Barking up the Wrong Tree

UK’s recent announcement that it intends to set up an off-campus housing office similar to the one at Ohio State is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem.

Three weeks ago, Mayor Jim Newberry called a press conference to announce that spot checks of housing around the University of Kentucky had turned up “an alarming number of life safety fire code violations” as well as inappropriate uses of the properties inspected relative to their underlying zones. (1)

Two weeks ago, UK president Lee Todd and several top UK officials joined residents for a power-walk through some of the neighborhoods adjacent to the university, expressing along the way their concern and commitment to be a part of the solution.

God those were the days, weren’t they? Hope was tangible. Everything seemed possible. Heady times to be a resident activist I don’t mind telling you.

And then it happened. One week ago, UK Dean of Students Victor Hazard announced that the university intended to create an Ohio State style off-campus housing office, with no particular time-frame in mind.

Sigh.

If ever there was a better example of a cause/effect disconnect, I swear I can’t call one to mind.

According to its website, the mission of the OSU off-campus housing office is simply to help students, faculty and staff find off-campus housing.

In addition to hosting luncheons for landlords, sponsoring a housing fair for students, and designating neighborhood-based RA’s to pick up trash, the OSU office in question also manages a database of properties that are available for rent. But since it neither visits nor ranks those properties (actions that might result in value judgments regarding the actual habitability of the properties it lists) its online listings represent little more than a university-driven classified ad website.

So in light of the aforementioned life-safety problems in the university area, where did anyone get the idea that our biggest problem is that there just aren’t enough ways for UK to help landlords make even more money?

Here’s something that I find interesting though: Based on what we’ve heard landlords express in recent months, not only are they crazy in love with the Ohio State approach, they also have nothing bad to say about the annual registration fee or the per-unit fee OSU charges landlords who want to be included in the Buckeye Classifieds.

I mention this because whenever the topic of licensing and inspecting rental housing in our own university area comes up, landlords squeal like stuck pigs.

To hear them tell it, inspection fees (that typically run about $20 per unit per year—less than $2 a month) would result in a runaway upward spiral of costs, making housing even less affordable than it is today (a tried and true hot-button topic with students)—whereas comparable fees for inclusion into a database solely intended to hook up buyers and sellers would result in… hey wait a minute!

This is what’s known as being disingenuous, and it’s one of the main reasons that whenever landlords open their mouths residents close their ears.

Be sure to read the following post by Dick Conoboy on his Twilight Zoning in Bellingham blogsite—a post in which he catalogs and debunks all the reasons landlords in the Great Northwest give for their opposition to licensing.

So what are the costs and impacts of proactive inspections? Click here to read a short paper that looks at the issue relative to five North Carolina cities. Don’t forget about the footnotes either—there’s some interesting reading tucked into the back end of this paper.

Of particular interest are some of the charts and data regarding conditions before and after in Asheville, NC, where proactive inspections were instituted in 1999, and overthrown by disgruntled landlords in 2003.

Chart 2 plots the plummeting number of housing-related complaints in Asheville by 2003 when the program ended, and the skyrocketing number that followed in the wake of its demise, (2) and Chart 3 notes the increased number of residential fires after the program’s end.

Chart 5 however sounds a cheery note. It shows the percentage of rental units that passed their first inspection in Greensboro—a city similar in size to Lexington—where same-day compliance went from 21% in 2004 to 67% in 2007—a 46% increase in same-day compliance in less than 4 years.

Not only does that suggest proactive inspection gets easier and faster the longer you’re at it, but that your housing gets significantly safer as well.

The point is, a rational response from the University of Kentucky (a research institution) to the news that university-area housing may be significantly less safe (like by a factor of 5) than portrayed—might be to start doing some research on the matter.

Take the report listed above as a freebie. Add to it whatever you can find on your own, or any research you care to actually conduct. Then debate, debunk, correlate, plot, sequence, quantify, and analyze it all to your heart’s content—and come back to the table when you’ve got something meaningful to add to the discussion.

If anything, our recent news cycle ought to spur UK to do what it should have been doing all along—advocate strongly for safe off-campus housing—instead of trying to figure out how to facilitate the business transactions between landlords and potential tenants.

Until or unless that starts happening, UK will continue to sit on the sidelines of this issue.

1. “…So far, the pro-active inspections revealed five times the incidence of serious life safety issues as are normally found in comparable inspections of apartments or businesses. Serious life safety issues included no smoke detectors or inoperable smoke detectors in bedrooms, people sleeping in attics with no outside exit and hasp locks on the outside of bedroom doors…” Jim Newberry, “Inspections reveal high incidence of fire safety violations in neighborhoods surrounding university,” LFUCG website, Oct. 9, 2009.
2. Of course, when you move from a proactive to a complaint-driven system, you’re absolutely going to see an increase in the number of complaints, since that’s the only way to bring problems to anyone’s attention. But a proactive system does not preclude people from making complaints, whereas a complaint-driven system depends on people to know the difference—meaning that the actual problems are very likely much more prevalent than the number of complaints filed would indicate.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

The Butterfly Effect

The argument made time and again by representatives of the business community during the talent portion of the Planning Committee’s two-part Parade of Public Opinion that concluded earlier this month ran along the lines of “…walk softly, lest your actions have unintended consequences…”

Of all the disingenuous arguments made by those opposed to reform efforts in the neighborhoods near the University of Kentucky, this one has to be my personal favorite. Be afraid! The tiniest of efforts made today could very well snowball out of control and yield unimaginably negative outcomes at some point in the future!

I guess residents would find that possibility scarier if it wasn’t for the fact that for decades we’ve lived with, coped with, battled against the dysfunctionality resulting from the arguably unintended consequences of the choices made by the other “stakeholders” in this conflict.

And now that residents actually stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting some relief from the abuses that have historically been heaped on us by people whose only interest in our community has been how much profit they could squeeze out of it per square foot, we’re supposed to give serious consideration to their concern that our attempts to fix their mess for our mutual benefit may have adverse impacts?

It is at best a lame reproach.

After all, where was the business community’s concern for unintended consequences when the house next-door to me was converted from a residential to a business use that has caused me nothing but trouble from day one?

Am I really expected to believe that those who have been accumulating homes like they were properties in a Monopoly game so that they could be converted into de facto apartment houses lost a wink of sleep worrying about the impact their actions might have had on the stability of my neighborhood?

And was it their intention to destabilize my neighborhood by driving out owner-occupants—or was that an unintended consequence of the choice they made to buy home after home—for the purpose of renting them out?

Was it their plan to create trash and noise problems, or to increase crime, or to tax our city’s resources beyond their limit—or was that simply something that no one could have foreseen when they chose to increase the density of my neighborhood beyond its natural limit?

Was it their purpose to put their tenants lives at risk—or did it just work out that way as a result of successfully arguing against regular, independently verifiable life-safety inspections of rental housing in the university area?

So here’s a question—How long can a publicly observable adverse effect continue and still be considered an unintended consequence? How long do you get to claim ignorance before stupidity or malice can be assumed to be the real issue?

As a resident of a university-area neighborhood, I’ve seen all of this before. The same lame arguments and appeals to lazy thinking have been made at various times in the past— unfortunately to great effect—and the result is an even larger mess today than the one that should have been fixed 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

So I would urge anyone who has a mind to contribute to this conversation to neither make nor be swayed by arguments such as these. They are nothing more than an appeal to fear, and they have been put forward by those who more than any other group bear the responsibility for creating the mess in which we currently find ourselves.

Yes, there is a chance that the Planning Committee’s effort to restabilize the university area may have an unintended consequence or two—but how is that news? How does that make the case that nothing should be done? How does looking the other way make our community stronger or safer or more diverse or something to be proud of? How does it fix the problems we’re faced with?

