« Traditional Oils and Bob Ross Workshops | Main | John Holden on MPR this morning »

Zoning and the City Council

Did anyone else read the article in the DNT about the college kids getting evicted for not having a license to rent? The webblog has some great comments too. I have never posted here, but I was curious what other people thought about this issue. I think the 300 foot rule doesn't do anything to solve the real problems.

Someone also brought up that many of the City Councilors are landlords and own many properties (Conflict of interest?). It also sucks that if you had to rent out your house if you lost a job, had a divorce, or something else you probably can't. How many areas of Duluth have no rentals within 300 feet of another?

What do you think?


I understand the thinking behind the original 300ft ruling. I feel sorry for people who have lived in there neighborhoods for years only to see them turn into drunken college party zones. While doing lit drops this fall I was amazed when I would walk up to a relatively small house and see 4-6 different names on the mailbox. It seems like there has to be a better solution to this issue. But I can also see it from the college students perspective as well. I also feel bad for some college kid getting evicted because the owner of the house failed to get a rental license. I get that a person who rents houses for a living would need to get the proper permits. but I didn't realize that a person who owns a home and has roommates would need to do the same, like the case that was in the paper a few days ago where students were being evicted. I have no idea what the answer is, but the way it's going down now nobody wins. Other than the landlords apparently.

what strikes me is that noew that laws ARE finally being enforced, we have people callin foul...get WITH IT! btw this is no new issue to pdd

There is a problem with parking and too many people living in a house. What I don't get is why they don't pass restrictions on those things. There could be a law that for houses 1000 sq/ft or less and used as a rental that only 3 people could live there.. Make landlords be accountable for parties, dirty yards, condition of homes, etc.

What kills me is that if I needed to rent my house ever that I can't. I have a duplex nextdoor, and about 5 or 6 rental houses and apartments on my block alone. So I have one of the few owner occupied property that was once a rental too? How is this law fair for me if I had to sell my house? It kills my resale value while it increases my neighbor's. How is that constitutional?

And if any of the City Councilors own property it is almost criminal what this law does. This is good-ole-boy smalltown politics to me.

Usually I don't get too involved in what the City Council does, but after the lawn ordinance they almost passed and this I think it is time we do something.

Did Donny Ness vote for this law?

As a 30-something trying to carve out a living in this city I have fallen in love with, I have thrown out the notion that I will buy my first house soon and take on a roommate to help with the costs. Not all renters are loud, slobs, kegger- hosting renters. Further more, not all students are that either.

I was recently issued an "Order to Vacate" by the city because I was renting a home via an unlicensed landlord. Now, it was in my best interest to get out because the guy is a raging lunatic on many levels. But the day I moved out, a new person moved in and the city said they weren't sure if they could do anything to stop it. So, they can tell me to move, but they will let a new person and her family move in? Sounds like these ordinances are not only not well thought out in regards to how they will effect people of all renter demographics, but that they don't have the staffing and structure to enforce any of the hot air they're blowing.

As I understand it, the problems cited are things such as loud parties, lewd behavior and property neglect. Enforcing a 300-foot rule seems only to be spreading out the so-called problem.
As to the example reported in the News Tribune, it seems to be the definition of Draconian. Because a paperwork deadline was missed, renters are being kicked out of their home, and a homeowner might have to sell her house, which is now worth much less because it can't be used as a rental.

We just got the landlord who owns the house next to us to evict the 4 sophmore party dogs. They had parties EVERY NIGHT...my 3 y/o daughter was learning to swear from THEM and not me. I'm not against renters, I'm against the in-ordinate density of rentals in the Endion neighborhood. The exclusion gives us hope that the home prices will adjust to a sane place that is afforadable for 1st time HOMEBUYERS and that families will move BACK to this area and make it the diverse real college community it could be. BTW I made my name a link to my email so any reneters who are looking for a nice house next to cool PDD types can email me..I'd love to live next to responcible community memebers whether they rent OR own.

Expanding on what Beverly said: The house for sale then becomes undesirable to everyone except for Twin Cities developers, who buy it and others surrounding it for less than its value, tear them down, and build more ugly condos.

