restricting unrelated "family" in single family housing
David P. Fraleigh
My city has an ordinance that limits the number of unrelated persons
living within a single family zoned home to only three.. I have read that
the courts in at least six states have invalidated similar ordinances on
constitutional grounds... (I think that it was mainly on their individual
state constitutional "due process" grounds)... Does anyone out there know
specifically what states have done so... and what (if anything) these
localities where such ordinances have been invalidated have done as a
consequence.. ?
--
fly...@ism.net
In our state the state human rights commission told communities they
could not discriminate based on familial status...also, our constitution
in our state has a stronger right of privacy than the us constitution.
fly...@ism.net
our community has had lots of experience with this kind of addition to
zoning law...here it used to be no more than 2 unrelated
people..etc..etc..it's next to impossible to enforce, it's
discrimination, pure and simple.....the question is what are we doing
now that we no longer have a deffinition of family in our zoning
ordinence??...well, first we have idendified why it was there in the
first place(supposidly out of fear and concern that single family homes
would be turned into boarding houses and crammed full of students and
low income people, thus devaluing neighboring properties)...once we id'd
the reasons it was in place we looked at existing ordinences to see if
any of those concerns were addressed...amazingly we found ALL KINDS of
ordinences, code, regulations, etc...already on the books that addressed
issues such as parking, habitability, noise, dogs, health and safety,
etc...all the concerns that people raise for having a definition of
family had been addressed over the last 60 years in other
ordinences!!!...so my advice would be DON"T KEEP ADDING layer upon layer
of ordinences...people by in large do not want diversity, they do not
want change and they will go to incredible levels to see that their
little world is not intruded upon by anyone remotely different..has it
has been pointed out our zoning codes see to that.
fly...@ism.net
Boarding houses...they strike fear in the hearts and loins of every
owner of a single family dwelling..."my God Harold, someone is turning
the old Same place into a boarding house!!" "Damnit, Sally...there goes
our property value"...the folk who live in our "historic" university
district have deep concerns that out of state landlords(it's never a
local landlord) will chop up the beautiful large homes and convert them
into boarding houses/slums!...what I love about their argument is they
think their part of town is the only one with these concerns, and they
think the hell with everyone else..I'm protecting mine...this whole
family deffinition argument is economic discrimination pure and
simple...one of my fellow city council members said he didn't think
there was discrimination going on...so I asked him what he called it
when he and his wife and their 4 kids could do something that me and two
unrelated friends couldn't do...share a house together....he stammered,
and turned red, and huffed...but he knew what it was called.
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <5a82vq$k...@huron.eel.ufl.edu>, d...@afn.org (David P. Fraleigh)
wrote:
Hope some one knows. This is an important issue and I thank you for
apprising me of it's unconstitutional grounds in some states. Perhaps there
is a US Constututional ground as well?
Nelson
>
>
> --
Nelson S. Benzing
Yeah, you don't even have to name it 'cause everyone knows what it is and
haven't the guts to admit to what it is.
Nelson
Claude Damewood
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 fly...@ism.net wrote:
>
>Ah, boarding houses. You know, I was just thinking about those the
other
>day. Basically, boarding houses were what allowed young adults to
survive
>on their own once they got jobs and moved out. Boarding houses were
what
>enabled them to afford living without a roommate. Boarding houses made
it
>possible for them to save the money necessary to buy their homes later.
>Boarding houses allowed itinerants and recent arrivals to live in decent,
>comfortable surroundings without having to sign a lease or prove
>creditworthiness. Boarding houses also ensured that such people were
>supervised and held accountable for their behavior by their landlords.
>Boarding houses were a source of retirement income. What was so
godawful
>about boarding houses that they all disappeared? Beats me.
>
>Which would you rather have, low-income people in boarding houses or
>low-income people in restless slums and on the streets? Vive la
boarding
>house!
>
You must have been born in one.
Boarding houses would not be possible unless the well-to-do, like
me, left the inner city for low-income people like you. When I
left my nice house, people like you moved in. You cannot do this now
because of zoning laws because government stuck its nose into something
when it had no business in.
I know a woman who ran one. Her husband died and she had a huge house
left with a whole bunch of rooms and no income. At that time we had no
zoning laws which prohibited it. Some of her boarders were very nice
people. Some worked in the coal mines, some on the railroad (The
Virginian). One was a school teacher, a couple were secretaries. One
was a carpenter who married the woman's daughter and ended up owning the
house.
