The Arizona Daily Star’s banner headline on Sunday was “Luxury for students”.  The article by Carli Broseau focused on a run-down (no pun intended) of the development that is in full swing or being planned in and around downtown Tucson and The University of Arizona.

For a few years now, UA officials have been predicting a stampede of future college students coming to Tucson. This rosy forecast has caused developers, restaurateurs, bar owners, and local politicians to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs at the mere thought of 1000s of frolicking students flooding downtown and 4th Ave., armed with Daddy’s credit cards. Regardless of political party, the Mayor and City Council members– eager to see downtown revitalization before their next elections– have vigorously promoted student housing as a panacea for what ails downtown.

Historically, The Tucson Progressive has been highly skeptical of this purported cure-all for Tucson’s sluggish economy– particularly in light of the high rental vacancy rate and the UA’s ever-increasing tuition. I have questioned the wisdom of knocking down historic homes and destroying our city’s character to speculatively build mini-dorms for future students. Republican and Democratic city officials alike told me not to worry; if we build it, they will come.

Brosseau’s article about speculative maxi-dorm development has moved me from skeptical to being scared. She details the astonishing amount of maxi-dorm development being planned or constructed in and around downtown; 2092 student housing “beds” — in three large developments– are under construction, with another three projects (consisting of 342 beds) poised to start soon. Just a year ago, the Arizona Daily Star reported that the new influx of students may result in an additional 1200 students living downtown. The District on 5th alone– that collection of ugly, giant boxes on 6th St, just off of 4th Ave– offers 756 “beds”. (Seriously, couldn’t they have hired an architect with some sensitivity to the historic character of the neighborhoods nearby?)

You’ll note the use of the term “beds” and not rooms or apartments. I foolishly thought that when UA officials and politicians talked about privately funded student housing development downtown they meant apartments– that could be rented by students or others wanting to live where the action is. But no. The District and other maxi-dorm developments are dormitories– not apartments. From the Star…

Student housing is different from traditional apartment living.

Students rent by the bed, not the unit, [I wonder what the square footage is?] and complexes have far more common space for amenities than would pencil out financially for an apartment complex.

The rooms typically are furnished, and each bed generally is paired with its own bathroom and shared space. Amenities like pools, fitness centers and study spaces are expected – the most valued extra, a 2009 University of Arizona market study found, is tanning beds.

After that study concluded that 2,000 to 5,000 more beds were needed, local developers and national powerhouses have rushed to put together deals. They’re motivated by typically higher profits than traditional apartment complexes, long-term population growth and student enrollment projections and the modern streetcar, now under construction, that will link the UA to downtown. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, if the students decide not to rent the bedroom/bath units in these complexes or if students don’t come here in the predicted droves, these buildings could have lots of empty bedrooms. No adult in their right mind would rent a bedroom downtown for the price of an apartment or small house elsewhere in the city ($350-1027/month). In fact, about 20 inches into Brosseau’s story, she quotes a 2009 UA market study that says close to half of the UA’s students don’t rent units in large complexes like the maxi-dorms. Imagine that.

To make the situation even more disturbing, Brosseau says that the UA is now “backing away from earlier enrollment projections of a 12.5 percent increase over the next five years.” Uh, oh.

Is downtown going to be dotted with hulking, empty dormitories… or worse… more dirt lots waiting for development?

Post script: I don’t mean to dis Broseau’s well-crafted and informative article, but wasn’t there any real news to print on the front page with a four-column, full-color photo and 80 point headline?

Each August Tucson– like college towns nationwide– sees a flurry of activity as students move back to town and scramble to find lodging.

In recent years, local mini-dorm developers have gone wild– buying up cheap houses (thanks to record foreclosures and a glut of houses for sale), unceremoniously leveling the said houses, and constructing mini-dorms– the scurge of Tucson’s University-area neighborhoods.

This year– with a 15.9 percent rental vacancy rate– Tucson is a renters’ market. For rent signs abound. Good for students and other renters. Not so good for landlords and mini-dorm developers.

