RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
Member is Online
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 1, 2011 15:38:51 GMT -5
Next hearing for GU is on May 12. Followed by May 16, June 2 and June 6. In th meanwhile, check out the hearing on UDC's campus plan this Monday, May 2. UDC WANTS to build beds and the neighbors are fighting it. Why? Basically, flat out racism. One mother actually said that she would be afraid to walk her children by a dorm with UDC students. Remarkable. The neighbors in a nearby apartment building want to ban UDC students who live in the building from using their pool. As someone who lives about a three-minute walk from UDC, count me as utterly unsurprised. Welcome to ANC3F, home of Anti-Ping Pong Zealot Frank Winstead, a dense commercial corridor where restaurants go to die, and an ANC that appears to think that a two-story Walgreens less than 100 yards from a CVS is the best use of premium real estate right on top of a Metro station. The local NIMBYs no doubt see any proposed change as a threat to their Epitome of Whitebread Mediocrity status quo. Even so, I think that still isn't as bad as what ANC3D came up with in response to the AU Campus Plan: “Student residences should be built with windows that do not open to limit noise impacts on neighboring residents and with tinted windows that shield from residents’ views the type of window hangings that are characteristically found in the windows of AU’s student dorms.”“Meeting space on the East Campus should either be eliminated or located underground to minimize the visual and noise impact on neighbors for this use of the site.”[AU should be required to] “prevent use of the Horace Mann recreational space by AU students in order to preserve a quality neighborhood amenity for neighborhood residents and their young children.”I mean, this is truly deranged.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on May 5, 2011 22:17:49 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
Member is Online
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 5, 2011 22:30:34 GMT -5
I'd say this is a pretty good summary of my feelings on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 5, 2011 22:52:11 GMT -5
This sounds like potentially very bad news for Georgetown.
|
|
hoya4ever
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by hoya4ever on May 7, 2011 14:03:38 GMT -5
This sounds more than a bit discriminatory. You can't tell any group of citizens where to live, unless it is Federal land! We have a whole Law School. Can't we utilize them?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 7, 2011 14:59:18 GMT -5
Well we do already tell freshmen and sophomores that they have to live on campus...but that point is null because we don't have the room to tell everyone to live on campus.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 7, 2011 15:35:25 GMT -5
Legally schools can say all students must live on campus. But I don't think that the government can tell the school it has to tell all students to live on campus.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,381
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 7, 2011 18:16:56 GMT -5
I just got the email today about this. I couldn't believe it.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 8, 2011 18:08:27 GMT -5
Legally schools can say all students must live on campus. But I don't think that the government can tell the school it has to tell all students to live on campus. Why not? There are tons and tons of inane regulations at every level of government--if DC can tell restaurants/bars they can't let people inside that are smoking, why can't DC tell Georgetown it can't admit students who don't live on campus?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 8, 2011 19:11:52 GMT -5
I don't know it seems like it flies in the face of the fact that you're not allowed to discriminate against students and tell them they can't live in a certain area. It seems to me that's what this would be doing. Are there any schools that require all students to live on campus or actually house 100% of students. I don't think there are. If they do managed to successfully get this enforced they'd also have to enforce it on GW, AU, Howard and every other school in DC (UDC, Galludete, South Eastern, etc). I can't see them Editeding off that many stake holders in the City.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 8, 2011 20:59:13 GMT -5
I don't know it seems like it flies in the face of the fact that you're not allowed to discriminate against students and tell them they can't live in a certain area. It seems to me that's what this would be doing. Are there any schools that require all students to live on campus or actually house 100% of students. I don't think there are. If they do managed to successfully get this enforced they'd also have to enforce it on GW, AU, Howard and every other school in DC (UDC, Galludete, South Eastern, etc). I can't see them Editeding off that many stake holders in the City. First, I don't think students are a protected class like, say African Americans. Secondly, why couldn't they have different regulations in different parts of the city? They do it for other types of businesses--why not universities?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 8, 2011 21:13:44 GMT -5
First, I don't think students are a protected class like, say African Americans. Secondly, why couldn't they have different regulations in different parts of the city? They do it for other types of businesses--why not universities? The Fair Housing Act might have something to say about this. Students are adults and adults have the right to live where and when they choose. Ask yourself this--if the ANC demanded that all faculty live on campus (ostensibly to improve traffic), how far would they get with that?
