KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

RF1 wrote:

TruePoint wrote:Narragansett is de facto part of URI's campus since about a third of its students live there and students make up a sizable portion of the town's population. So you can keep saying it isn't a college town until you are blue in the face, but it's a college town.

I think that is a big part of the problem. Many present and past students that lived there view it as a college town and treat it as such. Make no mistake however, the overwhelming number of residents of the town do not see it that way.

I think the entire problem is some people that live there think they get to decide for everyone else what kind of town it is. It is the kind of town that it is. You don't get to decide. It is where college students live. So I say for the one hundredth time - if you live in Narragansett and don't want to live in a college town, don't bitch and moan; don't form a bullshit committee; just move.

theblueram wrote:I find it interesting that people with no vested interest in the town, pay no taxes, do not vote , do not have children in the school system take so much interest into what this town does. Why would you care what a town you don't live in does? Do you take this much interest in Central Falls as well?

I will always care about URI and its campus.

theblueram wrote:I find it interesting that people with no vested interest in the town, pay no taxes, do not vote , do not have children in the school system take so much interest into what this town does. Why would you care what a town you don't live in does? Do you take this much interest in Central Falls as well?

I absolutely have an interest in it. I lived there for 3 of the best years of my life, and still like to return and visit and rent a house when i can during the summer. I am very much interested in it staying similar to the place I loved so much while living and later visiting there. It would suck if current/future students had to miss out such a great living experience just because some people have nothing better to do then bust balls about a few cars being parked on their street.

I don't care about Central Falls because I have no ties there.

RF1 wrote:Narragansett IS NOT A COLLEGE TOWN. There is no college located in it. URI is in the adjoining town of South Kingstown. Narragansett is first and foremost a BEACH TOWN. It is also where many students from a university in a neighboring town choose to live part of the year while attending college.

Hey RF1, you misquoted me, here is what I said:

Puck Frovidence wrote:Every rural college in every college town faces this problem from residents and neighboring towns.

Narragansett is neighboring a college town, and has for more than 100 years. This has literally made it the town it is today. Not only has it been home to students for many decades, not only is the municipality funded by non-resident owners who pay 150% of the residential property rate, not only are students a critical source of revenue for local businesses, but it also houses the NARRAGANSETT Bay Campus, which is the SECOND LARGEST EMPLOYER in the town, after the town itself.

Puck Frovidence wrote: Narragansett is neighboring a college town, and has for more than 100 years. This has literally made it the town it is today. Not only has it been home to students for many decades, not only is the municipality funded by non-resident owners who pay 150% of the residential property rate, not only are students a critical source of revenue for local businesses, but it also houses the NARRAGANSETT Bay Campus, which is the SECOND LARGEST EMPLOYER in the town, after the town itself.

Boom...we have a winner.

The vast majority of residents (15K) in Narragansett do not view it as a college town. The bulk of the town's rental income doesn't even come from students. More money is made in the summer off rentals than the off season. Far more money is spent in the town by summer visitors than off season students. It is first and foremost a beach town, always has been-always will be.

I would agreed that many of the residents in Narragansett don't think they live in a college town RF1, but that doesn't make it true. It just makes them incorrect.

You are also incorrect about rentals. The town makes no money off of summer or student rentals. The state may charge a sales tax or hotel tax on rental transactions, but this money does not go to Narragansett. The town makes money off the property taxes levied on the non-resident owners of the rentals (which are higher than taxes for residents). The reason these owners can keep the summer rentals open all year is that they can rent to students in the off-season. Otherwise, the town would partially close down when the rental season ends, exactly like villages and towns on the Cape, in coastal Maine and New Hampshire do. When you drive through many of those places in November, you find homes and storefronts boarded up, not to return until April. There are still lots of people living there, just not nearly enough to justify running many of the businesses, and not enough demand among renters to keep the houses occupied (there just aren't that many people who want to live at the beach for the winter, and then have to move when the summer comes). One of the main reasons this does not happen in Narragansett, and South County in general, is the University.

So while I'm sure the town businesses receive much of their income from tourists in the summer, the presence of the students are what make Narragansett the "year-round" town that it is. It allows the municipality and the businesses to payroll as many year round employees as they do. The permanence that their presence lends the town (not to mention the winter income they provide to the owners of Gansett rentals, assuring their continued high property values), has shaped Narragansett to what it is today.

Preach on Puck...you're killin' it in this thread right now my friend.

