Perfect Duluth Day | Duluth News Events Music and More


  • CATEGORIES

  • ARCHIVES

Attack of/on the 300′ foot rule!

Just a quick note to let those who care know. The actual make up of the administration’s proposed rental regulations which will bring some measure of intentionality and sanity to the neighborhoods surrounding the colleges is under attack by the rental companies and organized landlords. The final wording of the ordinance, which will be voted on this upcoming Monday, is being decided just prior to the vote ( I heard 2 hours before ). The main piece of it which will help bring some form of reason to the onslaught of profit-before-community house grabbers is parking.

To be very clear: An approved off street parking spot for all but one house resident must be a part of the solution or I do not support the removal of the 300′ rule.

All the other regulations are also reasoned and will bring about positive improvements for the residents, from home owners to student renters, who actually live in the area, not just make money off the area. What can you do? Contact the city councilors just like the money interests have been doing.

Don’t let the people who stand to profit on the backs of our infrastructure fool you, this is not about resident versus student or town versus gown, they try paint that picture all the time and will again in the future, this is about being intentional about how a community grows versus making money hand over fist at the expense of a neighborhood.

45 Comment(s)

  1. As someone who has to back out of my driveway very carefully so as to not hit the car parked in the alley — on the side of the shed next to a driveway that should hold one car but already holds two cars, I totally agree with you.

    Claire | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  2. It has everything to do with common courtesy. Respect your neighbors.

    french | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  3. French, it’s beyond that. The neighbors can be the nicest, most respectful people but if they each have a car and they all park on the street, the infrastructure isn’t there to support it.

    Baci | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  4. Although this parking thing sounds like a good idea on paper(or laptop screen), I think overall it’s just going to hurt renters worse. Do you really think the landlords will absorb the fee being put on them for not having off-street parking? No, they’ll just raise their rent and transfer the fee on to the renters. Sure they could just have the unit be listed as less bedrooms, but they’ll still want to make the same amount of money and just charge more, or conveniently ignore extra renters not on the lease. I can barely afford to be renting in a decent neighborhood already WITH roommates, single bedroom rental prices are already out of the question. So unless the new rules are going to find some way to prevent rent rates from spiking up because of this, it sounds like a bad idea.

    I’m all for less cars, I hate having to park 2 blocks away from my house especially in the winter. The new rule though seems to have some flaws that may not necessarily stop the excess cars, and will simply raise existing rental rates. I hope not.

    D | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  5. And why does every resident have a car? Because they are forced out of locations that are within walking-distance of the school.

    Bad Cat! | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  6. It isn’t just being out of walking distance from school that makes each renter have a car. I’m sure some individuals have jobs they need to get to, and others came to Duluth from surrounding areas driving their cars with their possesions. I have to agree that landlords will pass on the cost of off street parking to those renting from them. Also is the city going to force family’s who own their own home and park multiple cars on the street to expand their off street parking? I know a few families who have 3 to 4 cars because both parents need a car, and their children own their own vehicles (as in bought them and pay expenses). Seems an unfair attack on landlords/renters if the city doesn’t look into all homes.

    Jadiaz | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  7. This is ridiculous! Why should the City Council dictate whether or not a home owner can rent out their home (and/or to how many tenants based on off-street parking)? Especially when it is close to U.M.D. where students need housing. Also, some homes have no off-street parking! Please humor me a moment with a potential example… let’s say, a home owner lost his or her job but got a good job in another city. If that home has no off-street parking, that home owner won’t be able to rent out their house? That home owner can’t sell the house because no one will want it? Or that home owner is forced to sell it for a huge loss? I’m sure if CITY COUNCIL members were in this situation they would vote differently about putting limits and regulating what they could or could not do with THEIR home!

    It seems parking is an issue here. Listen! If you choose to own a car, you will need to find a parking space. Why make home owners that may need to rent their house out suffer?

    Not all students can afford a car anyway. Why force them to take the bus, when they could simply walk to school? I find it stupid that the 300′ rule targets the areas closest to the University. That’s where the students need to be!

    ART101 | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  8. I posted this on the Dirty Pool blog earlier. I am now posting it here.

