Raleigh Politicians want to limit roommates

submitted by mellocj on Thursday, January 9 2003 at 2:22 PM

There is a proposed City of Raleigh ordinance that could have a significant impact on NCSU students who live off campus. This new ordinance would limit the number of unrelated occupants that could live in a single-family or two-family dwelling to a maximum of two persons. This would mean that students could no longer live with more than 1 roommate in a house or townhouse! No more renting 3 and 4 bedroom places to split the rent with 2 or 3 other students and save money! More information can be found in an article on
WRAL's website

Students who are concerned can attend a public forum at the Pullen Community Center next to campus on January 14, 2003. City Council members will be present from 4:00-6:00PM to answer questions. Additionally, there will be a Public Hearing in the Municipal Building (downtown Raleigh) on January 21, 2003 at 6:30PM. The Planning Commission will be present.
Letters can be mailed to the Comprehensive Planning Committe at:
Attention: Comprehensive Planning Committee
PO Box 590
222 West Hargett Street
Raleigh, NC 27602

posted by Eulogist on Thursday, January 9 2003 at 5:49 PM

This doesn't sound good!

1/9/2003 10:11:06 PM

IT IS NOT A NEW ISSUE. THEY ARE STRICTLY ENFORCING THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS BY ADDING THIS ORDINANCE.

If a neighborhood is zoned "single family," then only two people with different last names could live in the same house. The zoning has been that way in these neighborhoods since my PARENTS went to State 25 years ago, the city council has now decided to ENFORCE the zoning laws because college students do not perform upkeep on these houses. They don't mow the grass. There are too many cars in the driveway, etc. In a single family neighborhood, college students do not make good neighbors.

[Edited on January 10, 2003 at 12:54 AM. Reason : wc]

1/10/2003 12:52:59 AM

^^

What? If they're only enforcing zoning restrictions, why do they need to pass an ordinance? And how do they justify grandfathering in current landlords?

Your position sounds a little sketchy (about as sketchy as this ordinance).

And why do certain homeowners get to petition the city to raise their property values at others' expense? A house is an investment that carries a certain amount of risk; the city government should not interfere to selectively mitigate that risk.

1/10/2003 1:19:51 AM

Come on now, Marshall. First of all, if they've just now decided to enforce it then it is a new issue. When they didn't enforce it it was a non-issue. Furthermore, upkeep on houses is a landlord's responsibility of they are leasing the house, not the tenants'. Other things like keeping the grass mowed and how many cars are in the yard are really arbitrary.

1/10/2003 9:05:36 AM

it isnt the college students really, the rich pricks want the Hispanics, Blacks, college students
and anyone else out of their area, but they just cant say that, so they point the finger at college students and this doesnt apply to all off campus housing yet, but if this passes, it will be a snowball effect

[Edited on January 10, 2003 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

1/10/2003 10:37:49 AM

um currently up to 4 unrelated people can live in a single family home they want to change it to 2. So yes this is a new issue and it is a new ordinance.

1/10/2003 10:38:47 AM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=80361

1/10/2003 12:38:32 PM

I would imagine someone like the Preiss company would be lobbying extremely hard against this, since putting 4 unrelated roommates in an apt makes up a large chunk of their business

whoops, doesn't apply to apts never mind

[Edited on January 10, 2003 at 2:58 PM. Reason : fgh]

1/10/2003 2:56:59 PM

^^ so this ordinance wouldnt apply to apartments?? just want to make sure

1/10/2003 7:12:33 PM

Still this ordinance is a bad idea...by limiting the number of people living in one house/townhouse that are not related sets a sketchy precedent for future actions by the City.

It seems that Raleigh is trying to deepen the divide between its future and its powerful.

1/11/2003 12:33:16 PM

We keep our grass mowed, we don't have too many cars in the driveway (if it's MY property and MY car, its really none of their concern anyway) We cleaned up the ice storm mess immediately afterwards (even though they still haven't picked up anything on our street yet). We're just as good as the other people, and they seem to think so too. We don't make too much noise. When we have people over it never gets out of hand.

I understand that this doesn't happen with all college students, but making an ordinace that affects such a wide body of people is out of the question. This comes close to taking away rights we have as consumers, americans, and property owners.

IMO.

1/11/2003 3:08:31 PM

Yes, it would be a new odrninance if passed.
currently 4 unrelated people can legally live in a house,
this ordinance, if passed would mean only two could live in a house, duplex,
or condo.

We can show opposition to this by attending a public meeting,
show up anytime between 4-6 pm, Jan. 14, Pullen Community Ctr., 408 Ashe Ave.

and most importantly, show up for the final hearing :
Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the Raleigh City Council chambers

1/11/2003 4:11:31 PM

Quote :

"I understand that this doesn't happen with all college students, but making an ordinace that affects such a wide body of people is out of the question. This comes close to taking away rights we have as consumers, americans, and property owners."

Well, right.