Puck Frovidence wrote:I would agreed that many of the residents in Narragansett don't think they live in a college town RF1, but that doesn't make it true. It just makes them incorrect.

You are also incorrect about rentals. The town makes no money off of summer or student rentals. The state may charge a sales tax or hotel tax on rental transactions, but this money does not go to Narragansett. The town makes money off the property taxes levied on the non-resident owners of the rentals (which are higher than taxes for residents). The reason these owners can keep the summer rentals open all year is that they can rent to students in the off-season. Otherwise, the town would partially close down when the rental season ends, exactly like villages and towns on the Cape, in coastal Maine and New Hampshire do. When you drive through many of those places in November, you find homes and storefronts boarded up, not to return until April. There are still lots of people living there, just not nearly enough to justify running many of the businesses, and not enough demand among renters to keep the houses occupied (there just aren't that many people who want to live at the beach for the winter, and then have to move when the summer comes). One of the main reasons this does not happen in Narragansett, and South County in general, is the University.

So while I'm sure the town businesses receive much of their income from tourists in the summer, the presence of the students are what make Narragansett the "year-round" town that it is. It allows the municipality and the businesses to payroll as many year round employees as they do. The permanence that their presence lends the town (not to mention the winter income they provide to the owners of Gansett rentals, assuring their continued high property values), has shaped Narragansett to what it is today.

You miss the point. I did not mean the town itself makes money off rentals. My point is that more rental revenue in the town (its property owners) is made in the summer than the winter.

Students are far less an important part of the town than many here think. The ramen noodle sales at Stop & Shop don't tilt the balance. The real money comes from summer visitors. If the students were such a money maker for the town and its businesses, why then are so many places shut down in the off season. The presence of the students just mean a few less places shutter for the winter months. These businesses are mainly bars and cheap eating options.

Just because a few of you incorrectly think it is a college town or de facto part of the URI campus doesn't make it so. The fact is the population swells by more than double in the summer and has far more people visiting. The college calendar months are the dead period.

If I were writing the ordinance I would restrict it to non-family members living in the same property over 30 days. Reasonable restriction that would probably be legal and does not kill summer rental season.

I'm not that informed in discriminatory housing practices but limiting people from living somewhere based off of their anything I think is not something that should be ok.

I forget what poster made the point that RI itself is made up of villages and a ton of small communities killed that thread against the PC trolls. Similar issue here. Typical RI to say that URI has nothing to do with Narragansett because it is separated by 5 miles. Uri matches the population of Gansett 9 months out of the year.

It's too bad people spend their time on this.

RF1 wrote:If the students were such a money maker for the town and its businesses, why then are so many places shut down in the off season.

Sorry RF1, it sounds like you might not have frequented Narragansett for awhile... maybe you could describe the large parts of the local economy that you think are shutting down in the offseason?

RF1 wrote:These businesses are mainly bars and cheap eating options.

Again, sorry but were you under the impression that a tourism/service economy is made up of anything else? There's no heavy industrial "Beach Sand Factory" chugging out big piles of the brown stuff in summer. There's no high-tech "Wave Consulting Firm" paying out six-figure salaries to nerdy white-collar types four months out of the year. It's a tourism economy: the businesses trade mainly in cheap food, cheap drinks and chachkis. No shame in that. It makes a living for lots of people. But if the source of income dried up like in fall like happens for many other beach towns, those people would have to move away during the offseason. Instead, they get a "slow season", and the owners of the beach rentals get another incentive to keep their properties.

Sand, Inc! hahahah

So there are many smart people on this board who have interest in Narragansett. Does anyone have any possible solutions to this problem outside of what the town is proposing?

Close up the beach sand factory

Problem solved.

Seems it is in the process of closing. Anything else?

adam914 wrote:

Puck Frovidence wrote: Narragansett is neighboring a college town, and has for more than 100 years. This has literally made it the town it is today. Not only has it been home to students for many decades, not only is the municipality funded by non-resident owners who pay 150% of the residential property rate, not only are students a critical source of revenue for local businesses, but it also houses the NARRAGANSETT Bay Campus, which is the SECOND LARGEST EMPLOYER in the town, after the town itself.

Boom...we have a winner.

Not too many people who live in Narragansett work there. I think most work in Providence, Boston or New York.

