City Council to continue 3-person rule discussions

The Williamsburg City Council decided yesterday not to forward the final report from the Focus Group on Rental Properties Near the College to the Planning Commission, instead directing city staff to work on solidifying the recommendations and determining how to proceed.

The focus group did not come to a consensus for a solution to the infamous three-person rule, which bars more than three unrelated people from living in a house together.

Many students at the College of William and Mary contend that the ordinance is discriminatory while long-term residents argue many students are irresponsible neighbors.

The focus group was convened by the city council in February to explore options for changing the rule. It met 11 times and consisted of students, homeowners, landlords, city staff and representatives from the College.

The final report lists dozens of recommendations that the group was able to come to a consensus on.

The College is planning on building new dorms on campus, which would alleviate some of the demand for off-campus housing. The College was also willing to create a brochure for students living off-campus about being a good neighbor. And homeowners were willing to increase the number of unrelated people living in a house if enforcement was increased.

The other points of agreement are listed in the final report.

More important to future discussions on the topic is the points of contention between constituencies.

According to the report, the College would not create an office for off-campus students to monitor violations of the occupancy rules. Furthermore, homeowners were concerned with parking availability.

Enforcement of any rule, however, was the main issue preventing agreement. Homeowners would not support changing the rule unless the College was involved in enforcement, but the College was not willing to interfere in the lives of students living off-campus.

Mayor Jeanne Zeidler was optimistic about future discussion.

“I don’t think we should table this issue,” she said. “Even though consensus wasn’t reached on everything, there are a lot of good ideas in here on how to improve the situation.”

Vice Mayor Clyde Haulman noted that many students feel the three-person rule discriminates against them, but echoed Zeidler.

“I hope over the next months and years that we’ll be able to build on this and come to something that’s workable for all constituencies in the community,” he said. “This is a starting point. This is not the ending point, this is the starting point. And I think everybody needs to keep that in mind.”

The council decided not to forward the focus group report to the Planning Commission. Instead, they directed City Manager Jack Tuttle and the city staff to go over the report’s recommendations and “put more meat on them,” according to Zeidler.

The city staff’s ultimate goal should be a list of actions the council could take, Zeidler said.

Public comments reflected relief among many residents that the focus group failed to reach a consensus. Many residents commented that more discussion is needed before any decisions are made.

“We’re against pursuing the three-person rule as a solution to what appears to be a larger issue in the community,” Matoaka Ct. resident Bill Hamilton said. “For our street in particular, we’re very concerned about the recent change in the character of our street and how the three-person rule change could impact this.”

Hamilton commented that his street was slowly moving toward a majority of renters, which he hailed as a downfall for long-term residents.

“We would be concerned, going forward, with being able to attract anything other than college students if the direction our street’s taken keeps going the way it is,” he said. “You drive down the street, you see a house, it looks a little iffy, lot of cars parked around it, you start to wonder what’s going on there.”

Bill Dell, a homeowner and member of the focus group, expressed his “profound disappointment” that the focus group was unable to agree on a solution. However, he noted that the major disconnect between the parties was intractable.

“Residents won’t budge without enforcement. The College won’t provide consequence for the actions of their students off campus, and the students won’t even agree to provide where they actually reside in the community,” he said. “Further pursuit without meaningful enforcement concessions from the College and students will unfortunately remain, I believe, futile.”

Dell then passed around photos of 114 Griffin St., taken last month, depicting illegally parked cars and a general state of damage and disrepair — a state, he says, that follows student renters and hurts neighborhoods.

Dell ultimately recommended the city council table the issue, which Zeidler later disagreed with.

Resident Ruth Griffioen also spoke, saying she is plagued by “unrelenting noise” on weekends and that students will “go to great lengths to conceal how many people are in a house.”

“It is consistently true in my experience that the more students live in a house, the more disturbances the household is likely to cause,” she said. “Many of us feel as though we have been forced into the role of unwilling, unpaid RAs in increasingly unruly neighborhoods.”

Griffioen also said programs teaching students living off-campus how to be good neighbors would be futile because of the students’ transient living situation.

“Any progress that we do manage to make in helping our student neighbors learn how to live peacefully in their communities, any of those efforts have to restart every fall from scratch as last year’s students move out and the new crop moves in,” she said. “Frankly, many of us are just getting really, really tired.”

Griffioen warned that the continued presence of students off-campus would drive away long-term homeowners and devalue property near the College.

One student present at the meeting, Josh Karp ’11, said that Williamsburg is not yet ready for changes to the three-person rule.

“I agree, oddly enough, with Bill Dell,” he said. “Unless students, city folks and College administrators can reach a strong consensus, any legislation is just a halfway measure.”

City Council member Paul Freiling ’83 agreed.

“I think what came out of the focus group was terribly useful,” he said. “Now our responsibility is to keep that discussion going in a productive and meaningful way.”

7 Comments

Lee, I feel like I

Lee, I feel like I completely agree with you.

However, while the underlying problem of lack of affordable housing, as you stated, Williamsburg residents are still going to throw a fit if the current system in place is changed. For example, the new “eco-housing” that they are constructing where Monica’s used to be is probably not going to be affordable to students. Just a question, where do you live in Williamsburg? Because if we were to try and change the zoning in place in Williamsburg(not James City County, which is much more reasonable to students), the current residents of Williamsburg would probably throw a fit. The residents who have no problems with students have no vested interest in helping out a student cause, and so wouldn’t want to fight the fight.

If we look into affordability even more, I’m pretty sure we’ll find underlying secrets about the city and their attempt to make an overall “cookie cutter development” throughout the city, which includes keeping minorities(blacks and hispanics) out of Williamsburg. The city of Williamsburg requires thousands(including on campus) of low wage workers in order to keep the cogs moving, but they’d rather not see them anywhere and just keep them as sort of a shadow society.