It just seems totally arbitrary to act in favor of those people bringing up the issue. What's any less valid about college students with three or more roommates going to city council and complaining that their neighbors aren't social enough, don't like to interact with students, etc., and therefore neighborhoods should be required to have at least 4 people per house to promote an atmosphere of "collegiate camaraderie?"

Since when is a neighborhood atmosphere a matter of legal definition? If the city of Raleigh is going to accept arguments about the particular characteristics of these neighborhoods, then I hope they're willing to enforce them in the ghettos and slums as well. Fine everyone without kids and a white picket fence, everywhere, whenever the local NIMBYs come a'knocking.

There's no homeowners' association where these people live. So that's what the Raleigh city government is becoming. A big, overly powerful homeowners' association that doesn't recieve dues except through coercion, and which has no real obligation to the property rights of its members.

1/11/2003 4:25:38 PM

the fact that 3, 4, or more people can get along with each other in a house is
a good thing. By outlawing that we will miss out on getting exposed to a roommate's
culture, that might be different than your own, miss out on developing skills for
working through problems with people, wasting a lot of resources on these
big houses with only two people in them.
I lived in a house for years with two or three roommates at times and made some
good friends for life.

At one of the meetings I attanded, an older man, living in southeast Raleigh, pointed
out that some older people can not afford to have a house all to themselves and can
share expenses with others; this ordinance would put them out on the street and that
is not fair. The meeting was at 4-6 pm and most of the people in that neighborhood
were not there because they had to be at work, so it was very poorly planned to have
a meeting at that time - wonder if the city planned it that way ??

1/11/2003 5:06:24 PM

Just so everyone actually has the facts straight:
Like has been said, 4 unrelated people can currently live in a house, duplex or condo. The new ordinance would limit that to two. It's true that even the old ordinance wasn't enforced, so yes, the enforcement of this regulation is a change as well.

Apartments will NOT be regulated. However, just because you don't live in a house doesn't mean you won't be affected. Imagine the traffic issues that would only worsen if students had to move farther away from campus (where houses are a bit less expensive and more loosely regulated)...imagine how hard it would be to get a place on the Wolfline THEN...or how hard it would be to find a parking space. Not to mention...one most likely won't live in an apartment forever--this ordinance will affect you years down the road as well.

PLEASE come to the meeting on Tuesday. If we show up en masse, we'll have a much better chance of defeating this.

The fact is, this ordinance would affect many people other than students (especially minorities)--such aggressive targeting is insulting if not outright illegal. Stand up for yourselves!

If you have questions, please feel free to email me.

1/12/2003 1:06:45 AM

Lets not forget about the affected property owners. I'm not sure which areas will be affected by such an ordinance, but in neighborhoods where there are lots of students and some houses with more than two bedrooms, those houses' landlords will have more difficulty finding tenants, may have to lower the rent, or be less selective of their tenants. This may increase crime, and would take money out of the property owners' pockets. I guess it's because of how many of Raleigh's residents work in large beaurocratic organizations. These people are comfortable with socialism. I, like many of my friends, left Raleigh for these reasons. One day, the residents of Raleigh will wake up wondering why Raleigh's economy ceased to flourish like other cities. It's happening now.

Two is an arbitrary number. It's like Cary only allowing two dogs per house. I'm sure four grad students in a house is less of a "nuisance" than two college freshmen pledging a frat.

1/12/2003 10:17:58 AM

a large turnout from those directly affected needs to be in attendence to stop this. problem is that it wont affect anyone immediately. i will be there damnit

1/12/2003 10:36:34 AM

I won't be able to make the 14th, but I'll be there for the 21st. I don't live in a house, but this is an important issue in the ongoing battle to be a college student.

1/12/2003 12:12:07 PM

Quote :

"I would imagine someone like the Preiss company would be lobbying extremely hard against this"

I would imagine someone like the Preiss company lobbying for this, since it eliminates competition.

1/14/2003 8:49:23 AM

2 things need to happen if this is to be defeated.

1st, defeat the ordinance.

2nd, lobby to change the zoning laws.

The zoning laws are the origin of the so-called "problem"

(for the record, i dont give a shit either way, but i think people need to have their facts straight before arguing.)

1/14/2003 11:23:16 AM

"If a neighborhood is zoned "single family," then only two people with different last names could live in the same house." ~~> WTF.. i couldn't share a house with my cousin if i wanted to? That's bull shit! "college students do not perform upkeep on these houses. They don't mow the grass. There are too many cars in the driveway, etc." It wouldn't solve the lawn upkeep and numberous cars too well either, that really doesn't have much to do with the number of college student, i know plenty of adults with families that really aren't too good at these aspects either. And they think this will stop parties? Are they idiots?

1/14/2003 10:11:12 PM

Can we say violation of the Constitution????

1/15/2003 10:09:07 PM

All this crap sucks... I own my home and have two roomates, guess I will have to sell it so I can keep ends meeting?

[Edited on January 20, 2003 at 9:30 AM. Reason : sp]

1/20/2003 9:30:26 AM