Many things have been proposed here, all of which could help:

-Easing alcohol policies on campus. The current "prohibition" enacted by Carrothers essentially made rowdy behavior everyone else down the line's problem instead of his. Build a few bars, hire a few more cops and lighten up and you'll see a migration back to campus of biblical proportions. We're talking Old Testament here.

-Private construction on nearby lots within Kingston village.

-Continued cooperation between URI and the NPD to identify problem houses/areas/students. (REAL problem houses, not fifteen people in a two-car garage shooting beirut)

-New policies from URI for dealing with said problem areas; living off campus while attending school is a privilege not afforded to students until their sophomore year. The University could revoke that right for students who repeatedly refuse to exercise good judgement when conducting themselves in the surrounding community.

-Build more housing on campus.

Like many things this one last is at least partly complicated by the state's dwindling contribution to URI. Lack of funds has forced colleges like URI to "run like a business" when they aren't businesses, they're schools. So collective student housing becomes a revenue stream, and a way to squeeze money out of parents. Consequently, the cost of student housing is far above market price for cost of rent, utilities and telecom. It also often lacks amenities available to privates homes (parking, for instance is extra). The opposite of course, should be true. For any other company, the incentive for building more housing units is that the cost of building, maintenance and utilities become cheaper per unit the more you build, so the cost to the buyer or renter goes down. Instead the cheapest housing option for upperclassmen at URI is $3,307 per semester. (That's before the mandatory meal plan.) This equals out to about $825 per month. For this fee, the students may live in a smattering of the oldest, most used housing on campus. They also will have to share a room, because single occupancy costs more. They will use pay-machines whenever they do their laundry. They will have no kitchen, and even if they are 21 they will not be allowed (by the rules, at least) to have a glass of wine or a bottle of beer. Not that this is that bad. In the grand scheme of things the accommodations and services are really very good, and even in a less grand way there are great benefits to living on campus: proximity to class, libraries, gym, sports etc. Plus you get to be around lots of other students, always a plus for hanging out and... "romantic" purposes (if you can call it that ). It's hardly third world living. But it doesn't have to be third world to lose out to down the line alternatives in the minds of many. It just has to be overpriced and lack amenities.

The solution to this problem? Always vote if there's a bond for URI on the ballot, always vote for people who will spend money on public higher ed, and call your reps and bitch at them about how important URI is. Particularly if you know they went to a private school, since no one wants to be seen as an elitist dick who denies opportunities they had for others (especially when that's what they are). Anything that will increase state contributions alleviates the need for URI to make up the gap between cost and expenses by squeezing the students. Work for a big company that likes to dump money on non-profits for tax purposes? Tell 'em to give to Rhody.

Ultimately though, one of the things that needs to happen is:

-For the town to get over it.

Like I've said before, this acrimony between town and university is in no way unique. It happens literally everywhere. The university isn't going anywhere, and neither are the students. As TruePoint mentioned earlier, it would be nice if an association of students banded together to tell the town where they can stick their dubious new regulations. I'm sure there is already a group on campus getting ready to sue if any of these are adopted... it's what they did with the orange stickers. Might even be nice for alums in the community to make their presence known at some of these meetings and get on the record.

As for the sand factory, you just know they'll move the whole thing to Shanghai eventually and then we'll all be tracking cheap, poorly made Chinese sand into the car on beach days.

You want to help the problem? Make uri a wet campus. And for goodness sakes the partying and off campus living has been going on for generations. It's a culture and it's what "down the line" is. I agree with some people who said that the university has been around far before those houses were built. I'm not defending some students who get out of hand but it's college and chances are that these residents drank and partied in college in the past as well.

URI administrators bear much blame for this situation. They increased enrollment by several thousand during a 35 year period (1971-2007) without any plan to house them. With no on campus housing as an available option, students were left with no choice but move off campus. URI took no action for decades and basically dumped all these new students on the surrounding towns.

August 22, 2007
The University of Rhode Island dedicated three residence halls today. Eddy, Garrahy and Wiley halls are the first new residence halls to open on the Kingston Campus since 1971.
http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/?id=4099


The number of URI students living in surrounding towns such as Narragansett was far less prior to the 70's as the school was able to house a significantly larger portion of its enrollment. Living down the line really began to take off when the school started to expand and made no effort to adequately house the larger student body.

theblueram wrote:So there are many smart people on this board who have interest in Narragansett. Does anyone have any possible solutions to this problem outside of what the town is proposing?

Arrest people who do illegal things and leave everybody else alone.