And finally I would ask the business community—do you really want to shift this conversation to the topic of unintended consequences? Because there are only two ways to look at this as far as I’m concerned. Either you’ve unwittingly made choices over the years that have had the unintended consequence of screwing up our community, or it’s simply been your intent from the outset to profit as much as possible while you had the chance—regardless of the consequences.

Either way, you’re in no position to dictate the terms or boundaries of this discussion.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Can I Get an Amen?

Thursday night’s city council invocation was given by Rabbi Marc Kline, of Temple Adath Israel in Lexington. I’ve tried to faithfully transcribe his words in order to present them here.
The context? Immediately prior to a vote on whether to impose a 6-month halt to destructive and predatory business practices in residential neighborhoods around the university, Rabbi Kline asked council members to tend to the well-being of their community. (1)

“…Last night, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke at UK. He spoke about peace in the Middle East. He spoke about what it could mean to recognize each other as neighbors—and the anguish caused to all when one side is concerned with personal wealth and power—and less concerned with national welfare.

As he spoke—even as he answered the hecklers—he drove home the point over and over again that it takes a partnership to not only bring peace, but even more so to maintain it.

At that point in time he was not an Israeli speaking against Palestinians, but a statesman recognizing the problem that keeps people separated and at-odds.

It’s not the residents who hate each other—it’s the powerbrokers who do not live in the communities—who willingly sacrifice the well-being and security of the lives of the people who do live there.

When terrorists launch rockets from civilian homes, the targets suffer, the civilians in the homes suffer, the unintended targets that get hit by misfired launches suffer—everyone suffers—except those who grow their own power and wealth without concern for life or dignity, or the lives and dreams of families [that burn?] in houses and communities lacking security or safety.

And I thought about how true this lesson is even in our own lives and our own backyards, as people take advantage of others’ vulnerabilities for their personal gain.

As Prime Ministers, as elected officials, as civil servants, and even we as citizens—each of us has accepted a call to service to protect those who are in need of protection, to rein in the power of those who seek more power, to make sure that people can be safe in their homes, and that communities can thrive in ways that serve the best interests of the people whose lives are impacted by the decision-making that happens in other rooms, by other people, whose security in life bears no risk—whatever decisions are made.

When rockets are launched, return fire is expected. When we put our neighbors at risk, their fires become our own devastating nightmares.

I pray for the peace of Jerusalem, Gaza, [?], Bethlehem—and Lexington.

I pray that we’ll find ways past our own wants, to hear the call of those who are in need and at-risk. I pray that each of us will make decisions that make sense—as though we were the ones at risk—as though ours were the lives that were at stake.

I pray for the world—that more and more can find themselves in homes safe from violence and the indignities in this world.

We’re thankful for the energy and service that the mayor, vice-mayor, council members, and all who serve our community bring, and we’re thankful for each other. We commit to support them in their work as we hope to make our community stronger, and people more secure and more whole with each vote that they take.

Invoking the source of all creation that allows us to bless each other, we affirm our giving of thanks and our commitment to each other and our community—and to the work we need to do for each other.

And I hope you will join me in saying—amen…”

1. Council voted in favor of the moratorium. The lone dissenting vote was cast by 5th District council member Cheryl Feigel.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

The Truman Show

It was with great solemnity that Mayor Newberry identified the first casualty of the life-safety inspections he recently ordered in the university area— plausible deniability.

In a hastily-called meeting Friday morning, Lexington Mayor Jim Newberry announced that rental housing around the University of Kentucky may not be safe.

Fire Marshall Jim Branham concurred.

UK officials—seemingly unaware of the implications of being surrounded by kindling—fiddled away.

The mayor was further quoted in Sunday’s paper as saying that half of the properties the fire department managed to get into over the past two weeks “…may be operating in a fashion that’s inconsistent with the applicable zoning laws…”

It would be safe to say that at least fifty percent of the households in the university area not only concurred with that, but wondered aloud:

“…OY VEY! What took you so long? We were beginning to worry about you! Get in here you knucklehead—before you catch your death of cold!”

Oh well. Better late than never I guess.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, businesses have misrepresented the use they’ve put residential properties to because doing so makes those properties more profitable than they would be if they were simply used as intended. And in at least some cases (or in many cases, or hell—maybe even in most cases—it won’t be clear until you can actually get inside and look around) that profitability has been juiced up as a result of neglect, avoidance, stupidity, and greed—the result of which is that one of these days something really tragic is going to occur if something smart doesn’t start happening soon.

I wish I could shed a tear for your lost innocence, but damn—you had to find out sometime, right? Better now than after some poor schmuck went up in flames—how embarrassing would that have been?

This weekend, you learned what everyone around you has known for decades—that something sneaky has been going on in our neighborhoods—something intended to fool you into believing that everyone was playing by the same rules—when in fact nothing could have been further from the truth.

Now as irritating as it is to be punked like that, at least there’s a bright side—now you know what the solutions will need to look like—because there’s no denying any longer what the problems are.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Brave New World

A recent report on the state of housing in the university area describes conditions, uses, and lifestyles that are in such a long-standing state of conflict that some will be tempted to timidly tweak the situation as it currently stands, and warn of the unintended consequences of doing more.

That particular type of anti-reform thinking has not made a huge impact on our debate yet, but it’s coming.

I would counter that given the unintended consequences we currently find ourselves faced with, this is not the time or place for the chicken-hearted to start squawking.

No report on a topic as complex as how to change things for the better in the university area is going to offer completely satisfactory solutions, and of course the devil is in the details. But the solutions will only be as good as the questions asked—so let’s boil this big, messy issue down to two of the most fundamental ones.

First: Does owner-occupancy in residential neighborhoods have an overall stabilizing effect? Before you answer, read this. Cover-to-cover if you want, or just skip back to the conclusion. Spoiler alert: it confirms what you already know.

If you agree that owner occupancy stabilizes neighborhoods, then the next question is whether we should take action to address the instability in university-area neighborhoods, or whether we should instead allow market forces to continue to work in whatever ways they will?

Absent intervention, will the university area defy it’s own history and move in the direction of greater stability without help—and just how long are we prepared to wait for this market correction to occur before we decide to step in and do something or give up entirely?

In short, if you agree that owner occupancy brings stability to residential neighborhoods, and that university area neighborhoods would benefit from greater stability, then I think what you’re left with is an intervention of some kind.

That’s what the Penn State plan does. It intervenes on behalf of stability. I’m not saying that we have to adopt it here verbatim, or that every aspect of it would be equally workable here. All I’m saying is that it attempts to bring balance and stability back to neighborhoods that desperately need it.

So if you propose a solution to the problems in the university area that ignores the need for meaningful reform intended to bring stability to these battered neighborhoods— I would argue that you identify yours as an inconsequential voice in the discussion.

Second: Does government have a responsibility to license and regulate businesses that have a significant impact on public health and safety? Ask yourself what would happen if Lexington’s restaurants managed to cast off the yoke of government oversight and weren’t held to verifiable standards of cleanliness and food safety?

That’s right—widespread, chronic, explosive diahrrea and vomiting. Health inspections on Lexington’s restaurants can result in fines and loss of business, but frankly given the alternatives, I don’t have a problem with that.

Likewise, Lexington’s apartments get inspected every year, and you won’t find me losing a wink of sleep over it, because again, that whole life-safety thing.

However, there is one life-safety-impacting business that has slipped through the cracks and is not subject to regular inspections of any kind—and which can actually refuse entry to code enforcement, building inspection, and fire safety officials.

We had some news on this very topic today. City finds “significant life safety issues” in rental houses near UK.

Read about it here.