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on May 8, 2011 21:19:57 GMT -5
Legally schools can say all students must live on campus. But I don't think that the government can tell the school it has to tell all students to live on campus. Why not? There are tons and tons of inane regulations at every level of government--if DC can tell restaurants/bars they can't let people inside that are smoking, why can't DC tell Georgetown it can't admit students who don't live on campus? I think this and the smoking ban are pretty different. There's a principle of harm here. Smoking in a closed environment fundamentally causes harm to those around them, as inhalation of second hand smoke can lead to health problems, lung cancer, etc. Do students living in a neighborhood fundamentally cause harm to the neighbors around them? Doubtful, in my mind, but I am not a lawyer, and I'm sure some Burleith residents would say yes. I just don't understand how this can be achieved. The neighbors rejected the 1789 block, right, because that wasn't good enough (read: not inside the Healy gates)? What does that mean for all the University owned townhouses in West Georgetown? And LXR and Nevils? Are those not considered on campus, and would those students need to be relocated within the Healy gates? What about part-time students? Plenty of students commute to campus - would they be required to live on-campus too? A lot of this just doesn't make sense to me. P.S. I indirectly blame the stricter alcohol policies that went into effect in or around 2008. I feel like it drove many students from campus into the surrounding neighborhood (and M St) to party. When I was a student from 2003-2007, I did most of my partying on campus and at The Tombs. Only on rare occasions would I ever venture into Burleith.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 8, 2011 22:27:40 GMT -5
I don't know it seems like it flies in the face of the fact that you're not allowed to discriminate against students and tell them they can't live in a certain area. It seems to me that's what this would be doing. Are there any schools that require all students to live on campus or actually house 100% of students. I don't think there are. If they do managed to successfully get this enforced they'd also have to enforce it on GW, AU, Howard and every other school in DC (UDC, Galludete, South Eastern, etc). I can't see them Editeding off that many stake holders in the City. First, I don't think students are a protected class like, say African Americans. Secondly, why couldn't they have different regulations in different parts of the city? They do it for other types of businesses--why not universities? All the articles I've seen seem to indicate students are a protected class exactly like African Americans. I don't know about the second part. It just seems completely unreasonable and inconsistent to say students in this area have to be on campus but not at another institution. I feel like to enforce that you'd have to prove that students in a neighborhood is inherently bad. You can't just say only Georgetown students are a problem. If you argue that how do you prove it's not just the current crop of students. Seems hard to prove a need to ban all students from neighborhood unless you can prove all students are always a problem.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
Member is Online
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 9, 2011 10:26:57 GMT -5
Legally schools can say all students must live on campus. But I don't think that the government can tell the school it has to tell all students to live on campus. Why not? There are tons and tons of inane regulations at every level of government--if DC can tell restaurants/bars they can't let people inside that are smoking, why can't DC tell Georgetown it can't admit students who don't live on campus? Apples to oranges, no, T? Smoking and second-hand smoke are pretty obviously public health issues, which the government should and does have the power to regulate. Smokers are not a protected class, nor is the act of smoking protected. Although the government can do a lot with respect to zoning and property rights (e.g. eminent domain), there is no basis on which it can force a private entity to admit or not admit individuals on a particular criterion. The report is stupid but it's not THAT stupid - it knows this full well and seeks instead to force the university to provide space for 100% of students. It understands that the government doesn't have the legal right to force them to live there. First, I don't think students are a protected class like, say African Americans. Secondly, why couldn't they have different regulations in different parts of the city? They do it for other types of businesses--why not universities? Students are a protected class under the DC Human Rights Act of 1977, which enumerates "matriculation status" as a protected category. As to the second part, they would have to provide a basis for different regulations in different areas. Different zoning classifications, different desired densities, etc. However, the entire basis of OPs report in this area boils down to "students are bad for neighborhoods." Given the language OP uses, it would be pretty hard to argue that this applies in Georgetown and Burleith but not in American University Park or Wesley Heights or Foggy Bottom or anywhere else. Doubly so because GU houses more undergrads on campus than any other school in DC other than Gallaudet. Some major due process and other challenges open there. The biggest issue, to me, is the fact that OP is proposing to reopen and alter a previously settled issue. The current undergraduate enrollment numbers and amount of providing housing were accepted under the 2000 Campus Plan. It's not the purpose of the Zoning Commission or the campus plan system to go back and say "oh wait, you know what, actually we don't like living next to students after all." The purpose of campus plans is to manage growth, not to reexamine and alter any land use decisions ever made by a university.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on May 9, 2011 11:06:40 GMT -5
Why not? There are tons and tons of inane regulations at every level of government--if DC can tell restaurants/bars they can't let people inside that are smoking, why can't DC tell Georgetown it can't admit students who don't live on campus? You obviously don't understand the difference between good regulations and bad regulations. The former are good things which we support and the latter are bad things that no one we know could support.
|
|
joey0403p
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by joey0403p on May 9, 2011 12:30:22 GMT -5
i'm a little confused here. does the OP have any power? anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 9, 2011 12:31:31 GMT -5
Just wondering, how does the DC Office of Planning come to making these suggestions?
Maybe they just looked on campus and saw an entire wing of a building being unused? The old jez rez/Gervase/w/e its called, has been empty for years and needs to be utilized. Is it because of the asbestos problem they have in the building? WHO CARES, there are ways to remove the stuff.
Does the university have an office of campus space use? (or anything along that line). Every year I was in school, I knew of at least 3-4 rooms throughout campus that were unused throughout the whole year...that can't be right.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 9, 2011 12:46:05 GMT -5
i'm a little confused here. does the OP have any power? anyone know? Not sure about the OP in general but in the case, their report will be made to the Zoning Commission. The ZC then makes the final choice.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 9, 2011 15:05:04 GMT -5
OP is just making a suggestion to the Zoning Commission but one that presumably carries a lot of weight.
I've never got why they don't gut that part of healy and use the space. I've always heard them say it's cost prohibitive to make it usable, but I can't imagine how it wouldn't be worth it in the long run.
|
|