Bingo

adam914 wrote:

theblueram wrote:So there are many smart people on this board who have interest in Narragansett. Does anyone have any possible solutions to this problem outside of what the town is proposing?

Arrest people who do illegal things and leave everybody else alone.

Yes, exactly.

This is a rare scenario where intentional ball-busting was actually punished by Gansett Police... (Full Disclosure: I know Mr. Wardwell from my time working '99-'03 at the University computer store, RAM Computers, several times providing on-site support for Macintosh at his Point Judith home.)

Don't you know who I am? I'm on the Narragansett-URI Coalition!

From the Projo on 20 October, 2006

NARRAGANSETT -- For more than a decade, Douglas O. Wardwell has been an eloquent if forceful presence at public meetings, speaking about everything from town budgets to open meeting violations to partying college students who live in town.

More than just a talker, he has been involved, serving as president of the Narragansett Property Owners Association and a member of the Narragansett-URI Coalition that has tried for six years to deal with partying students.

In recent days, however, Wardwell, 72, has found himself in unfamiliar territory.

His troubles started just after midnight on Saturday, Oct. 7, when he called the police to complain about a student party on Windward Circle, in the Point Judith area. They culminated six days later with his arrest on a charge of filing a false report with the police.

Police Chief J. David Smith said yesterday that the department arrested Wardwell after an extensive review that led them to believe there was no party.

Officers were searching for a domestic violence suspect in the Pier area when Wardwell called the police at about 12:45 a.m. on Oct. 7, Smith said. They responded only after Wardwell insisted it was a serious matter needing an immediate response.

When they arrived, about 5 minutes later, there was no sign of a party.

"There was absolutely nothing on the scene," Smith said. "There were no beer cups on the ground, there was no debris at all, there was no sound, there was no noise, there was no stereo playing, there was nothing."

According to a police report, Wardwell told Detective Sgt. Michael P. Dugan that the party had just ended. The report states that when Dugan replied that he would be speaking with Smith about charging Wardwell with filing a false report, Wardwell tried to shake Dugan's hand and said, "Don't you know who I am? I'm on the URI Coalition."

Dugan said yesterday that he has 19 years of experience in dealing with student parties and knows the telltale signs.

"There's always remnants, people still in the area, loud music, loud noise, people screaming and yelling, and there was absolutely none of that," he said. "It just couldn't dissolve that quickly."

Wardwell, reached at home yesterday, said the police report contains "many inaccuracies" and expressed dismay at the turn of events.

"Parties go on in neighborhoods all the time. Sometimes before the police get here, the vehicles exit, and that's what happened," he said. "In my case, the cars exited."

"I reported a party," he added, "a party that awoke me from a sound sleep."

Wardwell has hired Robert Rahill, a lawyer based in South Kingstown, to represent him. His appearance in Wakefield District Court is scheduled for Tuesday, Rahill said.

As word of Wardwell's arrest spread this week, some residents wondered if the message from the police is: don't call about partying students.

"This arrest appears to be a message to all of us......don't whine and complain!" one e-mail said.

Smith said the police try to provide the "level of response that the community expects" when people call but stressed that dispatchers and officers have to rely on the information they get from callers.

In this case, he said, there was a lengthy review before the police decided that there should be an arrest.

"We wanted to make sure that that right call was being made," he said. "We cannot decide that a crime was committed based on who it is and we cannot decide that a crime wasn't committed based on who it is."

Dugan said there would have been no issue if Wardwell had "simply called and said there's a party next door a few people left. It's more the way in which he gave it; he just embellished it."

Dugan prepared an arrest warrant for Wardwell on Oct. 13 and presented it to District Court Judge Frank J. Cenerini, who authorized the arrest, according to an arrest report. Dugan called Wardwell at 12:30 p.m. that day and he "turned himself in" at about 1:30 p.m., the report states. He was processed and released.

Wardwell said the students who were partying the night he called the police came back after the police left and stayed until about 3 a.m. He said he did not call the police again "because I was told I was going to be arrested."

I do feel bad for the guy because he is old and probably thinks he was doing the right thing. I can also imagine what happened - he heard people whooping it up leaving the house, and by the time he got to his phone they were probably gone. 12:45am is like the middle of the afternoon for college kids. But this highlights the problem with elderly people living in these neighborhoods. The kids didn't do anything out of the ordinary for kids their age.