Welcome back. That was a little eye-opener, wasn’t it?

So ask yourself if you think the conversion of single-family homes into rental properties represents an intended or an unintended use? Is this the use that single-family homes were intended to serve? Is this why we build single-family houses in the first place?

Do you trust that changes made to structures intended for one use have been made in accordance with current building codes and represent appropriate and safe modifications for this new use—despite the fact that inspectors can be denied entry? Really? Even in light of today’s story?

Do you think that these properties—whose for-rent yard signs have begun to advertise “$437 per Person,” like they’re advertising a sale on bananas or Jimmy Dean breakfast patties down at the Kroger—are serving a different function than the apartment house does?

They both provide lodging for a fee, but one gets inspected every year while the other gets to claim the private residence exemption. How smart is it to continue to ignore that?

What came into sharper focus today was that these rental property businesses have been historically able to fly beneath the radar intended to catch life-safety violations that other businesses are expected to correct.

That’s because we don’t treat these businesses as businesses, and so long as we continue to pretend they’re not businesses, safety officials can’t come inside without an invitation, a bottle of wine, and a cheeseball.

That needs to change.

That’s why one of the suggested remedies in the Student Housing Task Force report was to license and regulate rental properties—and it’s simply because absent regular, independent, verifiable inspection, the temptation is just too great for some.

Pack another one in. Put off that repair. Padlock that back door. Stuff them in the attic.

Now obviously that’s not how everybody behaves when riches beyond their wildest dreams are dangled in front of their faces, but even the well-intentioned can be incompetent—and the results can be equally catastrophic.

So if you propose a solution to the problems in the university area that ignores the need for meaningful reform intended to bring the benefits of life-safety inspections to the occupants of these largely ignored lodging businesses—again I would argue that you identify yours as an inconsequential voice in the discussion.

Yes, the report provided to our Planning Committee on the state of housing in the university area is complex, but it’s certainly not overwhelming. And this is no time for chicken-fried solutions like tweaking a word here or there. This is the time to ask ourselves two simple questions.

What happens next doesn’t have to be complex.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

There’s No Place Like a Home

Mike and Michelle Haley own 10 houses in the Seven Parks neighborhood. In fact, on some streets you can hardly roll the dice and avoid landing on one of their squares. And like all those who play the game to win, they’ve started replacing the little green houses with the big red hotels.

A few months ago they added 1,500 square feet to a 900 square foot house on Forest Park Road. In September, they were granted a building permit to add 1,200 square feet to a 1,300 square foot house on Westwood Drive.

You know what that means, don’t you?

It means that in the course of just a few short months, the Haley’s will have added at least another 10 bedrooms and two bathrooms to this university area neighborhood.

That’s room enough for at least another 20 people. Twenty more cars will soon be scurrying back and forth, this way and that. Nine more dogs and 15 cats will have a place on top of which to do their doodies. Countless boyfriends, girlfriends, and acquaintances will stop by, stay awhile, leave, come back and visit some more, and then scamper off again.

That’s the great thing about living in a neighborhood—the activity, the excitement, the freedom.

Come on over—dude we got a house! It’s awesome. What? I’m losing you. I can’t hear you. Crap. Wait, that’s better. Yeah, it’s awesome. No, I said—never mind. It’s all good. You should definitely stop by. All right. Okay. Yeah, tonight. Whatever. Later on.

Yes, all creatures great and small who otherwise would have had no place to go and nothing to do on a Friday night—will soon make a home for themselves in the Seven Parks neighborhood— and as we all know, there’s NO place like a home. Welcome neighbors!

So while everyone else was busy complaining about the problems in the university area (during two Planning Committee open microphone blab-a-thons) the Haley’s decided to actually roll up their sleeves and do something constructive. In the process, they have reassured and calmed a community’s fears.

People! People! Do not panic! There will be no housing shortage. You will not have to walk any further to class. Chevy Chase is safe!

Oh sure—some will argue that these two 1940’s-era properties were only intended to accommodate 3 or 4 people, a goldfish, 2 cats, and 1 car—but do they remind you just how big they built cars back in the 1940’s? No, of course not. Half-truths, selective reporting—anything to win an argument. That is so typical.

Look—maybe everyone can’t mount their own mini Habitat for Humanity campaign like Mike and Michelle have—but that doesn’t mean we can’t all contribute meaningfully in some way.

I only hope that their example will encourage others to stop yapping about the problems and get busy too.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Working the Crowd

In a column in the recent Chevy Chaser magazine, 5th District council member Cheryl Feigel tells her constituents that they may be negatively impacted by a plan whose purpose is to strike a balance between owner-occupied and rental housing in the neighborhoods directly adjacent to them. I’m sorry, but I simply reject the premise that her constituents are dumb enough to believe that.

You can read it for yourself here.

Let me address this post directly to the residents of those 5th District neighborhoods on the other side of Tates Creek Road from the Hollywood Terrace, Mt Vernon, and Montclair neighborhoods.

In order for you to believe that the Penn State plan will turn Romany Road into Elizabeth Street, you have to ignore the fact that the Penn State plan grandfathers in rental properties on streets that currently have greater than 50% rental, and would thus not “displace” anyone from those areas.

You’d also need to forget the fact that the Hollywood Terrace, Mt Vernon, and Montclair neighborhoods are each well below the 50% rental threshold and would therefore represent the next logical area for any increase in the number of rental properties needed to accommodate UKs push to add more students.

And what about all the purpose-built high-density housing that’s going up all around the university and downtown? You’d have to ignore the fact that some of the demand for housing has—and will continue to be—absorbed by these types of intentional and responsible developments, wouldn’t you?

A neighborhood is at risk from the abuses historically heaped on (for instance) the Elizabeth Street area when property values are depressed and houses can be picked up for a song relative to the return they can provide by being put to this use. Your property values simply don’t lend themselves to the model.

In addition, it helps if the neighborhood is out-of-demand, or underdeveloped, ignored, or undervalued as a place to live, because that makes it less likely that landlords will face any meaningful opposition. Again, that does not describe the 5th District.

Finally, there have to be vacancies, and vacancies take time.

It is simply not credible to suggest that the Penn State plan represents a threat to 5th District residents.

The much maligned “Penn State” plan is not a perfect solution to the problems in the university area, but not for the reasons that have gotten all the air time. For instance, it is beneath dumb—it is sub-dumb—to base enforcement of an ordinance on that which is for all practical purposes unknowable (whether a person is a student at a given point in time)—when it is the property’s use as a business (which is easy as hell to determine) that has created the problem in the first place.

However, the strength of the Penn State plan is that in preserving a measure of owner-occupancy, it ensures greater overall stability in these neighborhoods—which is good for the residents, the students, the city, and even you.

Yes, you. Even if your neighborhoods are not in danger of a direct invasion by the huns (for the reasons I mention above)—even if there is no possibility that hordes of nomadic revelers will descend on Ecton Park (except to watch a ballgame and munch on a burger)—it is nevertheless not in your best interest to sit quietly and watch as  neighborhoods that are no more than spitting distance away from you are converted into unregulated, uninspected, high-density housing zones.

That’s precisely what will continue to occur if you stand with landlords against this or any plan that encourages stability in your own back yard.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Riddle Me This

What do you get when you cross a public obligation with a personal interest? Well, it kind of depends on whether or not anyone notices, I guess.

Fifth-District council member Cheryl Feigel  is also a member of LFUCGs Planning Committee, which will soon debate the findings of the recently released Student Housing Task Force report about housing-related problems in the university area. The Planning Committee’s recommendations will then be presented to the full council for (hopefully, meaningful) action.

