Over the past year, I have stood on the steps of countless party-hosting houses and watched as police, Hop Cops, angry neighbors and drunken, panicked students take part in the awkward dance that has recently become the focus of raging debates both on and off campus. Local residents are calling the police to rat out students who are getting wasted. The students are, in turn, frustrated with the administrators, who are making policies that try to appease the angry residents. It's a Dr. Seuss-style problem that's getting a Dr. Seuss-style answer, filled with strike systems, committees, task forces and lots of dizzy, late-night running around through Baltimore alleys.
So how do we sort through the mess? Students won't stop drinking, residents won't stop complaining and Hopkins has to be accountable for everyone's happiness and well-being. University administrators have made a clear effort to alleviate the increased amount of tension between students and local residents. However, new policies have targeted static issues such as student drinking and community sentiments, while the spike in disturbance complaints is a fairly recent trend. Administrators need to look not at static components of the situation, but two influential factors that have changed recently: party locations and property values.
During the past two years, Pike, Wawa, Fiji, Phi Psi, Sigma Chi, Beta and AEPi moved to new houses. Additionally, new generations of party hosts are moving into the community each year, drastically changing the landscape of noise disturbance. Many residents woke up this past September to find themselves next to a new favorite party spot, and they're just not thrilled. In fact, they're turning out to be angry and intensely proactive in returning their block to its old, more tranquil status quo. They are far less complacent than residents who moved to a block knowing about pre-existing noise problems or those who have lived near a popular party spot for an extended period of time.
Rather than trying to curb the prevalence or intensity of student-hosted parties, which are two long-engrained and stable factors of student life, the University should try to alleviate tensions by readjusting the locations of parties. This could be accomplished by developing a fraternity row or otherwise centralizing student parties. Efforts to bring student partying to the Hop Stop or other on-campus locations, however, will continue to be relatively ineffective as long as the University continues to push policies that harshly penalize underage drinking.
The other largely ignored factor contributing to the increase in community complaints is the dramatic increase in property values. With the impending completion of the Charles Commons project and development of Charles Village's commercial district, local property values have been increasing at unprecedented rates. Along with this value increase comes the inevitable rise in quality-of-life standards. And, as the neighborhood becomes safer and cleaner, community organizations have more time to focus on other disruptions such as unruly, drunken students.
There is no active "solution" that Hopkins can administer to such a situation. It really isn't even a problem, per se; it's local residents exercising their right to live in a peaceful neighborhood. Rather, the University should recognize that its investment in the community is significant. Hopkins should refrain from bending over backwards and spending tuition dollars to appease residents who are already reaping phenomenal rewards from the University's presence.
The increased volume of police intervention and resulting negative repercussions for students indicate that whatever committees, task forces, coalitions or liaisons Hopkins has put together simply aren't working. They're not working because those efforts have focused on altering factors that are very difficult to change, such as student drinking, or implemented solutions such as "community dialogue" that don't clearly target the actual problem of noise disturbance.
By looking at the most fundamental causes of community anxiety and understanding the changing desires and capabilities of Charles Village residents, Hopkins administrators could develop policies that address student-resident disputes far more effectively and efficiently than the current policies do.
- --Naomi Garland is a junior public health major from Seattle, Wa.