-
CLAUDE DAMEWOOD BPB...@prodigy.com
Jason Makofsky
Geenius at Wrok wrote:
>
> Ah, boarding houses. You know, I was just thinking about those the other
> day. Basically, boarding houses were what allowed young adults to survive
> on their own once they got jobs and moved out. Boarding houses were what
> enabled them to afford living without a roommate. Boarding houses made it
> possible for them to save the money necessary to buy their homes later.
> Boarding houses allowed itinerants and recent arrivals to live in decent,
> comfortable surroundings without having to sign a lease or prove
> creditworthiness. Boarding houses also ensured that such people were
> supervised and held accountable for their behavior by their landlords.
> Boarding houses were a source of retirement income. What was so godawful
> about boarding houses that they all disappeared? Beats me.
>
> Which would you rather have, low-income people in boarding houses or
> low-income people in restless slums and on the streets? Vive la boarding
> house!
>
I think I can add something from my experiences abroad.
When I got a summer job in France while I was a student (in the US),
the employer set me up in a "Foyer des Jeunes Travailleurs". This was
a three-story institutional building with about 100 single bedrooms, a
TV room, a game room, and a dining room with kitchen. It was very much
like a dormatory back in the states...Except for the curfew, and the
lack of university nearby.
The requirements were: between the ages of 18 and 25 (jeune) and
employed (travailleur). These places (many in the country) are managed
by the state, and employ a manager, a chef, and a few guards/janitors.
I paid about $300 per month for the bed, and breakfast and supper (in 1992).
This was a totally new concept for me, since I had never heard of such
a thing in the states: a dorm for young workers run by the state! Here
people might say that the gov't was breaking apart families by providing
young adults with the means to move away from their parents. Or, why
should the state be competing with private landlords? I thought it
was a pretty neat idea.
Jason Makofsky
John Hascall
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
}Ah, boarding houses. You know, I was just thinking about those the other
}day. Basically, boarding houses were what allowed young adults to survive
}on their own once they got jobs and moved out. Boarding houses were what
}enabled them to afford living without a roommate. Boarding houses made it
}possible for them to save the money necessary to buy their homes later.
}Boarding houses allowed itinerants and recent arrivals to live in decent,
}comfortable surroundings without having to sign a lease or prove
}creditworthiness. Boarding houses also ensured that such people were
}supervised and held accountable for their behavior by their landlords.
}Boarding houses were a source of retirement income. What was so godawful
}about boarding houses that they all disappeared? Beats me.
I can think of 3 factors which might be important.
1) college towns seem to have this type of ordinance more
than "blue-collar" towns.
2) less owners living in the boarding house, and the big one:
3) cars, cars, and more cars.
Nobody probably minds if the widow in the big house down the
street turns her 5 spare bedrooms into boarding.
When some absent landlord takes a house, chops it into a
minimally maintained, 15 unit student slum, paves the entire
yard in the process, and fills it with a bunch of loud,
inconsiderate idiots who go recklessly screaming up the street
constantly in muffler-less jalopies from 3pm to 3am, then people
aren't so happy.
And, of course, this sort of housing breeds itself -- who
is going to buy the house next to this thing -- nobody,
except someone wanting to do the same thing (the price
being conveniently lowered by the atrocity next door).
John
--
John Hascall, Software Engr. Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you
ISU Computation Center demanded are now mandatory. -Jello Biafra
mailto:jo...@iastate.edu
http://www.cc.iastate.edu/staff/systems/john/welcome.html <-- the usual crud
Rachel Aschmann
John Hascall <jo...@iastate.edu> wrote in article
<5abkgr$e...@news.iastate.edu>...
>
> Nobody probably minds if the widow in the big house down the
> street turns her 5 spare bedrooms into boarding.
>
> When some absent landlord takes a house, chops it into a
> minimally maintained, 15 unit student slum, paves the entire
> yard in the process, and fills it with a bunch of loud,
> inconsiderate idiots who go recklessly screaming up the street
> constantly in muffler-less jalopies from 3pm to 3am, then people
> aren't so happy.
>
> And, of course, this sort of housing breeds itself -- who
> is going to buy the house next to this thing -- nobody,
> except someone wanting to do the same thing (the price
> being conveniently lowered by the atrocity next door).
This is easily solved by requiring that the owner actually be living in the
house.
--
Rachel Aschmann
http://www.azstarnet.com/~rachela/rachel.html
- Consistency is never learning anything new -
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <01bbf806$87b503e0$330d...@Starnet.azstarnet.com>, "Rachel
Aschmann" <rac...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
> John Hascall <jo...@iastate.edu> wrote in article
> <5abkgr$e...@news.iastate.edu>...
> >
> > Nobody probably minds if the widow in the big house down the
> > street turns her 5 spare bedrooms into boarding.
