Home > News > The 300-Foot Rule
The 300-Foot Rule
Special Coverage: Year in Review
BY DAYNA D. LANDGREBE
STATESMAN STAFF WRITER
ISSUE: 78/30
As the controversial battle for the 300-foot rule continues, a solution for the city’s ordinance is still being sought to solve the situation.
On Aug. 13, 2007, the Duluth City Council passed, with a 6-3 majority, an ordinance that stated no new single-family dwelling could be converted into a rental home within 300 feet of a previously existing rental. This ordinance would come to impact the future of rental housing for owners, landlords, students and renters.
While some of these single-family homes, also known as R-1s, are converted and rented to Duluth residents, many are rented out to students of the three growing colleges within Duluth. The intention of the 300-foot rule would apply only to R-1 housing zones, which essentially means residential areas, and not to zones including duplexes, apartments and commercial areas, according to the City of Duluth Web site. Many of these residential areas happen to fall into the greater campus areas near UMD and the College of St. Scholastica.
Since its induction, the ordinance, originally pioneered by City Councilor Jim Stauber, has gained significant debate from all parties involved.
According to Council minutes, the zoning ordinance was an effort to rework the changing characters of Duluth neighborhoods. Rentals are being turned from two bedrooms into five bedrooms. Streets have become crammed with extra vehicles and non-permanent residents, which are causing neighborhoods, mostly in residential areas, to devalue at an alarming rate.
During the fall, the Council also attempted to resolve the housing issue by instituting an amendment to a previous ordinance by redefining “family.” The aim of this amendment would be to lower the concentration of unrelated college students in traditionally family orientated neighborhoods. However, this idea was not around long.
Realtors,students, residents and landlords alike came to protest the proposed amendment on Sept. 3, 2007. And it worked. The Council killed the proposal in a 2-7 vote. Looking for new solutions over the year, the Council has continuously passed ideas back and forth but still no solid resolution has been reached.
Over the past winter, the Council voted against a resolution to approve a re-zoning petition of a water district (W-1), near Canal Park, to a one and two family residential district (R-1) according to the Jan. 28 minutes. Likewise, a rental moratorium area, or a specific renting zone similar to a “Dinkytown,” was suggested by the City Council near the colleges. However, the March 24 meeting denied a regulation to include that moratorium solely in the greater campus area, as stated by the minutes. The denial was based on the idea that a confined renting area wouldn’t solve the housing issue, but would only allow it to slowly spill into other neighborhoods.
Most recently, on April 28, the Council decided to consider some of the problems of the 300-foot rule at their May 12 meeting. Talks of the possible elimination of the rule have been discussed for the June 20 City Council meeting, according to the minutes.