I'm at least encouraged that the police are willing to do the right thing. I question the motives of police a lot, but here it seems like they played it down the middle in the face of what I'm sure is a lot of pressure from locals who think the police exist to do their bidding.

Right thing? It's only the right thing if he had done it a bunch of times. Hearing what you think is a party and calling the cops should not result in your arrest. Unless there were a few warnings issued that are not discussed in the story I think this is an overreaction by the police.

If you read between the lines here, I think the police believe this was a malicious act by this guy. They have a lot better read on him than I could have, and if they conclude this guy was trying to use the police as an instrument of aggression against people he doesn't like, then the charge is definitely warranted. The only thing I can say for certain is that the police are definitely not carrying water for the students. I'm actually stunned the NPD didn't just go bang some heads as a result of this call just for kicks.

From the Story wrote:Officers were searching for a domestic violence suspect in the Pier area when Wardwell called the police at about 12:45 a.m. on Oct. 7, Smith said. They responded only after Wardwell insisted it was a serious matter needing an immediate response.

That is filing a false claim. The officer explained why this incident was cause for arrest.

From the Story wrote:Dugan said there would have been no issue if Wardwell had "simply called and said there's a party next door a few people left. It's more the way in which he gave it; he just embellished it."

A major contributing factor that has been completely left out of this thread is the closing of many of the fraternities. I have no idea what the numbers are compared with the 60's through the '80's, but phi sig and at least 4 or 5 more frats were shuttered. The kids who would've lived there have to go somewhere.

rhodyrudder wrote:A major contributing factor that has been completely left out of this thread is the closing of many of the fraternities. I have no idea what the numbers are compared with the 60's through the '80's, but phi sig and at least 4 or 5 more frats were shuttered. The kids who would've lived there have to go somewhere.

That is a valid point. Not good to be losing housing as the enrollment is soaring.

In Summary:

Enrollment increased faster than on campus housing could keep up. Where are you going to go?
Rent a house off campus that someone lives in only in the summer.

College kids are going to party. Duh.

URI was made a Dry Campus, which is going to take years to repeal. Makes living on campus a joke if you're a Junior or Senior.

With the construction of the new dorms and the new Health & Wellness Center, new Hope Dining hall, etc.. living on campus might be a little more appealing now.I for one can say that my local gym does not have as many URI students as it used to because the new Health & Wellness Center is MUCH nicer than my gym (Luxe in South County Commons).

My understanding is most parties where NPD asks students to disperse; most students do so respectfully.....or as respectfully as you can be half in the bag.

I live in Narragansett, but not near any students really. There is one house not too far from me that I actually used to party at when I was a student, and I think I only heard them on their deck the first night they were back.

I love Narragansett, and have no plan on leaving.

Taylor Swift wrote: Enrollment increased faster than on campus housing could keep up. Where are you going to go?
Rent a house off campus that someone lives in only in the summer.

Keep up? From what I can gather, they did absolutely nothing for some 35 years regarding on campus housing. No appreciable new housing stock was added from 1971 (Heathman opened) until 2007 (new dorms Eddy, Wiley, and Garrahy). During that time, several fraternities disbanded and their housing stock was permanently lost. During this same time, URI's enrollment nearly doubled. No housing was built to accomodate this increase and in fact some housing (frats) was actually lost. Add in that another seven years since 2007 have passed and just one more dorm (Hillside) has been built while enrollment has continued to rise.

That's what I said. Enrollment increased faster than on campus housing could keep up.

They still need on campus housing. If they're going to attract more students once the Engineering Building Referendum passes, then they will definitely need it.

What ever happened with the zoning talk? There is a bit going on in PVD over similar stuff.

There is a RI future article that to me is pretty good.

Discusses Gansett trying this in the mid-90s.

http://www.rifuture.org/ri-aclu-urges-p ... oning.html

Seawrightspostgame wrote:What ever happened with the zoning talk? There is a bit going on in PVD over similar stuff.

During the summer, the ad hoc committee delivered its report to the Town Council. They've filed it for now, and they'll have a work session on it, but there isn't a date announced for it yet. Most likely, they'll have two to three work sessions on the various things suggested by the ad hoc committee on parking regulations, changes to the rental registration form, and zoning. While the ad hoc committee did suggest a limit of a maximum of four unrelated in a home (they budged off three based on input from the solicitor), it's unclear what the reception to this will be with the council.

