I believe this is already the case at public state schools.
2 Likes
Addendum to LA Times news: āUC Berkeley said it would also create an āexpanded wait listā in case legislators are able to craft a solution by May 1, when most students select their college.ā
UCB also said that the 400 cuts from the original number will be in the graduate school category, so Freshman and Transfers are not impacted.
4 Likes
Agree! I live in Santa Monica and we have the same NIMBYism at work here.
When the state budget gets constrained by things like:
- Proposition to limit taxation.
- Proposition for mandatory minimum K-12 spending.
- 1970s-1990s crime wave and resulting laws and propositions that greatly increased prisoner numbers and prison costs.
is it a surprise that higher education gets cut when the state budget gets squeezed in recessions, resulting in more real and perceived scarcity?
Of course, scarcity mindsets also probably drive people to seek eliteness for status positioning purposes, so even expansion like UC Merced and a few new CSUs is not likely to be attractive to those who feel that (some) UCs are becoming too inaccessible.
2 Likes
I asked this earlier. Reports were that many homes that used to be single family homes had turned into mini dorms housing a lot of students. Why didnāt the town of Berkeley see this coming and do what so many other towns have done, and have zoning regulations that only allowed up to say 4 unrelated folks to share a rental? This is done in towns near Boston University/Harvard area. Some of the towns where lots of students live regulate the number of unrelated folks who can share a rental.
Seems to meā¦this would have done something to preserve the neighborhood feel that has apparently gone away when tons of students share one house.
2 Likes
thumper:
the City did impose some rules to address so-called mini-dorms, but not sure why they did not limit # of unrelated persons from living under one roof.
Probably because there were non-student long-term residents whose residence arrangements would no longer be legal under a limit on the number of unrelated persons living there.
1 Like
@ucbalumnus check the rules for some of the towns around Boston.
There are limitsā¦and this isnāt new because they planned ahead. IIRC, when a lease came up for renewal, it had to conform. Many landlords in that area donāt allow subletting either. Both of these things limit houses becoming mini dorms in family residential neighborhoods.
1 Like
the problem with that idea, thumper, is that it exacerbates the housing situation over time, and impacts the low income differentially. (not a good goal for a progressive city) For example, two unrelated families renting and living in a small house and when they move out the new rules kick in allowing only one family in the house.
If my quick googling is correct, Somerville, MA has had regs for years limiting unrelated adults to no more than 4. That would be untenable in the Bay Area as many young adults rent out a house to live and work nearby tech centers. I know of a group of 7 unrelatedyoung people (late 20-somethings), for example, who rent/share a 3 BR house and who work Apple/Facebook/Google/Tesla.
(note, residents of Somerville have asked the city to relax its restrictions, but not sure of the status.)
1 Like
Boulder had the very limited āno more than 4 unrelated peopleā rule. A lot of landlords were able to divide up their large houses and make 3 apartments, so three apartments in one big house, 4 to 5 rooms in each apartment (amazingly, a lot of cousins, brothers, uncles going to college together!). Still makes for 10 cars. The leases are very detailed about what is allowed (cars, outdoor furniture, trash can rules, shoveling). My nephew rented a house right near the football stadium and the landlord had the right to park cars in the cul de sac on game days and the guys had to park elsewhere!
Denver had a rule with only TWO unrelated people allowed (not near colleges, everywhere). It was even a ballot issue, but the city overturned it and now something like 8 are allowed. The argument from the NIMBY group is, again, the cars! Eight young adults, eight cars. Well, growing up we had 5 teens, my parents and my grandfather living in one house so even though ālegalā because we were all related, it still meant 8ish cars! And we had friends and they parked near out house.
There is no perfect solution. And now the price of rents is so high that it is almost impossible to afford the rents without roommates.
Seems like implementing such a rule would unite both tenants and landlords (of which there a lot of both in the city of Berkeley) in opposition.
This is attempting to pre-empt legislative action, by requiring Berkeley to forgo that option. Berkeleyās current plan is founded on an expectation that the bill to exempt public universities from CEQA is likely to be passed, which will allow them to convert some or all of the online/deferred offers into regular offers later this spring/summer. While OOS applicants are still likely to be screwed, and will go elsewhere, it will be easier for the legislature to take action if they are benefitting almost all in-state students.
It wonāt be accepted, since I expect Berkeley has already canvassed the opinions of lawmakers and the governor before putting forward its current plan.
1 Like
updated on the case right now. UC Stay request denied? I canāt tell
Thanks for the post. Unfortunately, Iām not really following all the legalese. What does this actually mean regarding the reduced number of seats?
paywall, but you get the gist.
2 Likes
The dissenting opinion notes the Regents can appeal
2 Likes
Sounds bad for this cycle
Doubt an appeal could work before decisions for this year are in
2 Likes
What are the odds that UCB will cut 5000 acceptances from OOS or international students? This has become more zero sum than ever
I would hope they would given how visible it is.