Back in April, I pondered the fate of the mini-dorm market– given dramatic hikes in tuition at The University of Arizona. Tucson’s recent designation as the “sickest housing market in the US”, its recent designation as the most impoverished city in the Sunbelt, and its glut of unrented rentals make my question even more poignant: Will mini-dorms become empty monuments to greed?

How much you wanna bet that mini-dorm developers Michael Goodman and Richard Studwell try to sell these architectural behemoths to the city when they can’t rent them?

Adobe casita in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

When we first went house-hunting in Tucson in the early 1980s, our realtor thought we were crazy because we wanted a house with architectural style and wooden floors. Having lived in Columbus’ city core in an old Victorian-era brick double, we didn’t realize what a tall order this was in Tucson, our new home.

We spent several weeks driving around older neighborhoods in July in our AC-free Toyota Corolla with Judy (our chain-smoking realtor) and our baby daughter searching for style, affordability, and a house worth the sweat equity we were going to have to invest. We finally settled on a California Bungalow handyman special in the Pie Allen Neighborhood, priced at $34,000– the cost of some new vehicles today.

If Judy thought we were crazy while we were house-hunting, she probably really thought we were nuts when we bought that place, but we saw style and potential in that little house with the inviting front porch, the volcanic rock columns, the cozy fireplace flanked by wooden built-ins, and the large back yard– ready for a swing set and sandbox. Little did we know we were downtown pioneers before downtown was hip.

Thirty years later, many other urban pioneers have joined the struggle to breathe life into Tucson’s older neighborhoods and help downtown become livable and even fashionable.

At yesterday’s City Council Meeting, historic preservationists in Tucson won a major battle against the mini-dorm industry. The Council approved the Neighborhood Preservation Zone (NPZ) overlay for the Jefferson Park Neighborhood. The NPZ will restrict mini-dorm development by limiting the scale of new construction, making it more difficult to build a second story and limiting the size of a building to no more than 35 percent of the lot size. This is the second NPZ the Council has approved– the first being the Feldman Neighborhood NPZ in 2009, which developers are fighting.

This week, Tucson is hosting historic preservation conference, which will include a heritage discussion on Wednesday, June 22 at Hotel Congress.

Also, this week, a new guide to historic homes in Tucson was published.

Next week, at the June 28 City Council Meeting, the Council will consider a proposal to amend the sign code protect and preserve historic landmark signage older than 1975. Although I am a bit concerned about inclusion of “transitional” signage between 1961-1974 in this amendment, I think it is a worthwhile effort to protect the funky neon signs that mark Tucson’s past as a motor hotel haven.

With this volume of preservation activity, will Tucson save its unique architecture and sense of place? I hope so.  I don’t want developers to make Tucson into a place where there is no there there. I still remember the July thunderstorm clouds gathering over the old courthouse’s mosaic dome and the reflection of the Tucson Inn sign in the swimming pool that night in 1981 when we first visited Tucson.

Wooden doors in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Crumbling adobe home in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

El Rapido sign in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Fireplace with nichos in an old adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The old Corner Market in downtown awaits TLC. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Inviting entrance to restored downtown adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

View from Pima Canyon (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Late April in Baja Arizona… ahhh… the weather is gorgeous, the skies are blue, plants are springing back to life, and community events pack the weekends. If Baja Arizona has such an luscious environment and close-knit, eclectic community, why is it that the natives are often weary and depressed this time of year?

Why? Because by late April we have been pummeled by the Arizona Legislature for nearly four months.

With Russell Pearce as president of the Arizona Senate, 2011 has been a particularly rough year: corporate tax cuts, birther bills, guns-for-everyone-everywhere bills, anchor baby bills, everyone-should-be-a-border-patrol-agent bills, and a who-needs-education-or-healthcare-or-parks-when-you-got-prisons budget. Heavy sigh… (Wait a minute… did I miss something? Was there a jobs bill proposed this session?)

