Opinion: No Need for 'Animal House' Ordinance

You don’t need to be a rowdy, party-hard Seton Hall student to have concerns over the new village ordinance passed last week, placing landlords at risk of fines for “quality-of-life” violations by tenants.

However, as a student who moved into an apartment building near Vose Avenue in July, the notion that the ordinance is aimed at curtailing issues with university students is enough to worry me, especially as fall semester approaches.

When I first visited the apartment, a studio where I live alone, I informed the landlady of my full-time student status. Her questions were targeted: Are you somewhat neat and clean? Are you quiet?

For the most part, I spend eight to 12 hours at the university every weekday. The closest that I come to hosting a party is having three or four friends visit to catch a Mets game.

But now I am concerned that, with the ordinance in place, any minor incident could lead to a problem. Playing music a bit too loud or having five or six friends over may lead not to the typical landlady-to-tenant warning, but to more drastic and immediate action.

I am baffled as to how the South Orange Trustees can find this ordinance fair. The details of the ordinance obviously target college students; how can any new law dubbed the “Animal House” ordinance by some village residents not seem to  punish those from the university? Some believe this notion is enough to throw out the ordinance on grounds of discrimination, and I tend to agree. 

Besides that argument, two gaping omissions in the Board of Trustees’ decision remain. First, a local owner, Elaine Harris, pointed out there was no data presented to the public supporting the claim of past incidents that has led to this ordinance. If Seton Hall students are out of control, where are the police reports to show the extent of the problem?

Second, and more worrisome, is that the board cited landlords as being the only ones who “can effectively remedy the situation.” If the landlords begin to feel the heat from the village, you can expect them to react swiftly. After all, I think it’s clear that all landlords will protect their jobs, families and livelihoods while also steering clear of hefty fines–and rightfully so.

I’d be the last to say that many of the listed infractions of the ordinance–from public urination to crimes against property–should continue to occur. 

But if village officials want to find a solution to problems with college students, they must go back to the source: in Seton Hall itself. For Trustee Mark Rosner to say that the dialogue with university administrators has not yielded results is no excuse to stop trying.

Article 4.1.4 of Seton Hall’s latest Strategic Plan draft, available for current students to view online, states the university’s goal to “partner with the Village of South Orange to encourage a ‘college town’ atmosphere that supports student engagement.” Meanwhile, article 3.3.3 calls for an increase of students on or within the “direct vicinity of campus.”

The ordinance adopted by the Board of Trustees, essentially, puts both these Strategic Plan articles in a state of flux. That should make the university administration frustrated, if it isn’t already, on behalf of its students.

With these notions in mind, it may be time for Seton Hall to step up–and, equally, for the Board of Trustees to compromise on crafting a different, less targeted, ordinance.

Maybe then I won’t wonder if my move out of my parents’ Central Jersey home and into South Orange was a mistake.

Editor's note: Brian Wisowaty is a Seton Hall student, sports director for WSOU 89.5 FM, managing editor of The Setonian, and a regular Patch contributor.