Council member Feigel has been concerned about the university area for a long time. The following email from 2007 (prior to Feigel’s election to city council) is a largely intact excerpt from the appendices of the SHTF report, in which Ms. Feigel wrote to council member David Stevens:

. . . . .

Dear Dr. Stevens:

I recently received a flier informing me of a proposal regarding restrictions on student housing. I am the landlord of one duplex in the Columbia Avenue area and am quite disturbed by the information that I received from UAHA [the University Area Housing Association---which opposes any suggestion that rental housing in the area should be inspected, licensed, and regulated] …

…I believe I understand the concerns you are attempting to address. We share those concerns but I don’t believe that all landlords should be penalized by cumbersome regulations and requirements to address the sins of a few. We are very attentive landlords and care for our property as we would our own home…

…Phil and I purchased this property when our own children were students at UK and we resided in Texas. We improved the property to our standards and we try to maintain the property at that level. I believe that landlords who want to control rowdy behavior have the tools to do so. Those landlords who choose not to are the ones that should be targeted. Perhaps a few citations on those landlords with rowdy tenants would get the message across, just as citations are issued for parking on the grass, leaving out the herbie, etc.

I will look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Feigel
301 Colony Blvd. Lexington [see photo 4, below]

. . . . .

Just for the record, the Feigel’s still own and rent the property referred to in the email above. Located at 545 Columbia Avenue, the rental duplex they own is just one block from the UK campus.

There’s no question as to whether the two properties depicted here are being held to a standard—they most certainly are. But the quality and nature of that standard is obviously different for each, and you’ve got to admit that the results—when seen side-by-side—are jarring.

However, it’s not really a fair comparison—considering that 545 Columbia features:

1. dedicated on-site parking (photos 1a, 2c, 3c),
2. handy storage containers (photo 1b),
3. maintenance-free Fall weekends (photo 3a),
4. innovative technologies (photo 2b), and
5. design principles and architectural nuances you don’t find everywhere (2a, 3b)…

I believe that’s what the real estate community calls accentuating the positives.

After spending the better part of the last two years working on their report, SHTF members deserve—at the very least—a public hearing and debate that reflects the good-faith investment of time, experience, and thoughtful (and sometimes contentious) conversation that they themselves invested in the job they were asked to do.

Tell me there’s something I’m missing here.

Council member Feigel would seem to have a clear conflict of interest in this matter, and if so, would have no business casting a vote on university-area housing matters before either the Planning Committee or the full council until or unless the apparent conflict between her private interests and her public obligations is resolved. (6)

1. Parking on what’s left of front and rear yards.
2. The ubiquitous Herbie.
3. Dead trees.
4. Exterior-mounted exhaust vent.
5. …at least not outside of the university area—the student-stuffer vinyl box addition.
6. Are resolved? I could really use an editor.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

For and Against…What?

Thursday’s Herald-Leader editorial, “Disinformation makes for drama,” did a nice job of cutting through the all-too-familiar nonsense that descends on city hall every time the question of responsibly addressing the problems in university-area neighborhoods is raised.

Last Tuesday’s speech-a-thon before LFUCGs Planning Committee demonstrated a number of things—not the least of which is that landlords and their lawyers are dead-set against rental housing licensing and inspection.

“Impractical, impossible, unnecessary!” they huffed. “Millions of dollars are at stake! Lawsuits are likely!” they puffed.

Sigh.

I suppose there are plenty of responsible landlords out there—the best of whom provide safe, well-kept, clean housing—and they do so not because anyone’s looking over their shoulder and holding them to those standards. (1) They operate that way because they’re decent and capable people. (2)

Likewise, there are plenty of restaurants that would provide a safe product in a healthy environment if the Health Department never showed up to inspect the kitchen and walk-in cooler—but you won’t hear anyone calling for an end to twice yearly inspections because of it. After all, not everyone is equally principled or competent, and the potential for adverse consequences in the end makes holding everybody to the same verifiable standards a pretty good idea.

So ask yourself—why do we treat these two businesses differently? Both have a significant impact on public health and safety, and yet one is held to verifiable standards while the other gets a free pass. As noted in the Herald-Leader’s editorial, the report presented to the Planning Committee indicates that:

“…There’s remarkably little inspection of student or other rental housing in this community. One of the most alarming findings in the task force report is that the city’s divisions of code enforcement, fire prevention and building inspection really can’t and don’t assure that most rental housing is safe…”

That’s because although landlords run businesses that impact public health and safety, they can actually deny entry to safety officials—and if that fact alone doesn’t give you pause—then by all means stop reading right now. Go live your life, and mazal tov to you.

Look—we may disagree over how to handle a lot of things that go on in the university area, but safety should not be one of them. And despite the fact that UKs students are well-educated enough, wealthy enough, and mobile enough to be able to reject living conditions that are beneath their standards—and in so doing may in time encourage the marketplace to adapt to those standards— not everyone in Lexington has that same luxury.

Ignore health and safety concerns in the university area, and in time the market there may very well adapt appropriately. But take that same approach in any number of other places in town and see what happens.

Our response to safety in the university area will have consequences in every part of town, and that’s what makes the Planning Committee’s recommendations to the full council on this matter so important.

The business community will make another pitch before the Planning Committee on October 5.

Who knows? We may even hear from the University’s representatives. Maybe they can speak to the question of why they hold on-campus housing safety in such high regard that they conduct safety inspections of dormitories every semester, but have chosen not to lead on the issue of off-campus safety—where inspections of those properties that allowed officials inside (properties that represent a fraction of those places that have been converted to rental housing) were last conducted almost six years ago.

1. Because believe me—no one is.
2. We all applaud those who voluntarily hold themselves to high standards, but in the absence of independent verification we probably don’t want to clap too loudly…

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

No-Name City

Someone digging deeper than I feel like doing will come up with the date that language allowing more densely-packed development made it into the zoning ordinance. It was recently.

Several council members have advised university-area residents to call on Building Inspection to remedy the problems they face in their neighborhoods, which (although we’ve gone through these motions countless times in the past) one resident recently did.

It should surprise no one that BIs response to that request confirmed what residents already knew—that there is no relief in our zoning ordinance from the super-size business expansions that convert houses in the neighborhoods around the university into… well, it’s hard to say what they are, aside from nasty. I’ve redacted the complainant’s name and the property address in question.

“…I am writing in response to your letter dated September 8, 2009 concerning the residential addition (on) Forest Park Road. Our records indicate that a building permit was issued on August 28, 2009 to construct a 1,565 sq. ft. addition. This property is located in a single-family RA C zone and has been reviewed for compliance under Section 8-7 of the LFUCG Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, it has been reviewed for compliance under Section 8-7(o) 1-b, Special Provisions, as it relates to Infill & Redevelopment areas.

According to Section 8-7(o), Special Provisions 1-b #10, the maximum floor area ratio is 0.35, or that which allows 2,600 square feet, whichever is greater. Therefore, with a lot square footage of 8,313 sq. ft. (49 ft. x 169.6 ft.), the maximum floor area ratio permitted would be 2,910 sq. ft. (.035) or 2,600 sq. ft., whichever is greater. In this case, the 2,910 sq. ft. is used to determine compliance. The total square footage for the structure (on) Forest Park Road, including the addition, is approximately 2,450 sq. ft.

In conclusion, it is the determination of the Division of Building Inspection that the proposed residential addition located (on) Forest Park Road complies with the LFUCG Zoning Ordinance…”

In layman’s terms, what it says is “…you’ve been screwed by Special Provision 8-7(o)1-b—but if it wasn’t 8-7(o)1-b, it would have been something else. Be sure to thank the development community on your way out the door…”

This is what happens when a basically reasonable concept—infill and redevelopment—is written by and for developers, and applied without regard to the conditions in situ.

