St. Paul Neighborhoods Debate Student Housing Moratorium Amidst Growing Concerns & City Policy Questions
A heated debate is unfolding in St. Paul’s Macalester-Groveland and West Summit neighborhoods over a proposed moratorium on new student housing developments. Driven by resident concerns about neighborhood character, increased density, and strain on local resources, the proposal highlights a complex interplay between the needs of students, the desires of long-term residents, and the city’s broader housing goals. This article delves into the core issues, the positions of key stakeholders, and the potential future of student housing in this vibrant area of the city.
The Resident Push for a Pause
For nearly a year, residents have been voicing increasing anxieties about the rapid construction of student housing, notably near the University of St.Thomas. The West Summit Neighborhood Advisory Council initially supported a moratorium, aiming to halt new construction while the city re-evaluates the existing “Student Overlay District” regulations. this district, established in 2004, allows for increased density in areas surrounding the university, intended to accommodate student housing needs.
However, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council (Mac-Groveland CC) ultimately did not endorse the moratorium. “The voices that were coming through were the voices for the need for housing, not a moratorium,” explained Laura Wallace, Executive Director of the Mac-Groveland CC. This divergence underscores the broader tension between addressing the city’s housing shortage and preserving the established character of residential neighborhoods.
Residents have organized multiple community meetings, drawing significant attendance – between 75 and 150 people at each event – and engaged directly with local political representatives. They’ve presented their concerns to Ward 4 Council Member Nels Coleman, who, while not endorsing a moratorium, acknowledged the validity of issues like increased noise, parking difficulties, and pedestrian safety concerns related to the influx of students.
Frustration has also been expressed regarding a perceived lack of responsiveness from Ward 3 Council Member Saura Jost, with organizers stating she has not responded to numerous communications. Jost clarified that 2133 Selby Ave., the focal point of much of the discussion, falls outside her ward, but acknowledged a small portion of the overlay district lies within Ward 3.
University of st. Thomas’ Perspective
The University of St. thomas has not formally taken a position on the moratorium proposal, but has actively facilitated community discussions, which residents like flanigan have found constructive. The university is actively seeking to expand on-campus housing options, recognizing the benefits for both students and the surrounding neighborhoods.
“Our overall student population has held steady in recent years, and our residence halls are currently at capacity,” stated Jerome Benner, a spokesperson for St. Thomas. “We are seeing growing demand from students who want to live on campus, and we believe expanding on-campus housing would benefit both students and the neighborhood, as well as contribute to the city’s broader effort to increase housing availability.”
However, the university faces significant hurdles. Benner explained that current city regulations regarding building heights, campus boundaries, and the existing Conditional Use Permit (dating back to 2004) severely limit their ability to expand on-campus housing. This regulatory framework,they argue,is hindering their ability to address the growing demand for student accommodation.
A Critical Look at the Student Overlay District & City Council Positions
The debate extends beyond simply pausing construction; it’s prompting a re-evaluation of the essential principles behind the Student Overlay District. Former interim Ward 4 Council Member Matt Privratsky, in a detailed written statement released earlier this year (https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/Statement%20from%20Councilmember%20Matt%20Privratsky%20about%20changes%20to%20the%20Student%20Overlay.pdf), raised serious concerns about the legality and overall effectiveness of the overlay district.
Privratsky, consulting with legal and policy experts, suggested the district may be unconstitutional or, at the very least, represent poor public policy. He argued against regulating residents’ living arrangements based solely on their student status, emphasizing the importance of equitable housing policies.
Furthermore, Privratsky highlighted a crucial economic benefit of these new developments: “