    TO THE CITY COUNCIL

    I am involved in this whether I like it or not. I have been reading and listening.

    My friends and I were students at U.M.D. years ago. We didn’t want to live in the Dorms. We couldn’t find housing close to campus. We had to find apartments too far away to walk to school…had to either have a car or take the bus. And if we had a car, it was hard to find parking near campus.

    Now, I own a house with-in walking distance to U.M.D.. I bought it because if I ever needed to rent it, it would be a good location to do so. But then the 300′ rule came. Now i’m stuck either living here or trying to sell it for a loss.

    Sure, there are bad tennants, (students or non-students) and bad landlords. There are parking problems. But the police need to look after this community. If there are complaints about a rental, action should be taken. When there’s too many parties, illegally parked cars, or too many knocked over garbage cans in the street, action should be taken.

    There are numerous rental properties near my house. And my next door neighbors are single families. I haven’t noticed any problems other than maybe an occasional party. That is something i expected! If you live near a University, there will be students around.

    Students need to live on or near campus. With growing enrollment there needs to be more housing. Why force students to live far away and have to drive and try and find parking places when they could be living with-in walking distance. I found it interesting that the areas effected by the 300′ rule are the very neighborhoods that they need to be in. Students walking to school means less traffic and less parking problems.

    The 300′ rule has been a failure. I believe home owners should be able to rent out their house, especially in this economy. People can’t rent their house out and can’t sell it! AND students can’t live in it!

    SOLUTIONS:

    1. Repeal the 300′ rule.
    2. Have some regulations (maybe allow 1 student per bedroom and one car for each off-street parking space… NOT one tenant for each parking space). Single families may (or may not) have more than one person/bedroom. I shouldn’t be limited to renting my 5 bedroom house to two people just because i only have two off-street parking spaces.
    3. Inspect the rental property.
    4. law enforcement
    5. Responsible landlords
    6. Good tenants (not all students are bad tenants)

    Thank you for your time.

    ART101 | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  9. Jadiaz: you have a point but: not every family has more than one car. most have two. far fewer have more than two. in most (and by most i mean nearly all) student rental cases, you’re gong to find that every tenant in that unit is going to have a car. four bedrooms? four cars (more if you count in cohabiting couples). one stall? three cars on the street.

    three four bedroom rentals in the same proximity? twelve cars. at least.

    hypothetical maybe, but very possible.

    zra | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  10. ART:

    you’re missing one crucial point though:

    the house you now own was at one time a single family dwelling. The space for parking was sufficient for the needs of the family.

    you bought said house knowing full well the limitations of its parking, and still rented it to as many people as you had bedrooms.

    Why should the city (and year round residents) be burdened with your parking problems, which wouldn’t have been problems had you not opted to turn your house into a multi tenant dwelling?

    The house you own clearly was never intended for multi tenant use. if it was, your front yard would be paved.

    zra | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  11. For me the upshot is that we either be intentional and have a plan or we throw our neighborhoods to the wolves, which previous to the ’300 foot rule was the state of affairs. To find out that there might be last minute re-engineering of the rental regulations AND a repeal of the ’300 rule in the same night and without public comment on a finalized plan is awful and if true smacks of money winning over community.

    baci | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  12. I’m not surprised that the slumlord community is pushing back hard against this change. It stands to curtail their profits substantially.

    dbb | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  13. IMO everyone should get screwed evenly on this. If you have a two bedroom/one stall garage with a teenager and three vehicles in the family, pony up and add an additional offstreet spot. Or the nice older gent with the work truck and sedan parked on the street because the classic Mustang is in the garage, pave the yard and pay for the city to put in a new sidewalk for the driveway.

    -bitter thirty

    Ian | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  14. Also who is going to maintain the city rental database of renters and vehicles? What about students using a parent’s vehicle which is not in their name, or me with several vehicles under my name with only one in town at any given time?

    Ian | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  15. ZRA,

    I am not renting my house and thanks to the 300′ rule, I can’t. When i first looked at the house, it was being rented to 5 med students that had 3 cars.

    Parking is parking. But what we are talking about is home owners. A house is one of greatest investments a person has. Do we really want parking to control what a person can or cannot do with their house? Sounds unconstitutional to me.

