Your points are well-taken. I, myself, wonder about the legality of a law singling out such a narrow group of people. I also agree with point 3, that to some extent, college students add vibrancy to neighborhoods like Allston-Brighton and Mission Hill. But there does seem to be a tipping point. Limiting one house to four students instead of 12 may not necessarily change the general neighborhood dynamics and will certainly make life more pleasant for that house’s immediate neighbors.

On point 5, landlords may decide to convert their units over to multi-family housing, but they’ll need permits to do so, and that gives the city some control in regulating what’s going on. There may be fewer landlords willing to take the time and expense for such a conversion than we might imagine.

On point 6, Mission Hill has really improved in recent years. I was in the neighborhood the other day, marveling at whitewashed buildings that used to be covered in graffiti, and all the new businesses in the business district. I can see a huge appeal for this neighborhood for urbanites who want to stay close to their jobs in the Longwood Medical Area and have access to public transportation. If there are fewer students, I don’t think the neighborhood will fall apart. I think it will more or less follow the trajectory of Jamaica Plain or the South End, where professionals who are not ready for the suburbs move in, fix things up and continue the gentrification process. In fact, there are so many factors at work in this point, that it’s hard to make any predictions. With gas prices being what they are, I think places like Mission Hill and Allston-Brighton could be poised for a huge revival as people abandon the distant suburbs. It’s just too conveniently located to sink into oblivion — with or without students.

1) It’s might be good to ask if this law would have passed if it specified “immigrants” or “non-US citizens” instead of “undergraduates”. It’s a far less trivial distinction, at least in terms of legal status.

2) What qualifies someone as “living” at a location? College students frequently retain their parents’ address for voter registration, driver’s licence, etc., and use their school mailbox as a mailing address. It’s tough to argue sleeping in a spare bedroom for a semester counts as “residing”.

3) Student populations are no small part of Allston-Brighton’s recent return to desirability. Loud parties are going to be part of this gentrification process until the neighborhood becomes too expensive for students to afford.

4) On a related note, student housing is largely subsidized by parents, who can (generally speaking) afford to pay whatever the market demands. Since the price-per-resident of a 4-bedroom apt is generally higher than a 6-bed, this measure may end up raising rents, preventing the supposed influx of families from being able to afford the place.

5) If I were an Allston landlord with a substandard 6 bedroom house, rather than selling it (especially in this market), or trying to fix it up for families, I’d do a quickie conversion into two substandard three-bedroom apartments. I could still rent it to 6 students, just for hundreds of dollars more per month.

6) I’m skeptical that anyone who passed this law has ever been to Mission Hill. No family is going to walk through there and think “hey, this is a great place to raise a family now that the students are gone.” The undergrads forced out of there will be replaced by worse.