The Providence City Council voted this past week to limit the number of unrelated persons living in a single unit in certain zoned areas of the city. The move was in response to complaints from homeowners that live in and around PC.

that makes no sense and won't help anything. this issue isn't 4 people living in the same house the problem is the dozens of students that come over for their party.

Limiting the number of people in a house will have 2 effects.
1. raise the rent for students
2. increase the number of houses to party at

Not to mention it really screws over homeowners that are renting out larger houses. When I lived in Eastward Look there were 5 of us in a 5 bedroom house. So if this rule were to go into effect there that means we could not have lived there unless two of us were brothers?

The link I put up quotes from the mid 90s where the court strikes that down. Obviously the court can go any way but....

“It is a strange—and unconstitutional—ordinance indeed that would permit the Hatfields and the McCoys to live in a residential zone while barring four scholars from the University of Rhode Island from sharing an apartment on the same street.”

Neighborhoods, like Eastward Look have many streets with rows of homes rented by students, the density of same and with visitors on weekends does create some decreased quality of life issues for those full time residents in the middle of the density. Are the Ad-Hoc Committees recommendations going to have any direct impact on decreasing the noise, parties, excessive drinking, excessive parking, litter, etc. in these saturated neighborhoods? No. I do believe the university at high levels is well aware of the resident complaints and has observed the past/current conditions in these impacted neighborhoods. The newly formed Narragansett 2100 group has merged and has offered few readily achievable actionable items. IMO. I suppose the students living in these areas feel they are being targeted. And the impacted residents cling to support the Ad-Hoc Committee recommendations as the recommendations offer another set of actionable items for the Town Council to consider. The elusive solutions lie somewhere outside of the Ad-Hoc recommendations. Perhaps some back channel dialogue is needed to be initiated between the university and the town. Open meeting laws would I suspect come into play. However, the emotionally charged public meetings have demolished returns.

After having followed closely and participated in the Ad-Hoc Committees work, at best I see those current recommendations before the town council if approved in parts or sum, to some impact on the density issue, as the inventory of rental homes being slightly decreased.

To me it boils down to this. Home owners are going to continue to rent, students will continue to seek off campus housing. The university is probably not gonna bring back controlled alcohol back on campus. Close to campus restaurants/bars are probably not gonns spring up either. Although it will be interesting to see what becomes of the old Iggy's(dating myself)Twist site on Rt 108.

If current laws/ordianances of the state or local government are potentially violated, then it becomes a police matter. Does this police action which results in excessive OT for a town? yes. Should the university share in those costs? doubtful.

Full disclosure, I served on thebAd-Hoc Committee.

URI needs to add more beds on campus to help alleviate these neighborhood issues and build a better campus environment. More housing options such as apartment type set-ups with full individual kitchens and full independent townhouses should be part of this. Many upper classmen do not want to live in traditional dorm rooms and be forced onto the expensive meal plan. Give them options so that living on campus can meet their budget, needs, and desires.

Why on Earth would URI pay the town for overtime? It's not like the town gives URI a direct payment for all the economic activity the university provides for the town. But that speaks to a larger point in general. Narragansett residents love to howl about negative quality of life issues generated by URI students, but they always ignore the positive ones. So many of the businesses they benefit from would either not be present in town or would be closed outside of the summer months if not for URI and more importantly the URI students they seek to remove from their community. And their residents benefit from having the sporting and cultural events of a flagship state university so close by. Ridiculous double standard.

So true Rhowdy. That town would shut down all winter if it wasn't for students. The town wants the money from the students, but then wants them to just sit in their room quietly like they aren't even there.

section(105) wrote:Neighborhoods, like Eastward Look have many streets with rows of homes rented by students, the density of same and with visitors on weekends does create some decreased quality of life issues for those full time residents in the middle of the density. Are the Ad-Hoc Committees recommendations going to have any direct impact on decreasing the noise, parties, excessive drinking, excessive parking, litter, etc. in these saturated neighborhoods? No. I do believe the university at high levels is well aware of the resident complaints and has observed the past/current conditions in these impacted neighborhoods. The newly formed Narragansett 2100 group has merged and has offered few readily achievable actionable items. IMO. I suppose the students living in these areas feel they are being targeted. And the impacted residents cling to support the Ad-Hoc Committee recommendations as the recommendations offer another set of actionable items for the Town Council to consider. The elusive solutions lie somewhere outside of the Ad-Hoc recommendations. Perhaps some back channel dialogue is needed to be initiated between the university and the town. Open meeting laws would I suspect come into play. However, the emotionally charged public meetings have demolished returns.