If the issue of changing affordability were looked into more, we would come against a greater surge of opposition under the guise of “unkempt” student renters but with the reality being that the old white couple down on wythe street would rather not have a black family move in next door.

Thank you! OMG I know! I

Thank you! OMG I know!

I wasn’t going to even go there – lol. I wouldn’t say it’s a race issue so much as a class issue – or at least I would hope that’s the case. Regardless, I agree with you completely that the current residents would complain about any sort of change – they could best be described as mostly older, mostly wealthier, and generally happy/content. Naturally change is something they view with suspicion, not something they intentionally strive for. None of this is meant as an insult – if the way the city “functions” works for them, why would this particular group want to change it? I’d just like to remain optimistic and tell myself that the reactionary behavior against other groups of people isn’t the result of racism/classism/etc., but stems from a general lack of understanding or awareness of these other groups of people. I’m probably being naive. :-(

As an aside – the new “eco-condos” going in by bloom/master cleaners are actually relatively inexpensive (I have parents shopping for a retirement home, lol, so I’ve heard all about them). They aren’t affordable in a student/workforce housing/low-income sense, but I’ve heard they will allow people who purchase the condos to rent them out- and based on the asking prices, they will probably eventually make affordable rentals, even if not affordable owner occupied homes.

Of course, it’s only a matter of time before the city swoops in and bans new rentals! I am joking, of course – but there is a stated goal somewhere of 50% owner occupancy. Which is ridiculous for this area for so many reasons.

One thing that really bothers me with both the city but also america in general is our obsession with real estate, owner occupied homes, and homeownership. There seems to be this myth that these things are inherently “good” – for the community, property values, etc. which by implication means that renting, boarding, and renters are somehow inherently “bad”. I think I understand why people would think this, but I think it’s time both Williamsburg and the nation reexamine these beliefs. The assumption that home ownership is automatically better for both individuals and the community seems to be a knee jerk reaction that may not be entirely accurate or realistic.

I’m pretty sure Alex

I’m pretty sure Alex Guillen just sucks at editing. If the conversation at hand is to make any sense(which it did when I watched it on cable), then the order has to be right (Dell, Karp, Griffioen) and one sentence isn’t going to cut it. Maybe you should add parts of the presentation that was given before public comment?

If you’re going to tell the story right, it’s about how the SA(because they were the ones represented at the Focus Group, not students) sucked at coming together with the demonic Bill Dell. I believe Karp agreed with Dell in that no one is willing to compromise, and no matter how much that sucks, there is no way to change the situation to make it better for anyone.

Changing the 3-person rule to a 4 person rule or doing it by square meterage isn’t going to fix anything. Students are still going to be living 5,6,7 to a house no matter what. It’s up to the city(in changing the rules and enforcing them), the residents (to quit bitching), and to students (to stop fucking up neighborhoods and throwing couches in trees). While not all students fuck up neighborhoods and not all residents suck like Bill Dell, it seems to me that all three groups have a lot to accomplish before anything can be done in a productive way.

“Changing the 3-person

“Changing the 3-person rule to a 4 person rule or doing it by square meterage isn’t going to fix anything. Students are still going to be living 5,6,7 to a house no matter what.”

I live off campus, in a small two bedroom house. I have one roommate. Not 7,6,5 or even 4, 3, or 2 roommates. 1. My rent seems reasonable/modest, perhaps because I’ve signed a 3 year lease, which helps. But frankly, there also just isn’t enough space for more than 2 unrelated people to live in 650 square feet. If two couples shared the two bedrooms, it would be cramped but might be workable (I guess “related people” does indeed have a sort of relevance).

Regardless, my point is that people will live together in appropriate numbers if they can afford to. The underlying problem is that there simply isn’t enough affordable housing (which is to say there isn’t enough housing to meet demand, not that there isn’t enough public housing – though there may well be a lack of that, too) within reasonable distance of the college. Most new construction in the area seems to involve expensive condo communities that, despite their new urbanist veneer, force residents to have automotive transportation. Newtown and Highstreet, for example, are a bit far away and are (allegedly) “luxury” properties, with price tags/rents to match. No one wants to pay that price and have to pay for a car, a parking decal, auto insurance, and gasoline to get to and from campus.

The changes the city really needs to make probably involve zoning codes and architectural restrictions. But then instead of hearing the locals bitch about college students, we’d have to listen to them bitch about how the city was becoming to urban, so…

“One student present at

“One student present at the meeting, Josh Karp ’11, said that Williamsburg is not yet ready for changes to the three-person rule. ‘I agree, oddly enough, with Bill Dell,’ he said. ‘Unless students, city folks and College administrators can reach a strong consensus, any legislation is just a halfway measure.’”

Really Josh Karp? You mean the 3-person rule won’t change unless there is a consensus? What a novel idea.

I’m having trouble seeing how your vague commentary aligns with the views of Bill Dell. As someone who has followed the focus group closely, I can safely say Mr. Dell doesn’t give a damn about students and is more interested in slowing the process down to a halt. (See “Dell ultimately recommended the city council table the issue…”).

If you, like Bill Dell, aren’t interested in making progress, I’d suggest you shut the hell up.

Quote: “....the continued

Quote: “....the continued presence of students off-campus would drive away long-term homeowners and devalue property near the College.”

...Separating long-term homeowners from students living off campus would be ideal, would it not? Why is this a bad thing?

The fact is, students are long-term residents of this community as well. If homeowners believe they can change that, they’re kidding themselves.

We need the two communities to self-segregate themselves (that means moving away from those “troublesome” student neighbors, homeowners).

if they are tired of living

if they are tired of living near students, maybe they shouldn’t live near a college. I know… I’m thinking outside the box here.