Energy efficiency is indeed another part of it. I'm not so sure about "don't ask, don't tell", though -- it's awfully hard to find housemates that way.
Seriously, Elisabeth raises a good question: how do we* go about getting this law repealed? ~cary * "We" being community members who feel this law is prejudicial, wasteful of resources, contrary to the character of the neighborhood, or otherwise Just Plain Dumb. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "HarvestMoon3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: RE: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park > Neil, the reason you are meeting so much resistance is that many people on this list are unrelated, yet living in SIN (more than three in a house). No one expects you to violate any laws, but the houses in our neighborhood are large enough that it really offends my enviro-sensibilities to think of heating 3000 sf for three people simply because of a law that is unsensitive to the neighborhood. (No offense to families of three who do this.) I am pleased by the efficiency of using a house like mine for four or five people. So, I'll try not to pipe in any more since I've already made my point, but even though this law is on the books, the least we can do is not enforce it. I believe it should be decommissioned. Revoked. Repealed. (What's it called when you get rid of a law? Jonathan?) Short of that, I guess it will have to be don't-ask-don't-tell. > > > > 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 2:00 PM > To: Christine Miller > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [UC] Movie Shoot in Clark Park > > > 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>. > ---- > 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>.