    ART101 | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  16. Zra, I understand not every family has more than one car, most not more than two. Some do, just as some rental units don’t have more than one or two cars. So why target just landlords/renters? Target both groups or neither group. Frankly we all pay taxes to the city to pay for the roads, now the city wants us to not use said roads for parking. When people start adding driveways for off-street parking, the city is going to rake in money via permits to put in said driveways, iincreasing in property taxes since it will adjust the properties worth, ect.. Seems the city wants to squeeze all it can out of landlords and renters. The whole parking thing is an issue Duluth has always had (see: Shop Downtown! Of course plug our meters and pay our fines if you don’t plug them!) I love Duluth but have always hated their parking policies. Superior does just fine without metered parking or home regulated parking. In fact Duluth could do what Souptown does around the UWS campus neighborhoods. Make it permit parking only. The city gets it’s money and the streets may not be as crowded if you have to pay a hundred bucks or so a ywar to park on them. Just a thought.

    Jadiaz | Dec 16, 2010 | New Comment
  17. permit parking would work to bring revenue in for the city, sure, but wouldn’t do very much to alleviate the parking problem.

    UWS doesn’t have the enrollment that UMD has, and UWS isn’t smack in the middle of a high density residential neighborhood.

    What we’re really talking about is zoning, and using a residence (and a neighborhood for that matter) for something other than what its design was intended for. You’re a landlord and want to rent your five bedroom unit to five different students? quit putting the parking burden on the neighbors and the city and use some of that blood money to provide parking for your tenants.

    zra | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  18. Zra,

    We gotta hang more

    baci | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  19. Jadiaz, it’s permit parking only during the school year on my block, but I live pretty close to UMD, and there’d be nothing open on the street ever if there wasn’t permit parking. Around the corner, I think it’s parking allowed for an hour, as Chester Creek Cafe and a few other businesses are there, so they accommodate the customers that way.

    Zra’s right: the permit parking system near UMD does not alleviate the problem, b/c you have to pay $5 each year, and we’re limited to I think 2 resident permits and a few guest permits. So you have people like the students who live near me who cram two cars in a single-car driveway and then park the third car on the side of a shed, on the side of the alleyway.

    I know someday I am going to forget that damn car is there and bash into it as I back out of my driveway,which fits our two cars fine, but then we have two small cars.

    You can’t compare UWS to UMD. UWS has 2,000 students, how many does UMD have?

    Claire | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  20. It’s $5 per resident parking permit. And they’ll ticket you if you don’t have one, believe me, I’ve had it happen to me.

    Claire | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  21. Thanks for the info on the permits. Was throwing it out there as a suggestion, but guess it won’t work. I still don’t agree only landlords/renters should be regulated.

    Jadiaz | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  22. Jadiaz, permits should work, and do work in other cities, but can’t if you cram a bunch of people into a house, since they limit the number of permits alloted to each house. So, as a result, you have people parking on lawns and even in the alleyway, because they can’t or won’t pay for the resident parking permits.

    I used to live in Chapel Hill-Carrboro, NC, which had its own town-gown problems. But the problems were alleviated somewhat by a *fantastic* bus system, so that so many people didn’t have to own cars. The bus system was excellent and people used it. Seems like more students here own cars than they did there, or any other college town I’ve lived in. So we have that going against us here, coupled with UMD’s irresponsibility in growing its students body without providing housing.

    Big E, can you shed some light on this, as you too once lived in the Southern Part of Heaven?

    Claire | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  23. I’m sorry. I’m just getting it. So, what you are saying is that a home owner should lose their house or go into financial ruin because you need a parking space for your car?

    On another note, U.M.D. is part of this neighborhood. It wasn’t dropped in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Duluth is a college town. Let education have a place.

