“The city responded to concerns over neighborhoods with single-family homes being converted to rental properties catering to college students, which can lead to complaints over parking, noisy parties and other issues.”
The issues complained about by the we-know-what’s-best-for-your-private-property city officials are issues for public safety officials and one’s they can easily deal with. None of them require what amounts to a taking of private property.
It would seem that the same city officials complaining about the % of single family houses being rented, have, through restrictive zoning practices, discouraged more multi-unit housing, of the kind that would probably better serve the students.
Of course, on the other side, they are likely dealing also with the issue that they get no property tax revenue from the colleges (I suspect).
Frankly I’m for changing the meaning of “tax exempt/non-profit”; that it should be changed to mean any organization that does not charge any fees for it’s services (it exists on donations or membership dues alone). The educational industrial complex has grown arrogant, fat, lazy, extravagant, politically biased and expensive on its “tax exempt” privileges.
That re-defining of ‘exempt’ organizations is a terrific idea. It should go for gov’ts as well. :-)