After having followed closely and participated in the Ad-Hoc Committees work, at best I see those current recommendations before the town council if approved in parts or sum, to some impact on the density issue, as the inventory of rental homes being slightly decreased.

To me it boils down to this. Home owners are going to continue to rent, students will continue to seek off campus housing. The university is probably not gonna bring back controlled alcohol back on campus. Close to campus restaurants/bars are probably not gonns spring up either. Although it will be interesting to see what becomes of the old Iggy's(dating myself)Twist site on Rt 108.

If current laws/ordianances of the state or local government are potentially violated, then it becomes a police matter. Does this police action which results in excessive OT for a town? yes. Should the university share in those costs? doubtful.

Full disclosure, I served on thebAd-Hoc Committee.

Iggy/ twist is going to be Dan's Place South deal announced in Independent last week edition....

Wow great

hrstrat57 wrote:

section(105) wrote:Neighborhoods, like Eastward Look have many streets with rows of homes rented by students, the density of same and with visitors on weekends does create some decreased quality of life issues for those full time residents in the middle of the density. Are the Ad-Hoc Committees recommendations going to have any direct impact on decreasing the noise, parties, excessive drinking, excessive parking, litter, etc. in these saturated neighborhoods? No. I do believe the university at high levels is well aware of the resident complaints and has observed the past/current conditions in these impacted neighborhoods. The newly formed Narragansett 2100 group has merged and has offered few readily achievable actionable items. IMO. I suppose the students living in these areas feel they are being targeted. And the impacted residents cling to support the Ad-Hoc Committee recommendations as the recommendations offer another set of actionable items for the Town Council to consider. The elusive solutions lie somewhere outside of the Ad-Hoc recommendations. Perhaps some back channel dialogue is needed to be initiated between the university and the town. Open meeting laws would I suspect come into play. However, the emotionally charged public meetings have demolished returns.

After having followed closely and participated in the Ad-Hoc Committees work, at best I see those current recommendations before the town council if approved in parts or sum, to some impact on the density issue, as the inventory of rental homes being slightly decreased.

To me it boils down to this. Home owners are going to continue to rent, students will continue to seek off campus housing. The university is probably not gonna bring back controlled alcohol back on campus. Close to campus restaurants/bars are probably not gonns spring up either. Although it will be interesting to see what becomes of the old Iggy's(dating myself)Twist site on Rt 108.

If current laws/ordianances of the state or local government are potentially violated, then it becomes a police matter. Does this police action which results in excessive OT for a town? yes. Should the university share in those costs? doubtful.

Full disclosure, I served on thebAd-Hoc Committee.

Iggy/ twist is going to be Dan's Place South deal announced in Independent last week edition....

This is good. Saw it covered in weeds on Friday and figured the Pinelli/Marra situation was complicating turning that property over.

hrstrat57 wrote:
Full disclosure, I served on thebAd-Hoc Committee.

Iggy/ twist is going to be Dan's Place South deal announced in Independent last week edition....[/quote]

You mean that eye sore is FINALLY going to be something!? Halleluja!

Taylor Swift wrote:

hrstrat57 wrote:
Full disclosure, I served on thebAd-Hoc Committee.

Iggy/ twist is going to be Dan's Place South deal announced in Independent last week edition....

You mean that eye sore is FINALLY going to be something!? Halleluja![/quote]


My first memory of Iggy's was when I was in high school. My sister took me there after a Keaney game and I was impressed by the fact that HC Claude English was there as well.

As a side note, Claude has now been the AD at Park University, an NAIA school located in MO, for 20 plus years.

It will most likely never change because of the geographical and political attributes. URI is in the middle of no where USA, with strict alcohol laws. That plus having the availability of beach houses in dense separate neighborhoods where campus rules do not apply, will always equal to the current situation. Unless someone drags the campus closer to the shore, it will always be like this. "Living down the line" is very special and authentic.

Recently, the Narragansett Planning Board made a formal recommendation to support a concept to restrict no more than four unrelated persons living in a rental house. The Town Council referred/requested the PB to weigh in on this concept. The TC will in the near future place this on an agenda for voting the concept up/down. The TC agenda to nite includes receiving the PB recommendation. This concept was brought forth by the Ad-Hoc Committee, sub-committe for zoning.