The goal is admirable enough—take a piece of undeveloped or underdeveloped land and put it to its best possible use in light of our desire to develop as compactly as possible. Sounds responsible, doesn’t it?

However, in practice we find developers, builders, and landlords using that language to make enormous additions to modest houses—in order to cram as many tenants per square foot onto the property—a practice that converts the owner’s use of the property from residential to business, and which all but destroys the now underlying neighborhood.

These developments don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re located in low-density residential neighborhoods, and anyone who claims that their purpose is not to convert single-family homes into high-density lodging businesses is not being straight-up.

The single biggest problem faced by homeowners in university-area neighborhoods is not noise, or parking, or traffic, or litter, or even pee-pee on the sidewalks after the big game. It is the poorly-disguised business use of residential properties by their owners—and thanks in part to 8-7(o)1-b—that destructive practice has been given the shot in the arm it never needed.

It’s all very well and good to want to grow more compactly, but you don’t go about it by allowing individuals to make unilateral business decisions to spot zone properties to incompatible or higher-density uses than those supported by their underlying zones. That’s not responsible land management—but it’s precisely what our infill and redevelopment language allows—chaos.

Look at the outcome of this language. Put it into practice as written and what do you get? Widespread conflict, uses that are clearly not intended, and a land-grab mentality and development aesthetic that owes a debt of gratitude to those entrepreneurs of the fictional No-Name City depicted in the movie Paint Your Wagon.

If this is not the purpose of the infill and redevelopment initiative, then the time has come to fix its language. If on the other hand this is precisely how we intend to grow more compactly, then we richly deserve the mess that we have coming to us.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Just so We’re Clear…

It recently occurred to me that there may be some who’ve never seen a big-box student-stuffer, or who’ve seen them and asked themselves “…what the hell is that… and how on Earth did they get away with it?…”

So in the interest of making sure we’re all on the same page, here we have two examples of what can be accomplished in our residential neighborhoods by simply following the letter of the law (and ignoring the intent of the law).

The ploptop model (above) is very popular with the landlords, as the space saved by building a second story frees up the rear yard for parking.

However, also popular is the tootsie-roll—a two-chunk turd joined by a little passageway (as in the lower photo).

As far as I can tell, there are 10 tootsie-rolls to the west of campus, and a roughly similar number to the east. The ploptop is scattered throughout the area.

This is what I’m referring to when I say that single-family homes have been converted into slapdash dormitories, or apartment buildings. In fact, if anything, to call these renovation projects slapdash is to raise them to a standard of craftsmanship that is far beyond their grasp.

I don’t know which is the more shameful example—which is a more devastating critique of our current approach to managing land use—but both make very clear the lengths to which some landlords are willing to go to make their businesses as profitable as possible per square foot, and there’s currently nothing that can be done to stop it from happening.

This is precisely why we need a moratorium on “residential additions” in the university area. Yes, it needs to be worded carefully to avoid unintended negative impacts, but it also needs to happen soon—before even one more of our single-family homes is converted into… one of those.

This is only one of the many ill-effects of unregulated business in our neighborhoods—but it’s a doozie.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

The Show that Never Ends

However well-intentioned, recent calls to fix the problems associated with university-area neighborhoods by merely enforcing existing laws are about as helpful as when you finally get through to technical support and the first thing you’re asked is if you tried restarting your computer…

Council’s unanimous decision to remove Diane Lawless’ proposed ordinance to place a temporary moratorium on building permits (for residential additions adding 25% or more to the square footage of a house) from last week’s council agenda was probably a good thing.

Crafted hastily in response to news that construction has begun again in earnest on big box student-stuffer additions to single-family dwellings in the university area (specifically in the Seven Parks neighborhood), it really was a case of well-intentioned over-reaction. After all, denying permits in cases that have no bearing on the matter at hand (regardless of the size of the additions in those cases) does nothing to address the problem, and probably creates an undue hardship on local builders. (1)

In any event, the exact source of current concern is a 960 sqft house over on Forest Park whose recent Extreme Makeover includes an addition of roughly 1,500 sqft, divided up into five brand-spanking new bedrooms, which—when added to the structure’s original bedroom—officially transforms what used to be a house into what could only be called… a dormitory. Nice.

The purpose of this practice is of course to convert low-density housing into high-density housing in areas that are not zoned to support that use—and to do so in a manner that allows the practice to fly just below the zoning enforcement radar. More on that later.

However, this just happens to be today’s outrage. Several weeks ago—while city council was talking about this very issue—a construction crew was busily paving the front yard of yet another Elizabeth Street address—apparently in anticipation of the upcoming World Equestrian Games. I don’t know—maybe it’s supposed to be a turn lane?

Last year it was knuckleheads who were turning residential yards into commercial parking lots during football games, and prior to that it was the Animal House backlash that residents were faced with when the university banned alcohol on campus. Thanks, guys. Very helpful.

The point is that Lexington is in reactive mode. Every action taken in this part of town has represented a reaction to something big and self-evidently stupid or dangerous—the Keg Ordinance, the Party Plan, the once (and hopefully future) moratorium on big box additions, the crackdown on post-sporting event rioting—are all reactions that residents had to push for in order to preserve a modest quality of life (and limb), and which met with determined resistance from those nonresidents and temporary residents alike who at the time benefited in their own way from this Wild West mentality. I wish I could say it in shorter sentences.

Anyway, recent events suggest that there is renewed interest in the topic, and a conviction at least on the part of some that enforcing existing law may be the solution.

Over the course of the next few posts I’m going to go ahead and be the first to disagree with that.

1. According to reports available on the Building Inspection website, the city has issued on average 40 residential addition permits per month during the last 2 years, and I don’t think anyone is interested in disrupting that much building activity if at all possible. However it’s also worth noting that in the last 5 months of reporting, fewer than 1 in 4 of those permits (44 out of 186) were issued for projects that added more than 25% sqft to the original structure.* Furthermore, only 5 of those 44 affected university-area neighborhoods. In other words, a well-crafted moratorium merely needs to be limited to the university area in order to have the intended effect, and to avoid adversely impacting those who aren’t a part of the problem.
It is also worth noting that as the number of permits issued is obviously higher in the warmer months and lower (like closer to 11 per month) during the months of November through February—the negative economic impact of a building moratorium would be further reduced simply by virtue of when it took place.

* I know. Only five months-worth of data? I was getting bored, so I stopped.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Not in my front yard

Although in many cases they would be located some 125 feet away from property owners’ front doors—new sidewalks proposed along an affluent stretch of Tates Creek Road are opposed by some—for reasons including… aesthetics. Hmmm.

City council will vote Thursday night on whether to accept an $811,000 federal grant to build an almost 2-mile stretch of sidewalks along both sides of Tates Creek Road where there currently are none.

Click here for a pdf document that describes the project.

Not surprisingly, there are some on city council who are opposed to this project—most notably, Julian Beard, whose district includes the NIMFY property owners on the west side of Tates Creek, and Cheryl Feigel, whose district includes those on the east side of the street. According to a story in today’s Herald-Leader, Sidewalk plan upsets residents, Mr. Beard says he doesn’t think the sidewalks will be used:

“…My constituents don’t see people walking along the road,” Beard said, adding that when he drives along Tates Creek, “I never, I mean never, have seen anyone walking…”

Of course it’s possible that council member Beard has never seen anyone out walking along Tates Creek Road because… there’s nothing for people to actually walk on—right? In fairness, I think what Mr. Beard meant to say is that he doesn’t think the sidewalks that haven’t been built yet will be used any more than the sidewalks that have never existed—and it’s pretty hard to argue with logic like that.

Council member Feigel had the good sense to avoid being quoted in the story.