Down here in Baja Arizona, we have been repeatedly and unfairly targeted by the Arizona Legislature. I’ve lost track of all of the specifically anti-Tucson or anti-Pima County legislation that is winding its way through the rented halls of the Arizona Legislature. Some of the most egregious bills were sponsored by or promoted by one of our one Baja Arizona Senators– Frank “let’s-shoot-varmints-in-the-night” Antenori.

Now that Governor Jan Brewer has stood up to the Arizona Legislature and actually VETOED two of the crazier bills– guns near campuses and the birther bill– I’m hoping she’ll keep going. Governor, there are many more bills worthy of your veto pen!

Let’s make this easy and not confuse the situation with lots of numbers … Jan, honey, pretty please veto anything in these categories…trust me… you can do it!

1. Anything proposed by Antenori. This includes his bills to give Pima County infrastructure to the town of Marana and his plans to become king of Tucson by regulating how many employees the city can hire and which contracts go out for bid. (Last time I checked, Antenori didn’t hold any elected offices in our city or county government.)
2. Anything that is discriminatory against a group or individual. In addition to all of the anti-children, anti-sick people, and anti-immigrant legislation, this category would include all of the anti-Tucson and anti-Pima County legislation not proposed by our so-called Senator (see #1). It also would include Pearce’s obvious political ploy to give millions of dollars to Maricopa and Pinal Counties for border security but leaves out Pima County (which actually borders Mexico) because he doesn’t like our sheriff.
3. Anything that is none of the Legislature’s business.
   3a. The Legislature has no business sticking its nose into the management of University Medical Center, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, or the newly formed UA Healthcare (HB2067). Would you want Pearce or Antenori deciding who should get medical care and what care should be given? Oops… that’s right. Arizona’s Death Panels have been hard at work destroying healthcare in our state. Don’t let them take over one of out best hospitals! Doctors and professional healthcare administrators should run healthcare institutions– not wacky ideologues.
   3b. The Legislature has no business dictating the types of housing that can be built in Tucson. HB 2005 (AKA the Mini-Dorm Proliferation Act of 2011) states that when a municipality has issued a building permit for construction of a residential structure located within two miles of either a military base or a state-owned educational facility (such as the University of Arizona), then any use of the structure for residential purposes under one lease agreement by members of the U.S. Military or by faculty, employees or students of the educational facility is deemed to be in accordance with zoning regulations (regardless of how the area is really zoned). To make matters worse, the amendment is retroactive to Jan 1, 2010 OR the issuance of the permit, whichever came first. In other words, it would allow MINI-DORMS to be legal in R-1 and R-2 zoned areas! This bill is to be voted on soon by the Senate.
4. Anything that would cut jobs instead of creating jobs. OK… sorry, Jan, I tried to trick you on this one because NONE of the Legislation suggested by the majority party this session creates a single job but several pieces of legislation will actually increase unemployment– particularly the cuts to healthcare and education– or hurt workers.
5. Anything that is the responsibility of another branch of government. The Arizona Legislature has a particularly “all knowing” aura about it this year. Not only are they taking on tasks that belong to the federal government (like immigration and border security), they are taking on tasks that belong to the cities and counties (as mentioned above).

You’re the decider, Jan. Please?

Dear Readers, there are several things you can do to maybe influence the final votes of this legislative session. Here are links to contact information for Senate members and House members. Bug them!

You also can sign Councilman Steve Kozachik’s keep-your-stinkin’-hands-off Tucson petition. Go, Koz, thanks for standing up to your own party to protect the rights of Baja Arizona!

Mini-dorm in the Feldman Neighborhood. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Michael Goodman, Richard Studwell, and other local developers have been merrily knocking down old houses and replacing them with mini-dorms for years now. They saw dollar signs when the University of Arizona announced that it would increase enrollment gradually from 38,000 to nearly 50,000 students but wouldn’t have enough dormitories to house them.

