Studentification laws are flawed and impractical
If there’s one thing that has annoyed me in the last two years, it’s the increasing ridiculous stereotype of the student, which seems to haunt me at every turn. No Christmas holiday goes by without my uncle mentioning I must be enjoying the dinner he’s cooked as everyone knows all students exist entirely off a diet of pizzas and pot noodles. I politely inform him that I’ve never eaten pot noodle, imbibed my weight in lager nightly or refused to wash my bedsheets for months.
In short, I am not this grotesque slob whom it appears most people believe occupies every university in the country. I am just a regular human being, with normal eating, washing and (mostly) drinking habits. For this reason I found myself once again disappointed by the news that the government wish to limit student accommodation. “They think we’re all monsters,” I moaned into my cup of Earl Grey.
But contrary to popular belief, the government aren’t afraid that certain areas of cities will be overrun by wild students. The fear instead is one stereotype which we’re all guily of; we all go home fom time to time. They worry that student exodus the during holidays turns whole areas of university cities into ghost towns.
It is a legitimate point. I arrived in York a month before term started, and from the lack of friends about it would seem that the number of empty houses in the city of York between the months of July to October is pretty high. The government claims that this is just not acceptable, and certainly not when whole areas are left empty throughout the summer months. Apparently unoccupied houses just don’t look as pretty as occupied ones and empty houses can lead to an increase of petty crime and vandalism.
Yet it seems completely absurd to legislate in an attempt to sort out this problem, particularly in places like York which already have a very limited amount of student friendly areas. We’re spreading ourselves out as well as we can, but as most of us have no access to a mode of transport more advanced than a bicycle, there are very few places that make sense to live in. Vandalism may well increase in areas with unoccupied houses, but the vandals won’t suddenly forget their urge to destroy when they see that there are lights on in all the buildings.
Nor can you rely on aestheticism to strengthen your argument. ‘To let’ signs are a bit ugly, and if you haven’t trimmed the hedges for a while because you’ve not been living there for a few months your house might look a bit neglected, but can we really put ‘prettiness’ ahead of our right to live wherever we want to live? We need a roof over our heads. I mean, how else will we be able to watch Neighbours twice a day?
Leave a Reply
Related Posts
Popular This Week
Polls
Loading ...