> >
> > When some absent landlord takes a house, chops it into a
> > minimally maintained, 15 unit student slum, paves the entire
> > yard in the process, and fills it with a bunch of loud,
> > inconsiderate idiots who go recklessly screaming up the street
> > constantly in muffler-less jalopies from 3pm to 3am, then people
> > aren't so happy.
> >
> > And, of course, this sort of housing breeds itself -- who
> > is going to buy the house next to this thing -- nobody,
> > except someone wanting to do the same thing (the price
> > being conveniently lowered by the atrocity next door).
>
> This is easily solved by requiring that the owner actually be living in the
> house.
Exactly how it allways worked in the past. A resident landlord renting to
tenants. If it's not that way, then it is not, in historical fact, a
Boarding House. Just as we've reduced "greens", "commons", "plazas" and
"squares" to mean horrendous expanses of black steaming asphalt, we've
clasiffied SRO's to boarding houses. No wonder every one's mixed up and
communicate about anything.
Low interest mortgage and improvement loans for the revitalization of
Hoboken, NJ were based on landlord residency in the building. Moving away
required the retroactive paying of absentee landlord marketplace interest.
Good idea, it worked very well.
Nelson
Jason Makofsky
At my college, at least, it was my understanding that the Fraternity Houses
were owned by the fraternity. Therefore, the owner (any frat member) was
always in residence. This would tend to circumvent the requirement that an
*owner* (someone interested in preserving the property value and remaining on
friendly terms with the neighbors.) lived on the premises. Needless to say, a
number of the frats were not good neighbors.
Jason Makofsky
Nelson S. Benzing
Yeah. Sorta like a long-term time-share co-op.
Nelson
Geenius at Wrok
On 31 Dec 1996, John Hascall wrote:
> When some absent landlord takes a house, chops it into a
> minimally maintained, 15 unit student slum, paves the entire
> yard in the process, and fills it with a bunch of loud,
> inconsiderate idiots who go recklessly screaming up the street
> constantly in muffler-less jalopies from 3pm to 3am, then people
> aren't so happy.
To which I say, change the bylaws to allow boarding houses provided that
they're their owners' primary residences.
> And, of course, this sort of housing breeds itself -- who
> is going to buy the house next to this thing -- nobody,
> except someone wanting to do the same thing (the price
> being conveniently lowered by the atrocity next door).
But that happens in ANY neighborhood with absentee ownership, not just
ones with a lot of unrelated people/noisy college undergrads living
together under one roof. And sometimes it works in an even more
destructive direction: People want to move the hell out of an absentee
neighborhood but refuse to take a hit on the selling price, so the only
people who can AFFORD to buy their place are ... absentee landlords.
--
"If it's all the same to you,
I'd like to run for my life now."
-- "Lois & Clark"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"This must be what evil tastes like!"
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net
http://www.albany.net/~geenius/
Analects 2:24
John Hascall
}> street turns her 5 spare bedrooms into boarding.
}>
}> minimally maintained, 15 unit student slum, paves the entire
}> yard in the process, and fills it with a bunch of loud,
}> inconsiderate idiots who go recklessly screaming up the street
}> constantly in muffler-less jalopies from 3pm to 3am, then people
}This is easily solved by requiring that the owner actually be living in the
}house.
Is that legal?
One thought I've had is zoning a low MAXIMAL number of
off-street parking spaces (rather than the current
zoning practice of requiring a large MINIMAL number).
As a related example, there was a small businessman
before the ZBA a few months back. I forget his exact
occupation, but it required a fairly large amount of
space, so the zoning code required that he have 12
off-street parking spaces (which would have meant
paving the entire lawn) even though he never worked
with more than 1 customer at a time.
fly...@ism.net
Owner occupied...is it legal? I ask this because zoning is about use,
not ownership...
fly...@ism.net
Once again I will ask..is it so simple as changing the bylaws to call it
owner occupied??...zoning looks at use, not ownership...so should it
matter whether the house is owner occupied or not??...I say it
doesn't..if the use is allowed it should not matter whether it is owner
occupied..
Geenius at Wrok
On Thu, 2 Jan 1997 fly...@ism.net wrote:
> Once again I will ask..is it so simple as changing the bylaws to call it
> owner occupied??...zoning looks at use
And that, to me, is a great deal of the problem. The IMPACT of
development is what's important. Zoning looks at use, and impact is
inferred. Since minimizing negative impact and maximizing positive impact
is the goal of zoning, it should be the method as well.
Jason Makofsky
fly...@ism.net wrote:
>
> Owner occupied...is it legal? I ask this because zoning is about use,
> not ownership...
