By Michael Harrington
Dear City Leaders:
May I ask a simple question?
If I want to advertise a rental unit on Craig’s List, and I list if for $1,000 to anyone, but $850 to a full time, card carrying student, everyone knows that as a private owner and lessor, I cannot do this. I cannot do this even if the City thinks it’s fine and gives a City Council 5-0 vote blessing and passing an ordinance.
This question is not anti-student or anti-student affordable housing. It’s a basic fair housing question.
So, how is Nishi 2.0 any different than my renting a house to students and non-students, with a 15% discount for being a fulltime student?
Thanks, and I am truly puzzled by the city and Nishi’s action on the 15% set aside.
I raised this issue during public comments several weeks ago, and there was no response at the meeting.
I think any adult human being with lower income should be able to apply for that 15%? It’s private land, and governed by state and federal fair housing laws.
Is there some sort of legal opinion in the public record where the City justifies this restriction on the 15% benefit to students? If so, may I have a copy?
Michael Harrington is a Former Davis City Councilmember
You can offer your rentals at a lower cost if you want to. Nothing is stopping you.
Most ski areas have been giving student discounts for years (and I think many insurance companies still have good student discounts).
http://squawalpine.com/tickets-passes/season-passes/tahoe-super-pass
Not to mention the current affordable housing regime nation-wide excludes students. Maybe Mr. Harrington should explain why my friends should continue to be excluded from affordable housing programs?
“Right arm”… elbow bent, fist showing, left hand on right hand elbow. You have stated an inconvenient fact. Thank you.
Orwell was right… all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others… appropriate for a campus that was originally the “farm” extension of UCB, and its adjoining community, where so many ‘animals’ are present.
Don’t hold your breath for a cogent response from “the H”…
I understood that students were excluded from Affordable housing programs that receive funding from (non-local) government agencies. (In other words, not a “local” decision.) The reason, I assume, is that students are presumably “temporarily/voluntarily” low-income, while they pursue their education (with a goal/probability of a much higher income, than those who aren’t students). (Sometimes, with the help of other government grants and loans.)
Conversely, non-students are (appropriately) prohibited from renting on-campus housing, “Affordable”, or not.
And, of course, the cost of the university education itself is also subsidized, by government. (Except for non-resident students.)
But since this is privately subsidized?
Well, then it’s a city-approved program, which apparently discriminates against non-students. (Including former students, I assume.)
What does the caselaw say? And Why didn’t Harrington look up the caselaw before writing the letter?
But Aaron this question isn’t anti-student …. Nevermind that he seems to object to affordable housing for students
I smell a lawsuit 😐