In addition to the mini-dorms, developers have proposed building multiple large dormitories in downtown Tucson.

Enter the Arizona Legislature to mess things up for these local businessmen.

The latest proposed budget cuts millions more from all levels of education, including $92 million from the UA budget. To make up part of that loss, the UA wants to raise tuition…again. From the Arizona Daily Star…

The University of Arizona wants to increase base tuition and fees for Arizona students by $1,790 next year, a 22 percent hike [for in-state students].

If the proposal is accepted by the Arizona Board of Regents, the UA will have nearly doubled tuition and mandatory fees in six years as it uses more tuition revenue to cover increasing expenses and lost state support.

The increase would raise $22 million in extra tuition revenue for the UA. Gov. Jan Brewer has proposed a $67 million budget cut for the UA next year, and state Senate leaders have proposed a $92 million cut. The UA would make up the balance of the deficit through reduced spending and use of federal stimulus dollars.

Students would pay just over $10,000 next year, up from about $8,200 this year. Students also pay additional tuition and fees for particular programs, classes and services.

The UA has raised tuition– due to budget cuts– 24 of the past 25 years. Including the new proposed tuition increase, tuition at Arizona universities has increased 58 to 64 percent since the 2007-08 school year, depending on the campus. At what point will the UA become unaffordable for most Arizona high school graduates? Or is it already?

As tuition skyrockets, the Arizona Legislature may accomplish something the Tucson Mayor and Council have grappled with for years– stopping the spread of mini-dorms.

That 50,000 student enrollment figure is looking more like pie in the sky everyday, if the UA can’t get reliable funding from the state. If I were Goodman and Studwell, I’d be riding to Phoenix with UA President Robert Shelton to lobby Governor Jan Brewer to veto the budget as it currently stands. Remember her? She’s the one who says she values education. Now is the time for her actions to match her PR. With that veto pen, she has the opportunity to be both education friendly and business friendly.

1036 E. Waverly St.-- an old house being destroyed by Michael Goodman. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Approximately 50-60 Tucsonans — representing several neighborhoods, including Jefferson Park, Feldman, Palo Verde, El Rio, and others– gathered Friday evening to morn the destruction of yet another old house (above).

Mini-dorm developer Michael Goodman and two squad cars of Tucson Police watched as neighbors sang, read poetry, and gave speeches decrying the destruction of older neighborhoods which are being scared with mini-dorms. Goodman tried to disrupt the gathering before it started by parking his big truck in front of the house where the protest was to be held. Luckily, one of the protesters got there before he did and parked in front. This allowed neighbors to set up large signs reading “Tucson has cancer” and “Pure Greed” in front of the demolition site

Police cars blocked East Waverly Street at both ends– even though the event was entirely peaceful. This most likely stopped some people from attending the event. Police also told the neighbors that they had to end the event by 7 p.m.– allowing only a half hour for the vigil. (I’ll give you one guess who called the cops.) The police presence was totally unnecessary. Why don’t the police break up the infamous mini-dorm parties?

The entire vigil is captured on the video below. At about 4 minutes you can see Tucson Police officers questioning neighborhood activist Bob Schlanger. They tried to intimidate him by asking for his identification, birthdate, etc. His reply was that he didn’t need an ID to walk down the street in his own neighborhood. (I guess he doesn’t realize he lives in Arizona.)

At about 9.5 minutes, in the video Schlanger gives a speech about activism against mini-dorm construction and the destruction of older neighborhoods in Tucson. In his speech, Schlanger announced that the city approved the building plans for 1036 E. Waverly. The single-family home above will be replaced with a seven-bedroom mini-dorm. This is a rooming house– not a single family home.

One question I have is: If this neighborhood and other neighborhoods in Tucson are plumbed for single-family homes, what happens to that infrastructure when the single-family homes are replaced large apartment buildings and rooming houses?

Don’t forget to voice your opinion about mini-dorms with the poll attached to this article.

