Occupancy Limits Fail Students

If this is the case, then the majority of the Chapel Hill Town Council members are failing in their duty. They refuse to acknowledge that certain details of the proposed land-use management ordinance will discriminate against students and other low-income residents.

Chapel Hill has a population of 51,598. About 21,000 undergraduate and graduate students also call the town home. They deserve to be represented as equally as the other members of the community.

Already students lost a major battle when the council decided to temporarily ban duplexes in the town despite vocal student opposition.

Now, the council members are failing to consider the opposition of one of their own -- Mark Kleinschmidt -- who opposes the proposed occupancy limits on Chapel Hill homes.

If the ordinance were to pass with its current language, it would formalize the restrictions on occupancy by limiting the number of unrelated persons who can reside in one living unit to four.

For obvious reasons, passage of the ordinance would seriously restrict the off-campus housing options available to UNC students. Well, at least in theory -- but there is no way the restriction will be fairly and equally enforced. Instead, it will allow unhappy residents to discriminate against their neighbors -- the moment the students become a nuisance, they will cite violation of the ordinance to drive them away from campus.

The situation that inevitably will arise is four students will sign leases but blatantly violate the ordinance by packing more into their homes. When their noise becomes bothersome, their trash begins to overflow or their cars take over lots, neighbors will start to complain.

Then and only then will the ordinance actually be enforced. And what will students do then? Where will the extra people live? Will we all be homeless students halfway through the semester?

Pro-restriction council members are calling this a "last-ditch effort" to alleviate the parking, trash and noise problems students create.

Maybe I missed something -- but I haven't noticed the first- and second-ditch efforts to alleviate these problems by enforcing the violations. So instead of stepping up the enforcement of these violations, the council thinks it will be a good idea to make up some more rules that will not be enforced.

Does this sound moronic to anyone else?

Apparently, Kleinschmidt is the only member who is young enough to remember what it is like to be a poor college kid who can't afford to live in a house close to campus without sharing the it with five of your friends.

OK, I take it back. Council member Ed Harrison said he remembers having to live with more than four unrelated people in college -- but says, "We had maybe two cars. Now (students park) eight SUVs (in front)."

Well, reasonable people would realize this problem could easily be fixed by implementing parking regulations, not by kicking students out all together.

When council members are admitting the restriction is a blunt tool and the mayor insists the ordinance will never be enforced, these could be signs that sweeping legislation might not be the brightest of ideas.

There are plenty of students who probably aren't the best neighbors and who do cause excess noise, parking and trash problems. But there are also plenty of students who live in perfect harmony with the rest of the population. Why should everyone be punished for the violations of a few?

Kleinschmidt also said his opposition is so strong to the restrictions that it impacts the way he looks at the whole proposed ordinance and said he could vote against the entire package.

The Town Council's defense of the plan just doesn't add up.

In this situation, Kleinschmidt is the only one who is doing the job he was elected to do by presenting valid opposition. But his efforts might be in vain -- the rest of the council just isn't listening.

Carolyn Pearce can be reached

at cpearce@email.unc.edu.