From noise ordinances and liquor licenses to parking meters and rent control, the College Park City Council makes plenty of decisions that affect students’ lives on a daily basis. It only seems fair, then, that students play a part in deciding who holds elected office. During city elections on Nov. 8, they’ll get their chance.
Well, sort of.
The good news is all eight positions in the city’s four districts are up for grabs next month. The bad news is only 10 candidates are registered to run, meaning voters in District 2 and District 4 don’t really have a choice because those positions go unopposed. District 1 comprises northern College Park neighborhoods where relatively few students reside, so District 3 — which covers student-saturated areas such as Old Town, Fraternity Row and South Campus Commons — is the only race where students have a real chance to affect the outcome.
Despite a commendable effort by the “TerpsVote” coalition — comprised of the Student Government Association, MaryPIRG, College Democrats and College Republicans — to register about 750 students for this year’s municipal elections, it seems highly unlikely the student vote will play a part in shaping the future of College Park. At least, that is, not this year.
Registering 750 student voters is much easier than persuading 750 students to vote. Only about 130 voted in the last city election in 2009, and no more than 50 voted in 2007. Student turnout is on the rise, but as District 4 Councilman Marcus Afzali noted, “[there are] more students living in College Park than ever before,” so it’s difficult to tell if the participation rate has actually changed.
Another roadblock in getting more students to the polls is the current layout of the city’s districts. On-campus students are split between three separate districts, so even if students do manage to vote in significant numbers, their votes are likely to be offset by permanent residents. Last October, College Park Mayor Andy Fellows — who is running unopposed in the upcoming election — suggested the creation of a fifth district, which would encompass the campus and unify the student vote. Members of the city council shot him down, though, claiming there wouldn’t be enough time to draw some new lines on the city map before this fall’s elections.
Additionally, there aren’t many candidates who will truly represent students. Afzali, unopposed in this election, ran while a doctoral candidate in 2009 but has since graduated. He also grew up in College Park, which many would argue makes him more of a resident representative than a voice for students. Although some council members claim to have students’ best interests at heart, the entire city would benefit greatly from having at least one entirely student perspective on the council.
If students and activist groups want to have a serious effect on the future of College Park, there needs to be a unified effort that extends far beyond voter registration. The groups behind TerpsVote should work toward the creation of an all-student district and encourage viable student candidates to run: If there are multiple students in every municipal election, undergraduates will be more inclined to vote. City elections could become a rallying point and source of pride for students who see one of their own on the ballot.
College Park isn’t a large city, so the numbers required to put a candidate in office can be surprisingly low: In 2009, the highest vote total among all elected council members was 341. In 2007, a university student lost a special election in District 4 by only 79 votes.
Whether we realize it or not, many permanent residents see students as little more than a boisterous mass of drunkards — a nuisance to be squeezed of sales tax revenue and pushed out of the city’s residential neighborhoods. There are about 37,000 students at this university; we should be able to muster a couple seats on the city council.
It may be too late to make that happen in 2011, but if student groups such as TerpsVote start planning now, perhaps we can be the ones making decisions in 2013.