In an email to city council dated May 27, 2009, I wrote not necessarily in support of the sidewalks, but of the local economic impact that the project would have:

“…I’ll let others make the case that sidewalks along Tates Creek Road make sense from the standpoint of making that artery safe for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. They clearly would. What I can’t understand is why there would be any debate over whether to accept an $811,000 economic stimulus in an economy like this? If no one ever set foot on those sidewalks it would be well worth it just to build them…”

Look, assuming that the construction contracts go to local businesses employing people who actually live in our community, this is an example of genuine trickle-down economics, because it means that over $800,000 will be spent in our community not just once, but over and over again—money that wouldn’t have otherwise been available to spend here in the first place, much less argue over—will in time be redistributed throughout the local economy as a direct result of this project. Come on. This is a no-brainer.

. . . . .

Now for the part of the story that just tickles the hell out of me.

The Herald-Leader story that I referred to above continues:

“…Sidewalks would destroy the greenery of the corridor and increase storm-water run off,” said Steve Kesten, who lives between Robin Road and Lansdowne Drive on Tates Creek Road. “I see no good reason for sidewalks out here, and neither do my neighbors…”

The greenery of the corridor will be destroyed and storm water runoff will—wait…what?

We’re still talking about sidewalks, aren’t we? Maybe the word sidewalks is really just code for something else—but those of us who actually have them are pretty sure that the addition of sidewalks will not mean the end of all things good and decent along Tates Creek Road.

So anyway, in addition to being a resident along the currently pedestrian- and cyclistically-hostile stretch of road in question, Mr. Kesten (above) is also a landlord who owns a student rental property on 222 University Avenue, about a block from the UK campus, between Crescent Avenue and Elizabeth Street.

See the photo below.

Now if ever there was a better snapshot of “…the end of all things good and decent…”, I’m sure I’ve never seen it.

The conditions that in any other setting (say for instance, Tates Creek Road) would be considered contrary to commonly held notions of residential neighborhood aesthetics are almost too many to number here, and they are none too subtle either.

Here we have four bungalows in a row—each with a student-stuffer addition and backyard parking. In fact, seven of the 12 properties on this side of the 200 block of University feature similar accommodations—the least offensive feature of which is the little ribbon of sidewalk out front—despite the fact that it’s only some 15 feet from the front doors of these properties.

And what about storm water runoff?

Well, homes that once featured grassy side and back yards have been converted to dormitories that have gobbled up what square footage that has not been pressed into service for parking spaces and their accompanying makeshift access roads. What ground hasn’t been covered over by impervious additions has been compacted, and the net effect is the same—increased storm water runoff.

So where is the concern over the aesthetic impact of one choice over another here? And where is the concern of property owners regarding environmental stewardship in this neighborhood?

And tell me again—what’s the big problem over on Tates Creek Road? I forget. Residents don’t like the possibility that they’ll be getting brand new sidewalks—at no charge to them? God, it breaks your heart to see a neighborhood treated so thoughtlessly.

Look, on one level I sympathize with Kesten and his neighbors. It truly does suck when someone comes into your neighborhood and makes long-lasting changes that you feel devalue the place where you live. I know what that feels like because it happens to me and my neighbors all the time.

But that’s where those of us who live in near-university neighborhoods part company with the Tates Creek crowd.

See the photo above.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Summer Reading

Others may spend their free time reading such things as the new biography of Walter O’Malley, or the latest vampire romance mystery novel. But for those whose tastes lean more toward the abstract and theoretical realm of yet-to-be-fully-articulated public policy—well, there’s no hope for you.

Now’s the time to catch up on all that reading you’ve been meaning to get to, so in an effort to make it easier, I’ve included (in the sidebar at right) a new category titled Editor’s Choice.

The document that interests me most right now is one provided to me by a friend in one of Bellingham, Washington’s near-university neighborhoods. (1) The link at right, Licensing and Inspection Options in Bellingham, opens an executive summary, but a link at the top of that page also delivers the full, 26-page Word document. Both are draft documents.

Written by Mark Gardener, Legislative Policy Analyst (Apparently the city of Bellingham has a legislative policy analyst? Do we have one of those? If not, can we get one?), the paper entitled Options for a Rental Housing Licensing and Quality Inspection Program in Bellingham, is actually a good bit more interesting to read than its title would suggest:

“…Rental licensing and inspection programs are but one approach in an array of possible approaches to rental housing issues. Policy responses to rental housing problems generally fit within four broad categories: those that focus on nuisances; those targeting housing quality and safety; those that regulate tenancy situations; and, efforts to engage universities in cooperatively solving issues associated with off-campus rentals. Many cities employ all these responses simultaneously, although one or two areas may be a focus of activity…”

See what I mean? And he hasn’t even made it off of page one yet. In fact, this is a very even-handed and thorough examination of the problems pretty routinely faced by university area neighborhoods all around the world—and, as its title suggests—the need for a solid dose of government oversight:

“…Rental housing is one of the few businesses that are substantially unregulated by the City of Bellingham, whereas many businesses or activities with far less potential impact on individual and community well-being must be licensed and conform to specific standards. A licensing and inspection program would help ensure that landlords share responsibility in providing safe and nuisance-free housing…”

This paper should definitely rise to the top of your summertime reading list, especially if you’re actually a member of the LFUCG Student Housing Task Force.

It does however bear mentioning that it’s taken the city of Bellingham some four years to get from one of their early council meetings on the matter in November, 2004 to the point of issuing this draft report, released in October, 2008. Four years. For crying out loud a person could get a college degree in that amount of time. A neighborhood could lose another eight or nine homes to rental conversions—or worse—in that amount of time. A prominent downtown dirt pit could go through… well, at least several freeze-thaw cycles in that amount of time.

LFUCG’s Student Housing Task Force has been actively meeting for almost a year now, and with each passing day, week, and month, we lose a little more and we (literally) gain a little less. That’s all the more reason for the SHTF to issue a report with cha-cha’s. Big cha-cha’s. Cha-cha’s big enough to compensate for everything that will have been lost in the intervening years. Let’s hope that three years from now—when we’ve finally finished studying the issue—there’s still something left to care about.

Anyway, break out your highlighters and dig into these Editor’s Choice documents. I’ll add more as time allows.

1. Thanks, man. I was running out of material.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

We Are Not… Alone

The story and plot are strikingly similar from town to town, from state to state, from country to country, and even from age to age. The cast of characters are likewise familiar, as are their motivations and even their dialogues—which tend to follow along fairly predictable lines. In short, this Townie/Gownie story is pretty old stuff.

There is however a new twist to this timeless tale of mindless conflict, which is the relatively recent phenomenon of actually dealing with the underlying problems. It’s radical stuff—this problem-solving—because when done right, it often has the effect of making things better. That is, it can make our neighborhoods safer, cleaner, and more sustainable. It can curb dangerous behavior and lawlessness before they ever take hold in a community. It can promote meaningful dialogue between stakeholders, and more importantly, meaningful action in support of those things we value about our communities—regardless of whether the stakeholders in a given conflict are in complete agreement. That’s why we have laws in the first place—I think.

In any event, if a lack of consensus is not the problem, then it stands to reason that consensus is also not the goal, so let’s not get ourselves off-task here.

Another article from the pages of the TownGownWorld website demonstrates that there is nothing unique to the problems we face in Lexington with rental properties in our own university-area neighborhoods. The thing that does however distinguish us from places like Oshawa, Ontario, or Deluth, Minnesota, or Greenville, North Carolina, or State College, Pennsylvania, is that those places have actually taken concrete steps to solve the problems that we are currently wrestling with. Good for them. (1)

Check out the Rental Licensing and Inspection link in the right-hand column, or click here.

