Is a student apartment complex in the works just north of the University of Arizona campus? It's hard to say, but it's certainly possible, and that has the few homeowners left in the north university neighborhood a little concerned.
1. Comment by scott w. (rivers2BX)— November 1,2009 @ 12:33AM
Ratings:-2+20
If anyone can put up a hideously over-scaled, cheaply built, poorly planned and poorly managed complex, the Goodman family can. I had the pleasure of one the Goodman projects next door to a nicely maintained rental I owned. Oversized for the lot, cheaply constructed, with far less on-site parking than needed, this was a problem from the start with parties, trash, and obnoxious tenants. The owners took little responsibility for maintaining the property or dealing with tenants. I eventually sold my property, but that street continues to decline, and the slumlords seem to be winning over conscientious property owners. Thinking back to how difficult it was for me to to deal with the city during my renovation of an existing, historic structure, and how easily the Goodmans were able to weasel through their plans, made me aware of the two-tier system between large and small property owners, and how the city has such a bad track record of proper planning and enforcement in the UA area.
2. Comment by al c. (claamy)— November 1,2009 @ 8:26AM
Ratings:-2+9
We do need affordable student housing close to the university, but what is being built by Goodman and others is destroying the neighborhoods. These mini-dorms are not single families homes which the area is zoned.
Not all property north of the university are rentals. Many of us homeowners enjoy the diversity of the area. We as homeowners expect single family zoning laws to be upheld by city officials. We expect our property rights as owner occupied to be protected.
Goodman and others are pushing the limits of the law. They use their lawyers and power to find loop holes. When they are called into question they threaten lawsuits. They build whatever they can get away with. It seems all they truly care about is making money off of students.
We've begged for years for help in upholding the R1 zoning laws. No one hears us. For eight years and with Uhlich and Dunbar in office we've heard empty promises... Goodman can tear down what he wishes and build whatever he wants in its place... Meanwhile our property values drop and our standard of living goes from a quiet neighborhood to party central with increased crime, traffic, and trash....Then Goodman can pick-up more cheap houses as home owners are forced out.
Our house in Jefferson Park was bought in 1938 by my grandmother. We own another house in the area which was restored to its original condition and is now being rented by two grad students. I would like to know why Goodman's rights are protected and ours are not...
Build decent student housing on Grant and Speedway. Don't destroy neighborhoods and take away the other options such as single family homes for students. Please protect our property and our rights.
3. Comment by Randall H. (Randall H)— November 1,2009 @ 10:12AM
Ratings:-6+2
While I'm sympathetic to NUNA homeowners, this story is full of scurrilous innuendo and advice for nonexistent property owner/developers say for student apartments on Grant.
The real fact of the matter is that once the Univ. Medical Center was built N. of Speedway, and other UofA institutional buildings followed, wiping out hundreds of formerly single family homes which had become inexpensive student rentals, the students logically migrated a few more blocks to the North, and property owners between Drachman and Grant took advantage of the new market they represented. The changes in the 1st Ave./Euclid/Park alignments added to the change of neighborhoods between Grant and Speedway.
Maybe the homeowners who want to stay in this area should by glad they have students as neighbors, instead of the kinds of changes neighbors experienced in the Miracle Mile area, or in the neighborhoods N of Ft. Lowell between 1st and Stone?
5. Comment by James M. (Jim Bob)— November 1,2009 @ 11:13AM
Ratings:-1+4
Blame the City for failing to define "family" in the Land Use Code as pertaining to these mini-dorms. A family in the LUC is merely a group of people customarily living together, thus a minidorm is built as a sisngle family residence rather than an apartment which must have parking for each unit. I submit to you that a building with 16 students this semester, and 5 new ones next semester, and a whole other 16 next year is not a family customarily living together.
Other college communities define family as showing some commonality rather than just living together - all cars are registered at the address and insurance reflects the same address, all income tax is filed at the address (and not with mom and dad in another state), jobs held by any of the resident must show a permanent address at the residence, etc. When the City attorney in charge of LUC questions was told that this definition would be a good chance to manage the misuse of single family residences as minidorms, he responded that the Mayor and Council would not have the political will to maintain the definition in the LUC should a powerful local contributor to their campaigns wonder why his daughter couldn't live in the minidorm and be considered a part of that family rather than his own.