No one will live in the condos until the railroad to Minneapolis is built, effectively turning Duluth into the outermost suburb populated by the kind of people who think four hours of commuting a day is acceptable. They'll buy the condos for half a million each, since they'll have a sliver of lake view.

Duluth has some excellent programs for first time home buyers at a reasonable price, often without any down payment or closing costs - you could contact LISC or the Northern Communities Land Trust or Neighborhood Housing Authority, those 3 come to mind straightaway.

Oftentimes you end up paying a lot LESS to own than to rent; for instance I bought a NCLT house with no down payments etc and after 5 years sold it and then had enough for a downpayment on a regular market value house and now my house payment is about $500 a month (including insurance and taxes) and I only have about $40 left to pay on it.

I hope that maybe you can find a similar deal! Good luck!

Um, that would be $40K. Sorry. I wish I only owed $40 dollars.

I'm covering this story for next week's UMD Statesman issue. If anyone here would like to share your thoughts on the ordinance, shoot me an email at [email protected]

I am going to have to agree with baci on this one. I fee sorry for people who have to live next door to houses like that.If people want to blame anyone, blame the kids who don't have any respect for other people's lives and property and the landlords who don't have rules about such things or just don't care. I don't live in a rental area and know I wouldn't like it if all of a sudden there were six rental property's on my block. I think if owners of houses are having roomates live with them, that is fine, they can be regulated in a different category, and most of them don't want their homes trashed. If land lords were not smart enough to obtain a lisence and their renters are being evicted, the landlord should be obligated to find them a new place. Ignorance of the law is not a good defense.

If you want to know what property a city councilor might own in the city of duluth go to the city of duluth web site. Once there you want to go to the assessors page and make a property search. You can search by title holder, address, or one other way which slips my mind.

some of you may have forgotten how hard life can be in college. Show some sympathy and know a bad law when you see one. Very little is solve by something like this. The best parts of this city would dissapear without the colleges here. It's a very large employer. Where would you rather we live? On a campus that limits us in every way? In apartments that drain us? Have a heart and some consideration.

I love living in colege/ university areas, I have lived in college/university neighborhoods forever --actually since 1976, when I was 14 and lived a few blocks away from Stanford U. I have to say -- and I hate to say it: I have lived in college/univ. neighborhoods in Palo Alto, Philadelphia, Chapel Hill, and Duluth -- and the students here are the messiest, most immature pigs I've ever seen. Throwing beer cans on my lawn, parking on their lawn, leaving crap in their front yards. . . I think the ordinance is draconian, but if the students here would behave like the adults they are, homeowners like me would not be so pissed off and this ordinance would not have come about. I am not happy that the city council took such a step, but on the other hand, something had to be done. And you know who's the real villain? UMD, for growing their university and not making sure that there's enough housing for all their students. They suck.

I don't have all the answers but here are my suggestions:

1) Enforce existing laws. If the problem is loud parties, enforce noise ordinances and laws against underage consumption, public urination, littering, drug possession, etc.

2) Work with UMD, St. Scholastica, LSC, etc. to punish students who break the law regardless of whether it is on school property including academic probation, prohibition from participating in collegiate athletics, etc. Particularly with regard to UMD, if they're not going to build more student housing the least they can do is treat their students like representatives of the college and hold them accountable for their conduct.

3) Quit blaming landlords. As much as I dislike slumlords and absentee landlords who simply collect their money each month, they're not their renters parents, RA's or any other sort of entity that bears any responsibility for the actions of their tenants. Of course their properties need to be up to code, providing off-street parking where possible is nice and abiding by rental and zoning ordinances is a must but we can't expect them to babysit their tenants.

I agree that the ordinance in question will have little positive effect and I sympathize with homeowners living in a rental neighborhood whose home value would decline because of their lack of a rental license, but there are some positive things happening as well.

I think the construction of new apartment complexes on Rice Lake Rd, the new building on 4th St & 6th Ave E and others have done a lot to alleviate the shortage of housing. As was mentioned we have several programs available to help first-time home buyers. We also have developments being constructed outside the general confines of the rental districts which offers home buyers the option to live in an area with a high home ownership rate. Not that everybody can afford those homes but it nonetheless expands the diversity of housing in our city which bodes well for long term growth.