1. We should expect no less.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Asleep at the Wheel

At some point, LFUCG’s Student Housing Task Force will have to stop puttering with the “problems” section of its report and get on with the job of proposing solutions. May we all live long enough to see that day.

Although we talk a really good game, (1) it’s no secret that with respect to protecting our older neighborhoods, Lexington has been asleep at the wheel for a long time. So it was hardly a surprise to learn that the recently completed Central Sector plan came with the following admonishment from one of its contributing consultants—Enforce your laws, dummies! Until you do, your problems relating to noise, trash, traffic, parking, and vandalism—as well as the more serious, chronic failure of some to maintain their properties, or even misuse, abandon, or demolish their properties—will be the bane of your existence! (2)

However, as those of us who live in the neighborhoods that surround the university know all too well, these are just the superficial problems. No, really. These are just the little things. Certainly the effects, but come on—not the causes.

Some would very much like to see the discussion of “problems” stick to the narrowly framed topic of abating these mindless annoyances. (3) $mall wonder.

The underlying problems on the other hand are the ones that need The Serious Attention. You can easily tell which problems those are. They’re the ones not being talked about—at all.

Partial remedy time. Click here to read an article that appeared in April of 2008, on the TownGownWorld website. The people of Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, have recently enacted strong bylaws to their zoning ordinance in order to address the various problems they’ve faced over the years—problems associated with rental housing. (4)

To be clear, the regulation of business in the interest of public safety and community standards is the primary underlying problem they faced, and to their enduring credit, they had the decency to do something meaningful about it.

I can’t wait to hear why their approach won’t work here.

1. Unfortunately, good intentions don’t count. Fortunately, talk is cheap.
2. Sometimes I paraphrase. “…One of the professionals who developed the Central Sector plan said a huge step would be ‘dedicated enforcement of the ordinances already on the books…’” Lexington Herald-Leader, “Enforce rules for neighborhoods,” March 17, 2009.
3. See “puttering,” above.
4. The fits and starts associated with the task undertaken by the municipality of Oshawa are recorded in some 50 newspaper and blog articles over the course of the last two years. It’s pretty interesting reading, if you’re into that kind of thing.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

On Second Thought

I sent a version of the following to members of the Student Housing Task Force yesterday as a suggested rewrite of its “Demand for Student Housing” section. It would probably be a better “Introduction.” (1)

The high demand for student housing is not a new phenomenon. Consider the following newspaper excerpts dating from as far back as 1952:

“…[The] most urgent need facing the University of Kentucky is proper housing facilities for students, President H.L. Donovan told members of the press and radio at a dinner Monday night…” (2)

“…The Phoenix Hotel and University Inn are offering to rent rooms on a monthly basis to University of Kentucky students this fall. Because of a critical housing shortage at UK, several hundred students still may be searching for off-campus housing when the fall semester begins in three weeks…” (3)

“…The University of Kentucky is appealing to local residents to help students solve their housing problems…” (4)

“…Classes begin at the University of Kentucky today, and some of the 20,000 students expected to enroll by the end of the week are still looking for housing…” (5)

The University of Kentucky’s enrollment has steadily increased over the years, and now stands at more than 24,000 students. Seventy five percent (18,000) of those students live off campus, and forty three percent (nearly 8,000) of those live within a one-mile radius of central campus. Further, the university plans to add another 5,500 students to its enrollment by the year 2020—students who will also have to find accommodations off campus.

Obviously, this transfers an enormous housing shortage problem—along with its attendant problems of increased population density, noise, trash, and traffic and parking—to the city and to the private sector.

To date, there has been no coordinated effort to responsibly address this issue. While new apartment housing in the South Broadway and Red Mile corridors has provided much needed purposely-designed high-density housing, this type of investment has been the exception and not the rule.

As a result, the older residential neighborhoods that surround the university have increasingly been left with the burden of making up the enormous difference.

This is inherently problematic, because while university dormitories and high-density apartment houses are purposely designed for the hard use that a continuous stream of short-term tenants will inflict over the course of decades, the houses that surround the university were not.

Most are more than 80 years old. Lot and house sizes are small, driveways are short, streets are narrow. Many have historic significance.

If anything, these characteristics describe an area unsuited to the task of providing the necessary accommodations for such a population. And yet they’ve been pressed into service by businessmen eager to profit from this need for housing.

And whereas the paradigm these houses were designed to support—home ownership—with its emphasis on the responsible stewardship of one’s home and community, has preserved them in some cases for over 100 years, the new paradigm—business ownership—with its emphasis on profit, has had the opposite effect.

Rental property repairs, maintenance, and improvements in what have come to be erroneously called “student neighborhoods” are typically deferred indefinitely in order to maximize profit. Houses that have endured this mistreatment eventually fall into decay and are likely to pose significant life-safety hazards. In extreme cases of chronic underinvestment, houses must be demolished, while others are abandoned until such time as they can justifiably be demolished.

Those properties that do receive additional investment are typically made larger, in order to make room for more residents. Big-box additions to the backs of some houses have gobbled up those back yards that haven’t been graveled and turned into dedicated parking lots. In some cases, the back yards of adjoining rental properties have been made into mega-lots, and some have been strung together to form roads that allow access right through the middle of neighborhood blocks.

This has largely been the private sector’s response to the demand for student housing, and it has taken a terrible toll on these neighborhoods.

Whether we summon the courage as a community to deal intelligently with this issue remains to be seen.

In the meantime we know what to expect.

1. I know. I live in a fantasy world.
2. “Dr. Donovan says Housing University’s Urgent Need,” Lexington Leader, December 9, 1952.
3. Lexington Leader, August 5, 1975.
4. “UK appeals for housing,” Lexington Leader, August 17, 1977.
5. “UK classes open; student housing still short,” Lexington Leader, August 31, 1977.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Park Avenue Double Standard

“People looking for the quintessential Bluegrass experience can rent a house on a 20-acre horse farm on Iron Works Pike, the Park Avenue of horse country, near such storied farms as Spendthrift, Castleton Lyons, Gainesway and Elmendorf…” (1) But not for long.

In Beverly Fortune’s story “Horse farm rental prompts call for change in law,” we learn that two houses out in the horse country of District 12 are causing headaches for their neighbors. The houses are regularly rented out for parties, and the locals are not amused. According to District 12 council member Ed Lane, “…The problem is taking a farm and renting it out by the weekend, making it into a hotel operation…” (1)

Ding, ding, ding! “Look lively over there, bellhop, or it’ll be the switch for you! What do you think we’re running here—a horse farm?”

He did say a  hotel, right?

Hey! Wait a second. You mean that all it takes is just two single-family dwellings that are sometimes used as rental houses (ie, places that provide lodging for a fee—businesses) out along Iron Works Pike, the sparsely populated but prestigious Park Avenue of horse country, and in the relative blink of an eye, a restrictive zoning text amendment gets shoved in front of the Planning Commission, and nobody is up in arms about fair housing or property rights, or wringing their hands over issues like “where will the partiers go?” Don’t the partiers have any say in this?

First, I don’t have a lot of sympathy—if those of us who live in town had a problem with just one or two houses in every 20 acres of land, we’d all be pretty damned happy about it. (2)

After all, the houses in my neighborhood (a neighborhood which is anything but sparsely populated) have been used as businesses for years and years, and I’ve never heard Ed Lane make a peep about it. I would invite Mr. Lane to stroll down my neighborhood’s Park Avenue—a street that even before the ice storm looked like the site of a meteor strike. The real Park Avenue is an R-1 street with 73 houses, only 24 of which are owner-occupied. The other 49 are businesses—the kind of businesses that the council member won’t tolerate even two of in his district. (3)

The residents of District 3 have been fighting this battle for decades, and yet are worse off today than they were 20 years ago, which is when my wife and I bought into the community. So I really can’t get too worked up when I hear that two houses on pretend Park Avenue aren’t playing by the rules. Come back when two out of every three houses aren’t playing by the rules. Then you’ve got a legitimate problem.