    ART101 | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  24. I dont know how many times it can be said, THIS IS NOT ABOUT DULUTH VERSUS UMD .. and stop painting it that way. This is about SANITY and BALANCE!!! Holy Jeebus in a nightie!! Come on … This is about stopping the wholesale conversion of entire family neighborhoods into cash factories for a few landrods(intended) from out of town and skanky rental management companies with little concern for the rest of the neighborhood. SERIOUSLY!! I’ve fricken HAD IT!!!! These rentals are UNDER REGULATED SMALL BUSINESS SUCKING THE VALUE OUT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS and pumping it into their bottom line. Cant you see the loophole jumping thats been going on for years? If the ’300 foot is repealed and no logical alternative is in place which causes REASONED GROWTH and intentional development a dynamic mixed use higher education community then we might as well just pave chester creek and put a walmart where the Kitch Gammi Club is…. Or wait, do nothing, yeah allow the money interests cajole the council into denuding the rental ordinance AND toss out the ’300 rule .. just let every house in Endion and Chester Park and Woodland turn into relocatables with toxic run off front yards spilling DOT3 into the lake. Have some nards Duluth, stand up for your neighborhood before it’s sold out from under you.

    baci | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  25. to baci,
    protect the environment. Protect the community. Protect your sacred parking. But, screw the basic home owner.

    Not all home owners are greedy, money grubbing pigs. We are human beings that have jobs when available. If you owned a house , you might think differently.

    ART101 | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  26. One of Baci’s links on a previous thread on the subject pointed to Chapel Hill’s apparently successful effort to restrict yard-parking in the district near campus. I mostly just rode my bike everywhere, which I haven’t done as much of here, for a variety of reasons.

    I think the 300′ rule does need to go--my impression is that it’s far tougher on homeowners seeking to rent their houses than a parking stipulation would be.

    I think a stern parking limit is a very good idea.

    I also think somebody should sit UMD’s new chancellor down and have a talk with him about trying to get the university to own up to its share of the solution. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: I think that the university dedicating some money to encourage faculty and staff to buy houses in neighborhoods near campus could potentially be a useful step toward improving town-gown relations and stabilizing those areas.

    *shrug*

    The Big E | Dec 17, 2010 | New Comment
  27. Art101, you’re still not getting it. Baci owns a home. The difference is he’s using it to live in and raise a family, not as a business investment. And that’s what these neighborhoods were designed for 100 years ago.

    I don’t fault students for needing a car. Duluth has plenty of challenges that justify it, even if you live close to campus.
    But do the math. We can only park on one side of the street. In front of any house, you can probably fit 2, sometimes 3 cars. So that accounts for your car and a car for the house across the street.

    Some houses have alley access or a garage, but even then you’re talking 1 or 2 cars.

    You get a couple houses on a block with 5 people living in it, all with their own cars, your parking issues are spilling over to the next block. And that block is probably already spilling over somewhere else.

    Duluth has done a terrible job in our neighborhood dealing with derelict properties, junk cars, garbage houses, and more, but by golly the parking tickets get written every Sunday night without fail. So if that’s what it takes to slow the decline, I’m all for it.

    brian | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  28. Art101,

    I own my home, in this neighborhood. I dont rent it out or have roomamtes, I live here with my family (my 6 year old daughter gets woken at 2am by gangs of drunks yelling obscenities as they return to the dorms from the house parties down the street), I participate in the community every day. I’ve watched every year as wave after wave of renters move into their first place away from helicopter mom and realize that the management company didn’t tell them they’d have to park blocks away. So they park on the yard or in the alley and block it for emergency vehicle use. I’m nice, I go, introduce myself and let them know politely that they cant park there. I snow blow the alley during huge snow events so everyone can get out. We’ve been known to offer them our older furniture and fresh cookies. The unbalanced rental density in these neighborhoods is the result of poor planning in the past. The college and the city should have had the foresight to create a student district instead of let it evolve in a very dysfunctional way by not providing guidance in the form of ordinance and planning. I live in the defacto student district and want a plan, not just unfettered access for landlords to swoop in -- take advantage of a bad economy and buy up homes that were built for single family occupancy and convert them into boarding house cash machines. Because that’s what’s going to happen.

    BTW, WTG DNT=funny fail. Read the headline of the campus neighbors letter to the editor. “30 foot rule” — even I think thats a bit extreme.

    baci | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  29. Zoning.

    Zoning.

    Zoning.

    Change the zoning laws.

