I really don't know what the origins of the 3-person limit are. Does anyone have any background on this?
To my mind, it serves a legitimate purpose by limiting noise, trash, nuisance behavior, parking problems -- all quality of life issues. Anyone who lives near a "group house" knows that these issues can be a real problem and difficult to resolve.(And certainly, not all "group houses" are a problem.) And, I don't believe it is the student tenants that are being blamed for the rent structure in UC. It is specifically the landlords who engage in the practice who are to blame. I am a landlord, and I refuse to violate the regulation, even though I could certainly draw a higher rental income by violating the reg. There are many, many landlords out there who also choose not to violate the regulation. Neil Lifson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christine Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "HarvestMoon3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park > were't those occupancy laws established 'back in the > day' as an attempt to make it more difficult to run > brothels, or 'houses of ill repute,' if you will? > if a single family cannot afford a to rent a house in > west phila, it is insane to blame the student > tennants. > > christine > > --- HarvestMoon3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A landlord could do as you suggest, but it would be > > risky and foolish. Only > > those who actually sign the lease would be > > responsible for the lease. The > > others would be "visitors" or tresspassers, and > > there would be no > > landlord-tenant relationship to enforce. After one > > bad experience trying to > > enforce the lease with the non-signers, the landlord > > would say, " I've > > learned my lesson, and won't do that again". > > > > Contrary to your assertion that it would be > > impossible to enforce occupancy > > limits, I believe it is in most cases a simple > > matter, if the resources are > > devoted to it. And, I believe (perhaps naively) that > > most landlords would > > obey the law if it were enforced and publicized. As > > of now, there is no > > attempt at enforcement. And the law is not > > publicized at all. It wouldn't > > be 100% enforceable, but it would change the > > landscape of things in UC. > > > > Neil Lifson > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "HarvestMoon3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Elizabeth > > F. Campion" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:04 PM > > Subject: RE: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park > > > > > > You can't be serious about enforcing occupancy > > limits in this way. It would > > be almost impossible to do, and would require some > > kind of big-brother > > system. I've lived in college towns where landlords > > would only agree to > > put, say, two people on a lease for a $2000 > > two-bedroom house with a dining > > room and living room. But that didn't mean that > > there weren't four people > > living there, in reality. Same results, in the end, > > even though the > > landlord is legally not doing anything wrong. This > > is barking up the wrong > > tree, it's just impossible to enforce. > > > > > > ELISABETH DUBIN > > hillier > > > > ONE SOUTH PENN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 TEL: > > 215.636.9999 FAX: > > 215.636.9989 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: HarvestMoon3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:22 AM > > To: Elizabeth F. Campion > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park > > > > > > I've seen ads and listings for SF houses in UC > > ranging up to $4000/mo. > > These high prices are typically paid by groups of > > 5-8 students living in the > > house. This practice (allowing more than 3 unrelated > > individuals to occupy a > > housing unit), as Liz Campion correctly points out, > > is illegal. It is never > > enforced, however. NEVER. As Liz also correctly > > points out, it can be > > difficult to get the higher rents from young > > families. (I think it's > > difficult to get that kind of rent on a SF house > > from "old" families or > > couples or singles, too. These rents might be > > realized in luxury apartment > > situation such as the Left Bank Apartments). > > > > The rent structure in UC is outrageously skewed > > upward due to the city's > > lack of enforcement of the occupancy limits. If > > these limits were enforced, > > a SF house could not / would not rent for the high > > prices that are now being > > charged. ($2500/ 5 people = $500 per person. $2500/ > > 3 people = $833 per > > person. Students will balk at this.) It also > > probably would bring down the > > selling prices of homes in the area (at least in the > > short-term). If > > landlords were truly prohibited from renting SF > > houses to large groups, the > > rents would fall, and many landlrods would probably > > chose to sell the houses > > (increasing the supply of SF houses on the market > > and reducing the prices). > > > > I think this should be brought up as an issue to be > > addressed by the Mayoral > > candidates. Unequal enforcement of the law > > benefits/enriches the few, and > > those few are typically (though certainly not > > always) absentee landlords. > > The rest of us (residents) are essentially being > > indirectly taxed (higher > > rents, higher housing prices, more trash, more > > noise, etc., often a lack of > > maintenance on the rental houses -- resulting in > > lower quality of life for > > nearby residents, etc.) This has been a major > > concern of mine for years, and > > Spruce Hill CA has attempted to deal with it > > (unsuccessfully) through L&I > > and Councilwoman Blackwell. It always simply comes > > to a dead-end. To my way > > of thinking, this is a major scandal. Who is > > directing L&I to keep these > > regulations unenforced? > > > > Also, Liz Campion's referal to cabbies who buy and > > sell Medalions and > > therefor have high incomes is not typical. I don't > > know the details of > > Medalions, etc., but I know they can sell for many > > thousands of dollars > > ($50k? $100k?). A typical cabdriver, from my > > understanding, does not own a > > medalion, but must rent it. They do not get to keep > > all the fares paid to > > them, as I understand it. Can anyone shed some > > light on this? We can > > always pick out some specific wealthy secretary or > > nurse or other (you name > > it), but this doesn't mean that people with those > > occupations typically have > > high incomes. Does anyone have insight into the > > "typical" cabdriver's > > income? > > > > Finally, David Morse (in "Hack") does not appear to > > own his cab or a > > medalion. He's on the low end of the scale, > > certainly doesn't appear to > > have much of anything, and seems to not spend much > > time picking up cab > > fares.Call me crazy, but I don't see how he can > > afford to purchase or rent a > > SF home in UC unless he has large savings or an > > inheritance or somethng. > > This info, so far as I know, has not been offered on > > the TV show (though, I > > haven't seen all episodes). > > > > Neil Lifson > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Elizabeth F. Campion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:24 AM > > Subject: Re: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park > > > > > > > > > I know that I was able to help one young family > > rent a home on the very > > > desirable 4600 block of Hazel for $1,800.00 / > > month for a 2003-2004 > > > School Year Lease. Folks should be aware that the > > City has a housing > > > code which limits occupancy to three or fewer > > unrelated. It can be > > > difficult to get the higher ($2,500) rents from > > young families, but > > > neighbors who are suffering from unsupervised > > "groups" may have some > > > recourse. And Landlords who have suffered even > > one horrendous clean-out > > > / make-ready after a bad "group" may find that > > staying within the law and > > > accepting a slightly smaller rent is more cost > > effective in the long run. > > > > > > Best! > > > Liz > > > > ---- > > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to > > the > > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive > > information, see > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > http://search.yahoo.com > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
