such problems.
Rent stabilization is an issue that I agree with you on generally. College Park’s version “Rent stabilization lite” addresses the myriad of issues that typically are associated with such programs and so is a reasonable short run policy. Our landlords oppose everthing that doesn’t make money for them – look at their steadfast opposition to tenant fire safety.
Owner occupany requirements are the hallmark of well maintained desirable condominium projects. A lot of condo owners oppose renters for neighbors even if the renters are 30, 40 or 50 years old.
Obviously developers and lenders don’t like such restrictions – they just want the units sold as fast as possible so that they can get their money out.
But if you ask them for modest restrictions it turns out that such requests can be accomodated.
Housing located far from campus has negatives beyond traffic, because it represents a missed opportunity to develop College Park into a “college town” What does a project even like the nearby Courtyards do to enhance College Park as a college town? Practically nothing. While their always will be missed opportunties, we should not encourage or even incentivize them to occur.
With respect to Mr. Goodspeed’s comment on the Old Town historic district, the existing zoning there doesn’t permit much more density than already exists. I don’t see the County revisting the College Park area with an updated Master Plan review any time in the next 6-8 years. Even then I can’t see the County proposing any changes to that neighborhood in terms of adding density. I suspect that they may pick battles that involve increasing the density near Metro stations and leave other areas alone.
Mr. Blitzstein wants the City Hall project to be student housing. I suspect that as student housing the project would not be as pfofitable as we are aiming for and need to make the redevelopment viable. If non students don’t demonstrate they want to live their they won’t sign contracts to buy such units and the project will not be built.
A better mix of housing is necessary to attract a better variety of retail to the area. Given that in the last six years over 2,000 beds have been built at South Campus Commons and the redevelopment of the Knox Boxes could yield over 1,000 additional student beds, it doesn’t seem to me that a non student targeted project is at all out of place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2006 at 8:06 pm (#)
How exciting! A debate between a current city council member and a declared city council candidate (albeit from different districts). Thanks for participating, council member Catlin.
As for rent control, I would be interested to learn its associated benefits and problems. Considering many single family homes in college park are between $350,000 and $500,000 in value, wouldn’t the 1% cap rarely apply? What do students pay, on average, for a room in a single family home in the different neighborhoods of the city?
I would also like to learn more about the arguments for and against the historic district. I am generally in favor of the idea of protecting the charm of the town’s historic homes, and think there are better areas to redevelop, lest we turn college park into a soulless suburb.
My question is: where would the city council like to have students live besides a redeveloped knox-box area and the two projects that have been approved? I agree that we should not incentivize student-housing projects far away from the city when those students could walk or bike to class otherwise, but why are most of the new development projects within walking distance of the campus not made available to students such as Mosaic at Turtle Creek, East-Campus, City Hall?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 26th, 2006 at 10:31 pm (#)
Actually all projects will be available to students. The desire is to a have a high level 75%+ of owner occupancy in a few projects for a variety of reasons. Investors will be able to acquire some units. However, the specific developers are certain that their projects will be priced too high to be attractive rental alternatives for all but a few students. I agree.
Land is still available for intensive redevelopment in the Route 1 corridor near the University in the Northgate area that can result in perhaps another 1,500-2,000 student beds. In addition, the redevelopment contemplated for the majority of the Route 1 corridor is groundfloor retail, with 2 or three floors of apartments above. This development could eventually add hundreds of apartments, though these units would likely house all types of renters and not students, exclusively.
The rent control cap is really the threshold level at which rent increases are regulated by the City. The one percent threshold applies to Maryland’s assessment of the property’s value for tax purposes. This value is reassessed every three years. The numbers we are using now were established in late 2003. These values are generally in the $150,000-$250,000 range. Today the range would probably be $275,000-$475,000. Increases are phased in over a three-year period. We will know in January when the new assessments are posted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0