So, I don't think the sky is falling and the day a substancial number of people start commuting between the Twin Cities and Duluth on a daily basis is in the distant future, well beyond the scope of a light rail line.

So Ness voted for it.. Well then we are in for trouble as I also heard that he voted for the goofy lawn oridinace.

I understand the plight of the people who this law was passed for, but this law doesn't solve the issue it is meant to solve.

Will this law get people to stop trashing yards, parking cars in yars, destroy houses and have late night parties? If so someone please tell me.

I went to the past thread and read some great stuff from someone called MJ?

If sounds like from one of you that you got some partiers evicted for being pricks, that is what should happen, and that is what needs to happen more.

Enforce laws on the books. I live in the Endion area too, and what hate is how people park all winter on both sides of the road, corners, etc and you can't see as you drive up..East Side Russian Roulette.. Yet if I am downtown and my meter expires there is a ticket on there before the machine can even blink that it expired. Can't that little Moped thing drive up the hills in Endion and ticket people?

With trashed yards and poor condition of property couldn't the City Council put more restrictions in rental licenses for property condition? Why did they grandfather all the slumlord properties who are the main problems in?

I know a landlord in the Endion area who own tons of places. When he offered to sell me one of his rentals and I looked at it I was shocked. The floor was held up in the basement by a ton of those metal stilt things from Menards, the dining room was converted to a bedroom by throwing a slab of sheetrock over the woodwork and was falling apart, and the diningroom archway was sagging by atleast a foot on one end.

When I didn't buy it, sure enough he rented it to some party kids. They see how crappy it is and the yard is trashed, they have parties and they probably care less about upkeep.

When you move into a place and it is a dump you treat it that way. I hate how a few bad apple partiers ruin it for the lot. I remember being in college and there were many party houses, and most were rented by local underage kids who threw parties and weren't in college.

The main problem that I have with this law is that it doesn't solve the main problem. The only thing I think it does is line the pockets of rental property owners. So those people who live in Hawaii, California, and the Twin Cities who own renatls up here and collect a check now just got richer.

The young people of this town just got screwed.

okay, wait a sec. adults can't sleep under the same roof if one of them owns the house and the other does not?

roommates pool their resources - one of them has a house, one of them has cash. it's not exactly a landlord-renter relationship.

and what if they're also having sex? i realize we would then call these people a couple, rather than roommates, but it's the same thing. omg! duluth is trying to ban shacking up. living in sin? not on my hillside.

maybe the council is getting kick-backs from the county for marriage license fees.

I'd be all for living in a college town..that'd be great! Right now it's a city with isolated campuses in the middle of residential districts. It's out-of-town and realtor types taking advantage of a formerly lasse-faire attitude from the city. Students v. Longterm residents is a diversion cooked up by the people who want to maintain the status quo.. I love living in a collegiate community, it's the punks in 14th grade and the irresponcible owners who dont pay enough attention to their properties to even get a fricken license much less provide ample parking and decent living conditions.

Some people already think 4 hours of commuting is worth it. Big Lake, East Bethel and Buffalo commuters come to mind.

What if I live with three other people and we are all in one big squishy, polyamorous relationship? Are you telling me the City is going to determine that I cannot? That violates two HUD EoE standards I can think of off the top of my head.

That ordinance will honestly probably cause me to foreclose on my house.
I bought my first house last year. It needed a bit of work (a new roof badly), but I figured my husband and I would be there to fix it up over the long term.
Ten months later, that husband is now an ex, and he took off to the west coast. Now I'm stuck with a house that needs work, and if it sells, I may get just enough to break even. And in the meantime, I'm stuck spending almost all of my paycheck on mortgage, heat, paint, etc...
My "Plan B" if it didn't sell (which looks pretty likely now), was to rent it just to minimize loss until it sold.
Considering that there is rental property six feet from my home, I now realize that "Plan B" is gone. Thanks City of Duluth!
Looks like if it doesn't sell, I'll have to move on to "Plan F" - foreclosure.

What is sad is that so many of the people here and at that DNT blog have better answers than the City Council.

