I am a Macalester student who lives off-campus. A student whose friends often reside in unsafe, sub-standard off-campus housing. I am also a student who is fascinated with the creation and implementation of laws that equitably address community needs.

Perhaps you will affirm my exasperation then, upon hearing Council Member Jay Benanav’s “Student Housing Ordinance” that would restrict “student housing” to one per 350 meters.

Benanav claims that his aim is to respond to two kinds of community concerns. First, (oftentimes absentee) landlords who rent unsafe houses to students who have no choice but to accept these terms. Second, that there is a lifestyle clash between students and other neighborhood residents. Presumably, an unacceptable number of students host disruptive parties.

The plan that Benanav proposes, however, would not solve either problem. It would not improve students’ bargaining power vis-a-vis neglectful landlords. It would also substantially increase drunken driving; many students who would have walked to parties closer by will drive to them instead.

Most problematically of all, the proposed ordinance would disintegrate college communities like Macalester, whose intellectual rigor relies on students living close together. These communities bring substantial intellectual, social, cultural and economic benefits to the Twin Cities. In the long run, the Cities as a whole would lose part of their charm.

At a community meeting hosted by Macalester last week, many more pertinent alternatives were suggested. I like this one: the proper enforcement of landlord licensing. Landlords must construct leases that a) ensure tenants’ right to a safe and usable living space and b) clearly state students’ responsibilities as residents of the neighborhood. It is the landlords’ responsibility to ensure that both students’ rights and duties are met. It must be the city’s responsibility to monitor landlords’ compliance.

Our professors teach us that effective laws balance equity with efficiency. Councilmember Benanav’s suggestion introduces unnecessary bureaucracy. It punishes students for landlords’ negligence. It clearly fails both criteria.