    Change the zoning laws and put pressure on the new Chancellor to man up and actually DO something about the student community and its housing problem. Build more dorms instead of crowding in another multimillion dollar sciences building. Provide places for the kids to sleep before you bring them in. Lord knows frmr Chancellor Martin just LOVED to tout her campus development record, but was totally mum on the important issue of student housing.

    there needs to be some zoning changes to individual houses whose owners wish to convert them to rental units.

    we know that rental units, especially former large single family units, completely change the character of any neighborhood, often inconveniencing the year round residents and burdening the city with parking congestion.

    scrap the 300 foot rule and move to a total zoning change for all rentals. If your intent as a landowner is to convert the five bedroom house into multi tenant use, then there need to be zoning and code requirements that need to be met BEFORE any rental license is issued. Rental licenses need to be finite and not open ended. meaning: they need to have time limits, mainly to allow for re certification via reinspection based on current zoning laws for that type of residence.

    Requirements must include enough parking for any and all residents of said property, proper entry and egress points for all rooms (example: if you build two bedrooms in a basement, there needs to be a functional egress windows in each room.)

    Baci brought up one very important issue: public safety. crowded streets make it difficult at best for emergency vehicles, plows, etc to get to where they need to be. Having a five tenant unit with two parking spaces and five cars puts a heavy burden on the city’s ability to provide services in emergencies.

    Changes to the zoning laws will not only allow public servants to know exactly what they’re dealing with during emergencies (how many people are living in that burning house?) but also ensure that landlords are following the guidelines of the zoning laws.

    Face it: Rental units are businesses. Treat them as such. Every other type of business has regulations on how when and where they can operate. why should rental units and their owners be any different?

    The rental industry in this town has operated largely unchecked and unregulated for far too long, and we (meaning baci, claire, myself and anyone else reading this who lives ((read:owns property))in and among these high density neighborhoods.) are left dealing with the mess it has created.

    zra | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  30. I know Mayor Ness reads PDD. I hope the city councilors are reading it. There are some excellent suggestions being made here, and I heartily second (third?) what Zra and Baci are saying. I love being a homeowner in this neighborhood, but I hate witnessing what has happened because of a lack of planning and a lack of respect for the integrity of these neighborhoods. I urge all of you concerned about this issue to contact your city councilors *before Monday*

    Claire | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  31. nice to know I’m not a lone voice in the landlords-gone-wilderness.

    baci | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  32. okay, okay! baci, Claire, zra, I understand your views. All I’m saying is, what if you had to move? Would you be forced to sell? And if you were forced to rent, would you be forced to get a permit to build more parking spaces? Would the city give you this permit? Would it be financially sound for you to rent your 3-4-5 bedroom house to just one person because your home only has one parking space? (or none because your house has no off-street parking?)

    Not all home owners are in stable situations. Not all home owners know they are going to be living in their house for years and years.

    ART101 | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  33. Art101,

    it’s about reason. If/When I have to move, I’ll probably try to sell my 100 year old house. If I were to rent it, I’ll be happy to conform to my city’s expectations about running a small business in a residential neighborhood. I have a small garage. that means one car off street and one in the garage. I’d be compelled to create 2 more spaces somehow. I’d do it, and comply with the other regulations because I want this neighborhood to become an evolved higher education centered residential area in an intentional and planned manner. That means the city and the university need to work with the residents and rental companies to create a plan. All that, pie in the sky at this point, given .. I’m good with repealing the ’300 foot rule.

    baci | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  34. Who said on this thread that the heads of the universities in the area should encourage their faculty and staff to live in these neighborhoods adjacent to the universities? I love that idea, and would actively look, if I were to leave my 80+-year-old house, for some new faculty member coming to town who wants to live near UMD or Scholastica. I am with Baci, the university needs to come to the table with residents and help us maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods.

    Claire | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  35. same as baci, because it’s the responsible, community minded thing to do.

    In 8 to 10 years, my mortgage will be gone. By that time, my family will have outgrown this house and we’ll move to bigger, more spacious digs. when I sell, I will do everything possible to make sure that it’s going to a family and not a rental company or turned over and into a rental unit.

    My house is a three bedroom unit. That means i would have to create one additional space for another vehicle, which is easily done with the space that I have available with little change to the overall appearance or design of the property.