This is the reason why people are losing their faith in our own government. Each year fewer people vote and fewer people care. Each year the political parties move farther away from the people.

When a person comes along with ideas they get called crazy or are painted a certain way in the press. I think about that Schoolboard election and the people who lost that were going to change the vote.

There should be more coverage on this in the local press. I mean, how many nights have you watched the local news and been bored out of your mind? I know I get bored reading a lot of local articles.. I get even more tired of reading the 1 millionith George Bush editorial in the major papers.. Then people voted in Democrats and nothing changes. The media controls us and we don't care. The politicans don't care.. We feel helpless..

What sucks is that journalists are not even being paid anymore and everything is Associated Press or rehashed articles from other "sister" papers.

The press is the only voice of truth, but there almost needs to be a movement of people willing to work together to change the city. For free..

It sucks sitting through City Council meetings and questioning them, but if more people went to the meetings and spoke up we might see some change.

Andrew, I for one quit watching or listening to city council meetings. Yes, at one time I went and spoke at council meetings. Spent one whole day calling over 100 people letting them know what was going to happen if they didn't act. Most agreed we as taxpayers were going to get it up the rear. Meeting came and one other person showed up. Now every one is starting to have to pay out the nose for the very thing I warned them about. I see things only getting worse when the new leadership takes over.

here's the msg i sent councilors this weekend. heard from russ and reinert, who voted against it but no others. no reply from Don... it's easy pls do it, let them know. it's also easy for the councils not to 'really' care when it doesnt affect them.

Hello Councilors

I urge you to rethink and find a better way to re-do this ordinance. Today's DNT gives yet MORE reasons why. I would like to express that you are not only threatening the security of college students with these misplaced efforts. You are boxing in the young
professional as well.
I am a 35 yr old professional in Duluth, and have owned a home with my partner near Chester Park for two and a half years, in a high density rental area. A professional opportunity has arisen for a personal
career advancement that may require re-location, but has long term viability of being a remote position, meaning i could base it out of my home. THe current
ordinance leaves me with NO option except to sell my home to begin this opportunity if it should require re-location, as a rental house owned by slacker mpls landlords sits right next door.

This ordinance boxes me into a time frame that may
require having to pass up a life improving opportunity, based on the sale of my home. I don't
want to get rid of my home. We have been improving it since it's purchase. Perhaps my partner would like to stay here for a year and rent to a friend while we
find out the long term outcome of my position.
Perhaps we'd both like to go, rent our house to
responsible, respectful citizen's for a year to test
the waters...
But again, we have NO choice in this matter. YOU
have decided for us.
Please, I URGE you to step back and take your
mistakes seriously on this one. As far as I can tell, this ordinance has yet proven to have even ONE redemming quality. Please back track and revisit these issues with the utmost of seriousness.


sorry /glad to hear about your opportunities. But the truth is, one way or another you'll be gone and those of us still here will have to deal with the density issues...it's about density! I'm urging the council to stand by it's choice UNTIL a reasonable alternative IS IN PLACE! It the 300' rule which has forced this issue onto the hotplate, removing the fire will get nothing cooked. Again I am happy/sad for your news but this ordinance is THE ONLY THING giving long term residents of the effected neighborhoods leverage against absentee landlords and absentee UMD administrators...now, they're all "working together" to address the issues..would they be if the ordinance, with all it's flaws, wasn't in place NO..they've given lip service to this problem for years..thus we have the current situation. Keep it in place until a reasoned and effective alternative is IN PLACE

This problem's been snowballing since well before I went to UMD in the late 90s/early 00s (hell, even before my older brother started there in '94)...I think UMD in particular should be ashamed of its inaction in dealing with this even as they continually expand their campus/student body. The administration's attitude toward this issue has always struck me as being remarkably absentee, and it's always left a bad taste in my mouth.

That being said, I'm sorry for the college kids/everybody else who is going to get the shitty end of the stick with this ordinance.

So, is it legal for a homeowner to allow their girlfriend/ boyfriend to move in and chip in for the mortgage payment? Or a parent and an adult child?

I disagree Baci... I think that this was on the hotplate before and now the City Councilors are patting themselves on the back that they did something.

