In attendance: Ryan C. Holmes, Marjorie Allen, Louise Giugliano, Michael Elsenbeck, Frank Pearson
Absent: Jonathan Glennie, Arthur Grover, Mark Badstubner, Ivy Felder, Bonnie Zetick
Minutes from the December 10, 2007 meeting were accepted as written.
Demographic Shift- Because the University’s adjacent neighborhood is undergoing constant change, the team felt is was important to highlight areas of challenge in regards to student neighbor/non-student neighbor relations. Items mentioned are as follows:
- With the number of student residences increasing and homeowners electing to move and/of passing away, the neighborhood is changing.
- As the number of investment properties increase, landlords seem to be doing the minimum in regards to upkeep.
- Community norms and standards are seemingly becoming more student-centered in regards to noise activity.
Landlords- It was the general thought of the team that both non-student and student residents were displeased with landlord responsibility and accountability in regards to addressing both property and off-campus relationship issues connected to their properties. Additionally, it is believed that an overwhelming number of students believe that landlords do not pay attention to their needs, and in some cases, their basic tenant rights. This exchange prompted the following questions:
- What are basic landlord responsibilities?
- Because many student residences feel underserved by landlords, it is believed that students, if given the avenue, would offer the University information to assist them in correcting L & I violations.
Suggestions and Items for Further Discussion- As the team continues to operationalize its charge, the following possibilities were mentioned:
- The possibility of creating paraprofessional positions to serve as off-campus RA’s and CA’s
- The creation of an off-campus student organization as a method to allow students the ability to police each other
- The possibility of the University forming a partnership, on a block by block basis, to have a concentrated effort to curb student behavior by intense monitoring. This idea was fueled by the following beliefs:
- Students would think twice about behavior (e.g. public urination, transient noise, littering) if constant surveillance was offered by block)
- The morale of non-student residents would increase if assigned University personnel had more of a presence on their block.
- The University’s ability to aid in the removal of trash from student houses.