    If I rent, it’ll be to a single family and not college students or multiple tenants.

    zra | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  36. I know some people who’ve done that very thing, Zra… when they put their house up for sale, they and their neighbors and friends put the word out that they were looking for a family to buy.

    We all love this neighborhood and want to save it from deteriorating further.

    BTW, a cute little bungalow for sale down the street from me, $139,000, previous owner was a sweet little old lady, just up from Chester Creek Cafe and that famous intersection where all the cars crash on snowy days. Families on either side too. I think it’d be perfect for a small family, or even a couple thinking of starting a family.

    Claire | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  37. Baci, I have criticized your views on student housing, but now I think I get what you’re saying and agree with you. The real issue isn’t “Oh noes, a student lives next to me”, but rather the increase of neighborhood density.
    A neighborhood is built with a certain amount of people in mind, and all of the infrastructure is put in place to support those living there. By turning a traditional neighborhood into mostly student rental housing, you’re doubling, maybe tripling the density of people who live in that neighborhood.
    For example, if one square block has 10 single-family homes, it is designed to have a density of maybe 30 people/block in terms of parking (and maybe other things, such as electricity, sewer, etc.?). When one block of single-family homes are converted to rentals, the block density increases dramatically, which results in 50 people having to squeeze into resources meant for 30 people. The extra 20 people would take resources from the next block, which might also be lacking enough to support itself, which creates a cascading problem. I totally get that!
    I think framing your argument on math (people/square mile) and not emotions (being woken up), you may find more support for your cause.

    Bad Cat! | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  38. I think the cat just put into layman’s terms what baci and I are getting at here … in a way that anyone with a kawledge eddykayshun or without should be able to understand.

    zra | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  39. But just for the record, I’m still against the 300′ rule -- it is not the right solution. It is too heavy-handed and does not address the root of the issue, it just draws imaginary lines around the neighborhood.

    I was personally affected by the 300′ rule, which caused me to foreclose on a house I could not generate income on to help pay for.
    We need a better solution to remedy the situation, but I don’t know what that better solution is

    Bad Cat! | Dec 18, 2010 | New Comment
  40. See? This is what i’m talking about. Sorry to hear that Bad Cat.

    A home owner having to go through a foreclosure on their home because of the 300′ rule. Hmmmm, foreclosure vs having to find a parking space. I think the City Council owes you an apology!

    I do agree that parking is a problem, but if you are required to have off-street parking for each tenant, the city better allow you to pull a permit to build some….(with-in reason). I understand that each property is different. I also understand that water run-off is an issue, for we all love this beautiful lake. Gravel vs. paved parking spaces might be a subject for compromises to work with.

    ART101 | Dec 19, 2010 | New Comment
  41. Just saw the news. Yay! the 300′ rule is gone! I think I can live with the new regulations. Let’s see how it all pans out. 1300$ to convert a house to a rental might be a little more affordable than $15,000.
    I think we all can respect the integrity of the neighborhood and the needs of home owners/students together.

    ART101 | Dec 20, 2010 | New Comment
  42. I can hang too. I appreciate the discussion and the opportunity to have a venue like PDD to vent/discuss/lobby/kerfluffle. I hope all this teeth gnashing leads to an intentional, sustainable, progressive solution which grows along with the great higher education institutions we’re lucky to have as part of our community. I’ve always thought that coming up with a wholistic solution would make for a great graduate urban planning project.

    baci | Dec 21, 2010 | New Comment
  43. I think Sharla Gardner was the hero of the evening. She lives in one of the neighborhoods affected, so this isn’t just an intellectual exercise for her, arguing that we need to have a sustainable plan in place to protect the neighborhoods. It’s her quality of life too.

    Claire | Dec 21, 2010 | New Comment
  44. So did the council decide not to require off-street parking? The News Tribune article only talks about fees.

    bluenewt | Dec 21, 2010 | New Comment
  45. I heard the parking requirements are indeed part of the package, thank the goddess.

    Claire | Dec 21, 2010 | New Comment

Post a Comment
Subscribe To Comments RSS

You must be logged in to post a comment.