I think they see it as this law is making progress when in fact it is hurting the city and the people who live here. It is a "feel good" instant gratification law that happens too much these days.

What it does is force good people to sell their homes or go into forclosure if you are in a rental area. While the slumlords get to collect their check and have even more leverage in the rental market.

It reminds me of when everyone attacked McDonald's for making people fat... Yeah it feels good to pick on them, but they are not the root of the problem, they are one facet of a larger issue.

The people are the ones getting screwed by this law, and I feel terrible for anyone in the community who gets evicted, forclosed, or loses their butt because of this.

We could make this a great city, but instead we alienate.

Baci, what about what someone said up above about getting their neighbors evicted for partying.. why isn't that enough? Why couldn't we have laws to have higher standards for local houses being rented?

My neighbors got evicted because the landlord showed up to one of their partys and was refused entrance. He sat out on the street and listened to the guy's drunk girl friends yelling about "trading their f$%^^-ink lortabs for beer" and said to himself, "no -one should have to live next to this". He's right and I commend him for his sense of community.

This is about more than just me and my direct neighbors, it's about the entire city! and that's what gets me mad about the posts here..it's all about how does this effect me and my house value..thats not the whole issue I challenge everyone to step back and look further than their own pocketbbook.

I agree, the ordinance is not perfect. But at least it's something now..like a turnaquet(sp?) on a nearly dead corpse (our neighborhoods). Frankly, if this had been voted into law when it was brought before the coucil 4 years ago, we'd not be in the mess we're in now. What I'm amazed at is the self centerd approach that people are taking..."how does this effect my home value"...admit it, your home values were artificially high because of the speculative market based on realtors buy houses and turning them into profit-machines...now that that is gone, the home can return to their real value (in a nation wide depressed market) so that first time home buyers (read FAMILIES!) can afford them to move in and create the need for schools and he have some balance restored to a beutiful neighborhood. Sorry about evictions and foreclosures but the rental market is saturated already and it's not because of this ordinance that you cant sell your homes. Your homes only had that value because of realestate speculators looking for cash cows. Now hopefully, families will see that there IS something done about this mess (the ordinance) and feel encouraged about moving BACK! BTW dont confuse the '300 rule with the badly named "defintion of family" ordinance. If you own a house, live there and rent to super hot house mates and all have wild sex all the time...awesome...but you are still a landlord and have to abide by the LAW and give out renters credit slips. There was enough in the news surrounding this that I have NO PITY for those who didn't take care to get a rental lic. during the 30 day period after the ordinance's approval. We DIDN'T becuase we're committed to the Endion neighborhood. So again sorry to hear about all of your distress but where were you 4 years ago when this could have been avoided?

From my understanding, this does nothing to provide leverage against absentee landlords and absentee UMD administrators. It provides leverage against new absentee landlords, et al.

As for being about the entire city, I couldn't agree more: An effective cap has been put on rental housing in Duluth. Way to go, artificial monopoly.

Honestly my home is in an industrial zoned neighborhood that has no industry. My value is not effected, but if I wanted to keep my home and rent it if I had to move that should be my option as a home owner.

Like what Adam said, this does nothing to the slumlords who own half of the town already. It doesn nothing to prevent people from parking in yards, having large parties, and the other issues it is meant to address.

If you plan on staying in the Endion neighborhood the rest of your life than you are among a very small minority of homeowners who stay in their homes for life. I know my house isn't big enough to handle kids and all the stuff I plan in life.

People are being thrown out of their homes and being told how they can use their property. Are we not entitled to life, liberty and property by the natural rights of man?

There is a larger issue facing Duluth than this, piss poor planning.. Poor zoning laws, and poor management of the city. Someone brought up the apartments being built on the hill and on 6th Ave, those are going to be high priced condos. The only affordable ones are the ones not facing the lake.

There is tons of land around UMD that could be developed, but there is no money in it until they limit the amount of rentals. Then those same slumlords and councilors can control the small market until they build their apartment complexes..

What do you get then?

You get low income-high crime areas. Right now having the college kids mixed in with neighborhoods is almost a good thing and probably keeps them safe. Enforcing the current laws keeps away the problems.