In the meantime, quit complaining and form a task force. Everybody else has to. Spend a year or two studying the problem. Make sure all the “stake holders” are represented in the discussion, and try to achieve consensus. Avoid making value judgments, even about clearly destructive behavior, and above all, take a number and get in line. I hate line-cutters.

If you residents of District 12 are having trouble with increased levels of noise, transience, and trash—if traffic is increasing and parking is becoming a hassle—there’s only one solution—take the advice that we’ve been given and make a LexCall service request. It’s the only way to preserve your quality of life. Someone will run right out and make a report. Call the police if things get too crazy, and maybe you can get these places designated as party houses.

That should help.

1. Beverly Fortune, “Horse farm rental prompts call for change in law,” The Lexington Herald Leader, Wednesday, February 11, 2009.
2. Second, I don’t appreciate the double-standard.
3. Is this the type of action that residents of District 5 will expect their council member to take should any residences in Chevy Chase be converted into businesses?

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

March Madness

I can’t watch college basketball anymore. The game has been ruined for me because referees don’t call walking violations anymore, and it makes me crazy. I spend all my time yelling at the tv. (1)

“That’s walking!” I call out helpfully. But play continues as if I’m talking to myself. God that’s irritating.

“Steps! He took steps! There’s another one, and… OH!… come ON, another! Beautiful!” I say in mock admiration.

“Why bother dribbling at all? Just drop your shoulder and run to the basket!” It goes on like that until the end of the first possession, and then I have to turn it off before my head explodes.

I don’t really blame the players. Of course they’re the ones committing the violations, but it’s the referees that are the real problem. They don’t seem to have any interest in enforcing the rule, and absent enforcement, uncited violations occur many dozens of times each game, and regularly result in game-changing baskets.

As for the fans, some argue that the game has evolved—the traveling rule is out-of-sync, they say, with current practice, or with the nature of the modern game—and as such, the rule should be updated or thrown out. But before taking that course of action, I would ask why the modern game requires giving such an advantage to the ball handler or to the offensive aspect of the game, especially as Men’s NCAA teams average between 70 and 90 points per game.

Others are apparently blind to the problem—those whose ignorance of the rules allow them to watch and cheer and carry on as if nothing is wrong. They don’t see it, they’re not interested, they’re there for the popcorn—I don’t know what their problem is.

Then there are those who risk popping blood vessels in their eyeballs if they watch more than two minutes of play—otherwise ordinary people who periodically lose their minds and scream at what they see happening—because they know that it’s wrong, that it’s not how the game is meant to be played, and that an otherwise great game has become arbitrarily debased by those who simply will not enforce the rules.

There’s no understanding it as far as I’m concerned.

1. Look, ma—no footnotes!

…back to Pigs in the Parlor

Even-Steven

In my very first post, I lamented the fact that nothing had come of the LFUCG Student Housing Report issued some eight months earlier. Little did I know at the time that a Student Housing Task Force had been meeting for three months, and was actively discussing the issues contained in that report. It wasn’t the first time I’d been left out of the loop, and after this post, it likely won’t be the last. (1)

The discussions recorded in the minutes of Student Housing Task Force meetings reveal both what is right with this effort, and what is wrong. This will be the first of several posts on the topic.

When reading through several months’ worth of discussions, it quickly becomes clear that some ideas have looped through more than once. The recurrence of these ideas, ideas that more often than not go unchallenged, indicate that the old mindset—the one that got us into this mess in the first place, the one that has been unable to address our problems to date, is still alive and well, and most troublingly, is sitting around the table “helping” to frame and shape the discussion about where we go from here.

To be clear—no idea should be considered self-evidently, non-analytically, indisputably, obviously, non-negotiably true, regardless of how many times it has been repeated—without having first been fully and critically explored. That’s all I’m trying to do here.

Even-Steven: The first of these ideas is the notion that a 50:50 mix of owner-occupants-to-renters represents an ideal mix—a point of equilibrium, a point up to which a residential neighborhood is insufficiently vibrant, and a point beyond which functional residential neighborhoods cease to exist. A point of no return, if you will (never mind that it just takes one Animal House out of ten—a 90:10 mix—on a street to push it to the point of no return if that house happens to be next door to you).

In fact there is only one point of no return for a neighborhood, which is reached at the moment the city decides to ignore both its laws and simple common sense. To paraphrase Jackson Browne, we reached that point long ago.

The 50:50 mix idea is based on the fallacy of the Golden Mean, where it is argued that the choice located midway between two extremes is the correct choice.

Obviously, while it may in some cases be true that the solution that splits the difference between extremes is the correct one, it does not follow that the middle position is the most correct or fair merely because it splits the difference between extremes.

This fallacy—which is a false appeal to fairness—fails to take into consideration the fact that (in this particular case) the one “extreme” represents lawful behavior, while the other does not. The laws relating to renting in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods are restrictive. That’s because when one rents property in a residential zone, one introduces business into that neighborhood. Specifically, a type of business that tends to increase the incidence of problems relating to noise, transience, density, crime, trash, general upkeep, and traffic and parking. That’s exactly why the business of lodging people in these zones is explicitly not allowed by law. (2)

In addition, houses (for the most part) are the only structures that may be built in these zones, and houses are purposely designed to be occupied by their owners. (2) They are not designed to accommodate the special needs of renters, and they especially suck at accommodating 100% rental occupancy. That’s because in order for them to function as safe and decent lodging for renters, they must be retrofitted, (3) converted, reconstructed in ways that are often contrary to the sensibilities of their existing design, their structural integrity, their original intent, their current setting, their capacity to adapt to new uses, and our shared and reasonable expectations—expectations that are based on and follow logically from the laws already in force in our zoning ordinance. Expectations that our investment in our community will not be undermined by anyone whose actions have the effect of imposing unilateral, unreviewed, and illegal spot-zoning, which is exactly what these conversions represent.

The truth is that nobody wants the houses in their neighborhood to be converted into slap-dash apartments, and for obvious reasons. (4) So it’s really no surprise that the 50:50 idea only appeals to those who don’t actually live in the affected area, or that it’s never considered as a serious model for export to other neighborhoods.

But maybe that’s not such a bad measure of the viability of this particular idea—Is it portable? Are we willing to impose it on every neighborhood in town, and if not, why not? After all, the only thing separating what are currently considered university neighborhoods from those that aren’t—is time.

So until or unless you’re willing to extend that Utopian vision of vibrant inclusivity to all of Lexington, unless you’re willing to collapse our several current residential zones into one big mixed-use residential zone—do me a favor and spare me the story about how 50:50 is an optimal mix for my neighborhood.

I’ve heard it before, and it doesn’t have a happy ending.

1. I will no doubt convey my thoughts on these matters in ways that are objectionable to the many good people who have invested where I have not, who have negotiated where I have railed, and who will likely take exception both to WHAT I say and HOW I say it—better known as a “two-fer.”
2. 8-5(c)4.
3. Retrofitted by people who are uniquely unqualified to do so—unless you consider owning a circular saw and a nail gun, having an unnatural predilection for treated lumber and plastic siding, being completely unaware of the impact that one’s actions have on those around them, and possessing an unwavering commitment to doing things as cheaply as humanly possible in all cases—to be qualities that qualify an individual in these matters.
4. Elizabeth St., Waller Ave., Oldham Ave., Ashland Terrace, Marquis Ave., etc. It’s a race to the bottom.

…back to Pigs in the Parlor