Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConcerns about Southside 10.29.97 ( iinritster Part 303 Dexter College Station, Texas, 77840 °V 1 411 Mr. Mike Luther, Chairman Neighborhood Preservation Committee Drawer CA College Station, TX 77841 We appreciate the work that y ou and the other committee members have done in developing the draft report of the Neighborhood Preservation Committee. Much time and effort have obviousl one into its pre aration. We certainl have no argument with the overall attempt to maintain the area as one for single family housing and to maintain the historical integrity of the area however that ma be defined. There are reservations, however, concerning the language within the recommendations as it pertains to an discrimination toward renters in general and to students in particular. Since ours is definitely a student oriented communit an attempt to single out students as undesirable neighbors or citizens goes against the grain of the reason Ai we are all here in the first place. Also, there is a reference within the report to the committee s desire to preserve the "Status Quo" of the area. The original developers of College Park, the Southside Development Com an built several "rent houses on Ayrshire and Fairview S treets in the mid 1920's. I can point these out to y ou sometime if y ou are interested in identif them. The idea, of course, is that renting is definitely within the "Status Quo." Our next concern, and probabl the strongest, deals with an attempt to further restrict the "four unrelated persons per house rule." It is our understanding the four persons rule comes from State and Federal standards and has general acceptance far be our own borders. It is very difficult to enforce. Official residenc status can probabl be determined onl b one of the following: The occupant's own statement -- which he ma be reluctant to provide if faced with possible eviction. He could easil have a Post Office address. Telephone sed and tu tilitybills -- these are usually paid by only one of the occupants who is ers. Observation of the premises over an extended period of time -- even this may not provide enough evidence to distinguish between "long term visitation" and "residenc The report mentions limiting the number of occupants to the number of bedrooms if there are fewer than four bedrooms. To enforce such a rule, the technical definition of a bedroom must be determined. After all, what is the difference between a bedroom and a den, study, or even a dining room? Further, with five thousand dormitory bedrooms on the A &M campus housing ten thousand students (people), how can the concept of one person per bedroom be promoted? Most of the legitimate complaints from people living in the area center around noise appearance, and arking (NAP). There are cit ordinances that deal with these complaints and the violations are far more tangible and visible than those dealing with occupanc Also, NAP complaints apply equall to owners and well as non - owners. At this point, consideration should be given to the understanding that it is easier to lodge a complaint against a group of students rather than a family because the complainant knows that any adverse feeling resulting from his complaint will disappear with the termination of the student's relativel short residency tenure. Consequently, reporting of unfavorable activities by students is probably disproportionatel greater than it is for more permanent family occupants. The overall tone of the report supports the premise that all renter - occupied houses are had and that all owner - occupied houses are good. This is not a valid premise and it would take a great deal of investigation for any one of us to determine whether a particular house is owner or renter occupied. As a result, renters probably get blamed for more than their share of undesirable conditions. We encourage y ou in your request lo the City for enforcement of law and order in our area, that you lean more on the NAP ordinances rather than a further refinement of the very nebulous occupancy ordinances based the number of bedrooms or the square footage of the house in question. We believe that you would be askin for legal trouble if your tried to appl Certificate of Occupan requirements on renter- occupied and not on owner - occupied houses. The report hasn't addressed the subject 01 renters in owner- occupied houses. There have always been owners (usually widows) who li who are i� ttpCol bedrooms ion people lnt (usually hut posechildren Tliere are many houses owned b people grandchildren live in the houses. The point is, ownership /rentership is not black and white or clearly defined and an attempt to apply the rules to a certain segment without applying them to all can be tricky. Why encumber the Cit staff with such a task? As we see it, the most flagrant violation of the NAP ordinances is the multi -keg part with a come one - cone all invitation list and loud music (heard 3 blocks away). These can be controlled! A five hundred dollar fine to the owner and /or renter for the first offense will soon make him /her realize that the neighborhood will not tolerate a part of that nature. Violations of subject g to ordinances more me p interpretation be must easil controlled. ppl apply Il eq q ually to appearance nerloccupiproperties, however, d to renter - subject � pp equally owner-occupied houses. We must all face the realization the the smaller houses in this older area are going to lend themselves to renter use under the current real estate market We can visualize the possibility, however, of an individual eventuall bu a house in this area, spending a hundred thousound dollars or more on renovations, and ending up with a q9 "Southern Living" compatible home. A project of that nature could stimulate many others like it, particularly in the western part of the area. Under those conditions, the real estate market would lend itself to ownership and not rentership. Does the committee wish to discourage any such up- grading simply to maintain the "status quo ?" Again, we would like to discourage wording in the report that sparely distinguishes owners from renters and /or students. We want to encourage the enforcement of NAP ordinances before any changes are made to the four person ordinance. We helieve that any violations of the four person ordinance could become apparent during an investigation of any violation of the NAP ordinances. If we all behaved in the manner that we should, it wouldn't make any difference if we owned or rented, or if we were a student or a non - student. Wm B. Lancaster