My fellow Northeastern classmates should pay attention to new policy guidelines for off campus students currently being drafted by City Council President Mike Ross.
It is difficult to get college students interested in the workings of the Boston City Council, especially if their closest brush with politics was jumping in the reflecting pool in celebration after Barack Obama won in 2008. But we are faced with another episode of the Northeastern off-campus community vs. the surrounding Boston neighborhoods. Whether or not we have any say in the argument over off-campus expansion, it is a good idea to be aware of what Boston’s community leaders are doing about the growing tension surrounding the topic.
Ross, along with Councilman Sal LaMattina, is currently working on legislation that would require students to sign leases that include “loud party” clauses. Under these terms, students could be fined or evicted if parties they host are broken up by police. I feel comfortable in assuming that many of us have had the occasional party that got out of hand; imagine losing your apartment because of it.
I know the lease I signed already contains clauses relating to disruptive parties and a maximum number of guests – so Ross’s ideas are really nothing new. But he wants to toughen these clauses. It is important for us to know about the possible changes, whatever they may be.
Many students are used to the typically lax attitude with which authorities deal with college parties. But if you aren’t following the news, these changes going on could affect your time at Northeastern. Consider Ross’s campaign in 2008 to pass the ordinance known as “No More Than Four,” making it illegal for more than four unrelated college students to share an apartment. The law caught many by surprise, as a new law regarding loud parties might do in the future.
The residents of the Fenway, Roxbury and Mission Hill communities who are not affiliated with any Boston school could understandably be irate about the students (and parties) moving into their neighborhoods, but the legislation that Ross is proposing would put unfair pressure on the student community. The city is having a tough time balancing the tension between its longtime residents and its student population, but heavy suppression and possible eviction of students is not the solution.
If you live on Mission Hill like I do, you are no stranger to the weekend drama that has made the area infamous. I knew what I was getting into this summer when I moved here. The noisy, late-night drunken escapades of some of our less graceful classmates have been well-documented. But the majority of us don’t move here for the keggers; I’m saving a good deal of money by not living in a residence hall, and I don’t have to worry about drawing a bad lottery number for housing on campus. I came to this university for a great education, and I haven’t been let down in that respect, but I needed to make my experience in Boston more affordable.
Like many of my peers, the choice for me was either to move off campus or leave Northeastern.
A shortage of on-campus housing is a fact of life at our university, so punishing all off-campus students because of the actions of a few will create a heavy burden upon those of us living in the Boston community.
But there are things we can do to improve the situation before it comes to drastic measures.
The obvious answer is to be more thoughtful toward our neighbors, especially for those of us who haven’t been so considerate in the past. We should be eager to repair broken relations with the communities we live in. Groups such as Off Campus Student Services’ Community Ambassadors, who have organized the Mission Hill Breakfast Club to help clean up the neighborhood, have the right idea.
But perhaps a more immediate and effective solution would be to talk to Ross himself. After all, he lives on the Hill – he’s our neighbor. Ross prides himself on being open to his constituency, both through live meetings and the Internet. We are residents of his district, too.
Students are an integral part of Boston’s population, so the solution to the tension must involve compromise and understanding, not blind suppression. We are affected by these issues, so we are responsible for having a hand in how they are dealt with. If we disagree with the proposed laws, why not establish a dialogue with the man who is making them?
-Jon Palmer is a middler journalism major
