If most parts of the meeting were comfortably conventional, the same cannot be said for the discussion about infractions of residential zoning requirements, and the putative violations of landlords and tenants. It’s an understatement to say that it’s a hot-button issue.
The problem is serious for a few residents, whose property has been damaged, and enjoyment impaired, because they have disruptive, thoughtless neighbors. Home ownership is justifiably part of the American dream, and is one of the expressions of our high standard of living. A single family home is both evidence of well-being and a source of enjoyment. After working so hard to own a home, property owners have every reason to feel angry and frustrated when neighbors – tenants or thoughtless owners – damage the peace and property of the neighborhood.
That’s why it’s easy to be sympathetic to a council member who advocates respect for property rights. What’s unfortunate, though, is that a political defense of those rights may seem, to those not committed to the cause, a bit overwrought and, candidly, a bit odd. That’s why I think the use of a slide show of homes that were supposedly in violation of city living requirements was counter-productive. First, some of the alleged violations were likely temporary (parking on grass), or speculative (how many people might be unrelated family members in a house).
Second, many people otherwise supporting more thorough enforcement will find the idea of someone walking around taking pictures of supposed violators odd, and a bit unsettling. To someone committed to enforcement, it all makes sense. To someone on the fence, it’s probably a net wash, or a losing technique. You many gain some supporters, but others just feel that it’s strange for a citizen to photograph neighbors’ alleged violations and show them to the public. (When someone says that he takes these pictures on the way to church on Sunday, it’s hard to know what to say. It sounds like a peculiar fixation on the way to a more important moment. The remark is intended, I suppose, to show that some violations – placement of trash cans — have persisted for days. It’s no doubt sincere, but it sounds unusual, too.)
Third, the expressed worry about having more than two cars in a driveway is ill-advised. I understand that’s a current regulation. Unfortunately, it’s a regulation that’s no longer suitable to our times. Many families have more than two cars, one for each spouse, and a third for recreation or as a teenager’s car. As soon as you start complaining that only two cars should be outside on the driveway, you’re losing potential supporters. Not just affluent ones – middle class ones, too. When you tell them that they should keep their remaining cars garaged, you’re just irritating people who might otherwise support you concerning more significant violations. When you tell someone that his boat should not be in the garage, and that his cars should go in instead, you’ve strayed too far from the key problems. Now you sound like a pushy neighbor.
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but that wasn’t true of Tuesday’s slide show. A few words from homeowners who had damage and vandalism inflicted on their homes was far, far more powerful than the slide show of supposed violations. Ordinary people can relate to others like themselves, who worked hard to get a home, and want to have something secure and pleasant for themselves. When it’s wrecked by a thoughtless tenant next door, everyone is sympathetic. That’s a winning presentation, built upon unfortunate loss. No one wants to be in that position, but by speaking calmly about what happened to him, a person can make a difference to persuade others to take action. Slides work nowhere near so well.
Finally, the complaint that the university should have notified the Common Council, as well as landlords, of upcoming university housing policies is well-taken, but again, peripheral to the core message: that more thorough enforcement, and community participation, can protect property, property values, and make the community generally better-looking. (No need to call for more ‘rigid’ enforcement. In fact, ‘rigid’ should not be used when describing ordinary enforcement measures. More ‘thorough,’ comprehensive,’ or ‘attentive,’ etc., convey that message without seeming harsh.)
This is a good cause, sadly susceptible of drift into anti-student rhetoric, or a seeming anti-university bias. Presentations that appear too prying make adherents of better enforcement into versions of Mrs. Kravitz from Bewitched. A smooth-talking spokesperson for the landlords’ lobby could make considerable gains in a debate where advocates of greater enforcement relied on some of the techniques used last night. That’s too bad, because some homeowners have been injured, and wronged. To make the homeowners’ case, however, requires a more persuasive tactic. Ordinary homeowners expressing their concerns are the best spokespeople for this cause, and they were the most compelling part of last night’s discussion.