I feel like a broken record, and it seems like only Baci agrees with this law. Why?

What happenned to you to make you hate rental property so bad? Do you really think that there will be any fewer rentals in the Endion area?

They got some kids in Woodland, good job.. Endion is so full of rentals and has been for probably 100 years. No one is going to want to buy and fix up a 100 year old house if the market is controlled and no money is going to be made. Why put a bunch of money into a house if the value is decreasing?

More people will just buy a big plot of land in Hermantown and build a new house.

Duluth needs better vision, like when they did that study a few years ago. There should be an exit to 35 off of 6th ave, there should be a better road to the mall from the East side so that neighborhoods can flourish.

There needs to be a revitalization of the downtown area. More Targets, malls, etc should be build down by Canal Park and all that railroad land that is tax free. That would bring in money and keep it in Duluth.

I grew up in the Twin Cities and any town that didn't build their mall area next to a freeway got bypassed. All that tourist money coming here never goes up the hill.

Look at the poor planning of Central HS, takes 1 hour to get home after school.. Central Entrance and the speed trap it is with crumbling buildings and houses... It is such a waste.

Not that I am against mom and pop stores and local businesses, but if all the stores were downtown or by Garfield it would revitalize the city.

Instead we pass laws that don't solve hte main issues of Duluth. Instead we give slumlords a monopoly to destroy the East side with their crappy-falling-apart properties.

Because like I said before if a house is beat up and crappy that is how the tenants will treat it. This law should have been passed 4 years ago when the market was different. Now it is too little, and WAY too late.

i'm not just looking out for myself here, just thot i'd share my personal experience. i still see not ONE effective outcome of this ordinance. how fair is it that people are running out to get permits that they'll never use just to hoard them and keep them from their neighbors. this whole situation has caused panic and division and disgrace. i find it disappointing and sad. what if they told you to move, baci, cuz, you had renters next door? basically that is what they are telling me.
i don't see anything about this ordinance that calms down the behavior of crazy disruptive college students... trust me i've had my own share of the situations you describe right next door as well, yet in this case do feel that really, if i don't like it, i shouldn't live so close to UMD. 'comes with the territory' and i guess what i need to do is build relationship with my neighbors to develop respect. but to be boxed into selling to accept a position for potential TEMPORARY relocation, with NO clause for my partner to rent to a friend is just WRONG, in my opinion.

points taken guys. But we cant argue that this is at least something! When the area becomes attractive to families again, we'll have families moving back..right now, show me a family that would move into the Endion neighborhood? This ordinance tells prospective families that the tide has been stopped and you wont be moving into frat row. I'm all in favor of the re-zoning efforts but my understanding is that that doesnt cover alot of the area's truly effected by these issues and cant occur without a lot of funding from the city ..hahaha.....but until there a better option on the table, the patient needs immediate help!


So because I don't like party houses and those come with the university, I shouldn't live in an area that is convenient for me to get to work, take care of my daily needs and, aside from the party houses, is a pretty decent place to live?

I don't necessarily agree with all parts of the ordinance, but your argument towards Baci is flawed.

To the rest of you who are trying to make this into a Duluth City Council/Don Ness/Endion/Baci bash:

I am sick and tired of college kids having parties and the cops being called. I am sick and tired of having no parking on the street when I have friends or family come to visit because there are nine people with nine cars living in a three-bedroom house. I am sick and tired of the Volvo getting vandalized by drunk college kids who think it's fun to steal windshield wipers or spit on the car. I am sick and tired of the college kids up the hill blowing up firecrackers at 2am. I am sick and tired of the college kids using our alley as a racing thoroughfare.

Oh, I live on the Hillside, btw, just a few blocks west from Chester.

So what should I do and the rest of you do:

1) Start writing letters to UMD/CSS.
2) Run for city government.
3) Vote.
4) Sue the local universities. (just kidding)

I do think that UMD/CSS should step up and expect and enforce a code of conduct from their students, regardless of if they live on or off campus.

I think UMD/CSS should work on providing more housing for their students or at least mandate that you must be a junior or senior to live off-campus or your parents must reside in the house in which you will be living if you are not a jr or sr.