Mini-dorm in the Feldman Neighborhood. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The destruction of historic neighborhoods to create mini-dorm villages near the University of Arizona has been a hot topic on this blog, on Facebook, and on the JOLT (KJLL, 1330 AM) this week.

The JOLT’s John C. Scott conducted multiple interviews with Jefferson Park neighbors, developers, and Councilman Steve Kozachik on this topic.

I was heartened to hear Kozachik tell the JOLT audience that he believes the current mini-dorm construction is not in keeping with the intent of the single-family zoning laws, that he feels the scale and design of the buildings in the Feldman and Jefferson Park Neighborhoods do not blend well with the existing homes in these older neighborhoods, and that he supports future mini-dorm development along major arterials– rather than in neighborhoods. Kozachik also announced on Thursday on The JOLT that he planned to organize a meeting amongst the stakeholders.

Jefferson Park leaders reminded the JOLT audience that mini-dorms can be built on any single family lot. One is currently being constructed near Blacklidge and Country Club.

For those of you not familiar with these neighborhoods and how they are changing, I shot video footage yesterday which shows an entire block of the Feldman Neighborhood that has been destroyed and rebuilt. Don’t forget the candlelight vigil tonight (Friday, January 7) at 1036 E. Waverly at 6:30 p.m.

1036 E. Waverly St.-- an old house being destroyed by Michael Goodman. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

A full hour of yesterday’s John C. Scott Show on the JOLT (KJLL 1330AM) was devoted to promoting the value of mini-dorms. Ick. (Hopefully, they had to pay for this lengthy advertorial on mini-dorms. If not, the JOLT missed an opportunity to make some serious change.)

Michael Goodman, Richard Studwell, and another developer chatted on the radio about the selfless community service they provide by knocking down old houses in historic neighborhoods and replacing them with mini-dorms for UA students.

Their schtick is that since the state of Arizona is too poor to build student housing, big-hearted developers– like them– must come to the rescue and build mini-dorms. Not enough student housing has been a long-term problem at the UA. Since the state makes money on students living in dorms, I don’t understand why the UA rarely builds them– unless, of course, the developers lobby the state not to build dorms. (After all, dorms would cut into their action.)

The latest flash point of mini-dorm construction is in the Jefferson Park Neighborhood (between Campbell and Park, south of Grant). On the radio yesterday, the developers’ contention was that the Jefferson Park is a ramshackled neighborhood of decaying 1950s ranch houses that have no architectural value. They said that many of the houses are so far gone that they can’t be renovated and should be torn down and replaced with mini-dorms.

They also tried to paint the neighborhood activists who oppose the rape of their neighborhood and demolition of family homes as small group of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) kooks who don’t like living near noisy college students.

Territorial style house directly across the street from the demolished house which will soon be a mini-dorm. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

To fact-check their statements on the radio, I drove around Jefferson Park on my way home yesterday.

Yes, there are some rundown rentals– as there are in all midtown and downtown neighborhoods in Tucson, thanks to local slumlords. (BTW, City Council Members, isn’t there something you can do about slumlords who allow their unkempt properties to blight our older neighborhoods?)

The majority of the Jefferson Park houses were well-kept older homes with mature vegetation. There was a mix of 1930s Territorial style homes and 1950s brick bungalows. I didn’t see any traditional ranch houses, as there are on the east side. The houses on East Waverly Street that surround 1036 (above), which is being demolished by Goodman, are all very nice. It’s sad that this residential street filled with well-appointed older homes will be plagued with the blemish of a mini-dorm.

Another Territorial style house on East Waverly, near the new mini-dorm site. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Many long-time Tucsonans lament the loss of Barrio Viejo historic homes that were demolished when the Tucson Convention Center was built. I believe that in 10 years when the mini-dorms are crumbling we will lament the loss of historic homes in the city’s core.

Don’t forget the candlelight vigil in front of 1036 E. Waverly on Friday, January 7 at 6:30 p.m. Also, don’t forget to take the mini-dorm poll.