6. Comment by al c. (claamy)— November 1,2009 @ 3:55PM
Ratings:-1+3
Many of us in Jefferson Park enjoy many aspects of living with students. Some act as house parents dealing with emergency repairs to air conditioners and help when locked out. We meet parents exchange numbers... We care. It is part of the charm.
What we do mind is the destruction of charming 1940s bungalows for 2 story yellow and green mini-dorms. The destruction and devaluation of property values due to the predatory practices of some builders. We have new homes being built which would rival houses in San Hughs... beautiful homes for single families purchased by doctors, teachers, etc...
No we do not live with the conditions in other areas of town... but similar to the foothills or other valued areas we expect zoning laws to be upheld and home owners' rights protected by those who serve us.
If I lived in the Stone and 1st area I, too, would expect elected officials to do their job, uphold the zoning laws, protect the rights of home owners, and resist the demands of a Goodman type.
7. Comment by James M. (James M. from Tucson)— November 1,2009 @ 6:30PM
Ratings:-4+0
The West University Home Owners association sued for enforcement and was SHOT DOWN by the State Courts. Thus a few homes were destroyed, but guess what? They were rotting from the inside out. That is right, the climate change in Tucson was causing them to fall apart. If they had been inspected by a competent authority they would have been condemned. They were not and still are not, designed for permanent occupancy. Fortunately, I had a competent landlord who fixed problems before they started. We were lucky to have him and hopefully he still has the properties we rented as they would have been candidates for the next set of mini-dorms.
We've added a feature to the comments pages - the ability to easily add paragraph breaks, boldface type and a few other typographical aids to your comments. Launch toolbar
Use single or double carriage returns to put line breaks or paragraph breaks in your comments.
At the same time, we removed the ability to put HTML coding into the comments. People were misusing that feature by pulling in cartoons, photos and other copyrighted materials from publications elsewhere. We won't allow you to use our pages to violate other publications' copyrights.
We've added a story to the site that includes a few tips to resolve common problems. You can use the comment thread attached to that story for practice and testing of the markup tools: Go to story | Go to the practice thread
General Instructions
Welcome to the story comments section of StarNet. Here are some helpful hints with you:
You must be logged in to comment or rate comments. Log in or create an account through our registration system.
All comments are subject to our guidelines (listed below) and our user agreement.
Comment Reporting
You can report other users' comments that are in violation of the StarNet User Guidelines. Users are limited to three (3) reports per day and are not allowed to report their own comments.
Any comment that has been reported will be moderated by StarNet. The comment will either be approved or rejected. Approval or rejection is based solely on the StarNet User Guidelines. Comments are only able to be reported once and are not viewable while awaiting moderation.
If you are a registered site user and are logged in, you can vote thumbs up or thumbs down on the comments.
The total votes of approval and disapproval on that comment will be updated when you vote — including your vote and any other votes that have been cast since your browser last loaded this page.
Votes by users who have been banned from commenting don't count in the totals.
User Guidelines
We welcome your comments on articles, editorials, columns, other topics on StarNet or any subjects important to you. Commentary submitted to StarNet (www.azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in www.azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See terms of service for more information.
Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.
Don't violate other publications' copyrights.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. StarNet reserves the right to remove comments that violate our guidelines policy.
Josh Brodesky: UA-area sale has signs of new student 'community'
Is a student apartment complex in the works just north of the University of Arizona campus? It's hard to say, but it's certainly possible, and that has the few homeowners left in the north university neighborhood a little concerned.If anyone can put up a hideously over-scaled, cheaply built, poorly planned and poorly managed complex, the Goodman family can. I had the pleasure of one the Goodman projects next door to a nicely maintained rental I owned. Oversized for the lot, cheaply constructed, with far less on-site parking than needed, this was a problem from the start with parties, trash, and obnoxious tenants. The owners took little responsibility for maintaining the property or dealing with tenants. I eventually sold my property, but that street continues to decline, and the slumlords seem to be winning over conscientious property owners. Thinking back to how difficult it was for me to to deal with the city during my renovation of an existing, historic structure, and how easily the Goodmans were able to weasel through their plans, made me aware of the two-tier system between large and small property owners, and how the city has such a bad track record of proper planning and enforcement in the UA area.
Report this comment
We do need affordable student housing close to the university, but what is being built by Goodman and others is destroying the neighborhoods. These mini-dorms are not single families homes which the area is zoned.