I don't have the answer and I don't think the answer is anywhere in these comments.

I think the city needs to have a serious sitdown with the local universities and tell them they need to start taking responsibility for their students' actions.

Start charging the Universities everytime one of their students gets in trouble with the law... now hey, there's an idea!

Anyway, the whole point is that this discussion is starting to devolve. Please try to keep it clean and friendly, folks.

This isn't something..

Jim Hall has a line in a song that says, "The answer to the problem is always a bigger problem." Or something like that..

This took one problem and created another for other people. My house is in the Endion neighborhood, was built in 1903, and has been a rental and a family home over the years. I keep putting lots of money and repairs into this house..

So should I have rushed out and bought a rental license J.I.C. I needed to rent the house out 5-10 years down the road? How much would that have cost me? How much would the city make? How much did the city make?

So then the City Council changes the law and the people who were evicted get pissed off. And the people like Baci feel like no one cares about the partiers next door.

That is the problem with your philosophy Baci.. Just passing a law to "put it on the hotplate" costs lots of people money.

Who didn't lose money?

UMD, Slumlords who had rental licenses, absentee owners?

It effected college students. Poor college students who have no money and are just beginnning in life.

Who lives in these houses around Duluth? Is Endion an expensive area to live? How many rentals are there already in the Endion area?

Can't you see that the rentals are now a monopoly and the landlords have NO reason to do anything except keep their license current.

The more I read and write about it the more pissed off I get. I want to write a piece on this, does anyone know how to find out what property the City Councilors own around town?

I also heard people talking on the DNT board about the new apts. up there that are not selling out.. They even said the owner's name, maybe he has ties to the Council..

Music seem trite to cover at the moment, and we don't get paid for writing, why don't more of us work together to change this ordinace? Bands too!

Benefit show for the kids kicked out? Show that we care? More coverage?

i would just like to say that i'm not trying to argue with or bash anyone.
a friendly challenge to baci, received; i think the point is dialogue, trying to see how others are effected and how others propose change.
please don't read so much into my statements.
and good luck all.

A lot of people have great compassion for these poor college kids, and I think that's great. But, I'm not sure how necessary that compassion is in terms of housing. I don't have experience with either, but if UMD & CSS are like many campuses, they need more students to stay on campus but don't have the time and resources to file through all the "special" cases trying to get out of mandated on-campus housing beyond the first year.

A stricter code of conduct would be a good step. But again, that requires a lot of institutional restructuring just to enforce what they do have, let alone expand the consequences.

I am curious how all this fits in with the idea of keeping young professionals in Duluth. There are so many empty houses across the Twin Ports, that it seems as though there should be some way to get folks affordable housing and integrate them into the community (rather than pitting them against locals/landowners/long-term residents/whathaveyou).

I's all like to invite you to my kegger. It's called the "Council/Don Ness/Endion/Baci bash" co-hosted by tamara..Really! Seriously I'd be ALL in favor of some kinda community get together, especially if theres good music involved . A PDD portland square college neighbor co-prospertity sphere gala! As long as I dont have to deal ANY LONGER with the frequent and egregious disturbances of my family's peace I'm tickled to be living a possibly actual true collegiate community! So thanks for getting my dander up once again about this. I went to Endion school for kindergarten so for give me my passionate feelings abotu this neighborhood. Ask me sometime and I'll tell you aout the mummy and the German language versions of the 1888 DNT on 2nd and 19th. The olds rasberry patch by the row houses. Bud cld tell more about apple raids on the old guy and Mrs Gooder's poker games. Keeping it real in the hillside.

All right, as long as one of the kegs is of root beer, I'm all for co-hosting this party, Baci!

I can see it now!

Councillors Reinert and Stewart both own a number of licensed rental properties, which means that this ordinance would've benefitted each of them -- but they each voted against it. Twice. (Last came up in 2004, when it did not pass Council.)

Why did they vote against the ordinance? Because it would create a whole new set of problems.

Which it has.

Post a comment

Seriously: If you click "post" more than once, you're going to end up looking really stupid.

If you don't see your comment after it's published, try refreshing your browser.