Not all property north of the university are rentals. Many of us homeowners enjoy the diversity of the area. We as homeowners expect single family zoning laws to be upheld by city officials. We expect our property rights as owner occupied to be protected.
Goodman and others are pushing the limits of the law. They use their lawyers and power to find loop holes. When they are called into question they threaten lawsuits. They build whatever they can get away with. It seems all they truly care about is making money off of students.
We've begged for years for help in upholding the R1 zoning laws. No one hears us. For eight years and with Uhlich and Dunbar in office we've heard empty promises... Goodman can tear down what he wishes and build whatever he wants in its place... Meanwhile our property values drop and our standard of living goes from a quiet neighborhood to party central with increased crime, traffic, and trash....Then Goodman can pick-up more cheap houses as home owners are forced out.
Our house in Jefferson Park was bought in 1938 by my grandmother. We own another house in the area which was restored to its original condition and is now being rented by two grad students. I would like to know why Goodman's rights are protected and ours are not...
Build decent student housing on Grant and Speedway. Don't destroy neighborhoods and take away the other options such as single family homes for students. Please protect our property and our rights.
Report this comment
While I'm sympathetic to NUNA homeowners, this story is full of scurrilous innuendo and advice for nonexistent property owner/developers say for student apartments on Grant.
The real fact of the matter is that once the Univ. Medical Center was built N. of Speedway, and other UofA institutional buildings followed, wiping out hundreds of formerly single family homes which had become inexpensive student rentals, the students logically migrated a few more blocks to the North, and property owners between Drachman and Grant took advantage of the new market they represented. The changes in the 1st Ave./Euclid/Park alignments added to the change of neighborhoods between Grant and Speedway.
Maybe the homeowners who want to stay in this area should by glad they have students as neighbors, instead of the kinds of changes neighbors experienced in the Miracle Mile area, or in the neighborhoods N of Ft. Lowell between 1st and Stone?
Report this comment
Expect "concern" from Karen and the Nina soon. Immediately followed by approval.
Report this comment
Blame the City for failing to define "family" in the Land Use Code as pertaining to these mini-dorms. A family in the LUC is merely a group of people customarily living together, thus a minidorm is built as a sisngle family residence rather than an apartment which must have parking for each unit. I submit to you that a building with 16 students this semester, and 5 new ones next semester, and a whole other 16 next year is not a family customarily living together.
Other college communities define family as showing some commonality rather than just living together - all cars are registered at the address and insurance reflects the same address, all income tax is filed at the address (and not with mom and dad in another state), jobs held by any of the resident must show a permanent address at the residence, etc. When the City attorney in charge of LUC questions was told that this definition would be a good chance to manage the misuse of single family residences as minidorms, he responded that the Mayor and Council would not have the political will to maintain the definition in the LUC should a powerful local contributor to their campaigns wonder why his daughter couldn't live in the minidorm and be considered a part of that family rather than his own.
Report this comment
Many of us in Jefferson Park enjoy many aspects of living with students. Some act as house parents dealing with emergency repairs to air conditioners and help when locked out. We meet parents exchange numbers... We care. It is part of the charm.
What we do mind is the destruction of charming 1940s bungalows for 2 story yellow and green mini-dorms. The destruction and devaluation of property values due to the predatory practices of some builders. We have new homes being built which would rival houses in San Hughs... beautiful homes for single families purchased by doctors, teachers, etc...
No we do not live with the conditions in other areas of town... but similar to the foothills or other valued areas we expect zoning laws to be upheld and home owners' rights protected by those who serve us.
If I lived in the Stone and 1st area I, too, would expect elected officials to do their job, uphold the zoning laws, protect the rights of home owners, and resist the demands of a Goodman type.
It could be your neighborhood next....
Report this comment
The West University Home Owners association sued for enforcement and was SHOT DOWN by the State Courts. Thus a few homes were destroyed, but guess what? They were rotting from the inside out. That is right, the climate change in Tucson was causing them to fall apart. If they had been inspected by a competent authority they would have been condemned. They were not and still are not, designed for permanent occupancy. Fortunately, I had a competent landlord who fixed problems before they started. We were lucky to have him and hopefully he still has the properties we rented as they would have been candidates for the next set of mini-dorms.
Report this comment