The owner is *using* it as either a primary residence or simply an
investment property. I don't see why this couldn't be zoned.
Jason Makofsky
John Hascall
Jason Makofsky <jmak...@mapc.org> wrote:
}At my college, at least, it was my understanding that the Fraternity Houses
}were owned by the fraternity. Therefore, the owner (any frat member) was
}always in residence. This would tend to circumvent the requirement that an
}*owner* (someone interested in preserving the property value and remaining on
}friendly terms with the neighbors.) lived on the premises. Needless to say, a
}number of the frats were not good neighbors.
Here, when a fraternity is cited for violating the noise ordinance
(or whatever, but that is the most common one), it is the
fraternity president who is arrested and fined. I have no doubt
that the fraternity pays the fine, but the arrest gets the
message across pretty well...
r...@inetworld.net
On Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:48:22 -0700, fly...@ism.net wrote:
>Owner occupied...is it legal? I ask this because zoning is about use,
>not ownership
It's a tough question. A few years back the residents around San
Diego State University were complaining about "mini-dorms" where you'd
have 6-10 students renting one house. I think the City did something
by way of zoning, but I'd have to check into that. It's tends to be
difficult to limit the amount of unrelated people you have living in
one house since housing is seen as a "right" in this country.
=Bob
Nelson S. Benzing
Isn't the inference propelling this thread a matter of unacceptable decorum
in neighborhoods? Do we have to make blanket statements like "15-unit
absentee landlord slums", that can be certainly countered with the
existence of owner-occupied multi-tenanted drug houses, etc.?
There are existing laws dealing with decorum and neighborhoods have the right
to demand application of them. Of course along with the "right" to living
with others in the same house is paralled by the "right" to not pay the
taxes needed for effective building inspection or peacekeeping response.
It's a cunundrum.
Nelson
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970102...@magik.albany.net>,
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 1997 fly...@ism.net wrote:
>
> > Once again I will ask..is it so simple as changing the bylaws to call it
> > owner occupied??...zoning looks at use
>
> And that, to me, is a great deal of the problem. The IMPACT of
> development is what's important. Zoning looks at use, and impact is
> inferred. Since minimizing negative impact and maximizing positive impact
> is the goal of zoning, it should be the method as well.
>
I agree. Since there is widespread revisionist thinking about the very
nature of zoning itself and a movement toward impact over simple landuse,
how can we say "it's not zoning issue?"
Kevin Karplus
I know of only one boarding house in Santa Cruz---it is a beautiful
Victorian house that is superbly maintained. It has even been
included once on the Historical Society's fund-raising tour. Boarding
houses are much less likely to become eyesores than chopping up old
houses into apartments, which seems to be the preferred style these
days. Of course, it is essential that the owner live in the boarding
house to get the proper loving care that older houses often need.
I think that the death of boarding houses has little to do with zoning
or urban plannnig, but has more to do with a changed notion of
propriety and independence. A similar phenomenon has made being a
servant to a family almost unthinkable in the US, while doing the same
work for the same people at lower pay as a waiter or busboy is
perfectly acceptable.
--
Kevin Karplus kar...@cse.ucsc.edu http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
ex-Effective Cycling Instructor #218 (but planning to re-register)
PSCEXPORT
As to the original query that started this thread, any definitions
limiting the number of unrelated persons in a single family residence have
to be very broad so as not to run afoul of fair housing laws. Check out
the Supreme Court decision in June, 1995 (Oxford vs. Edmonds, I believe).
If the single family definition limits the number of unrelated persons who
happen to be handicapped, for example, then you're in trouble and the
regulation will probably be thrown out. Most people seem to agree that
there is no basis for limiting the number of unrelated persons in a single
family home when the regs never try to limit the number of related
persons. Zoning should strictly handle types of uses, not the private
relationships within homes. Any health and safety issues, such as
overcrowding, are addressed through the building and housing codes.
One side note- Denver, CO used to have a highly restrictive zoning
district called the R-O District which totally prohibited unrelated
persons from living in single family homes. This district basically
excluded unmarried couples, including gays, from living in single family
homes. In the mid- 1980's the Denver City Council finally amended the R-O
district to allow up to two unrelated persons in the same home.
Hope this helps
Candace Stowell
Las Vegas, Nevada
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <19970109071...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
psce...@aol.com (PSCEXPORT) wrote:
> As to the original query that started this thread, any definitions
> limiting the number of unrelated persons in a single family residence have
> to be very broad so as not to run afoul of fair housing laws. Check out
> the Supreme Court decision in June, 1995 (Oxford vs. Edmonds, I believe).
> If the single family definition limits the number of unrelated persons who
> happen to be handicapped, for example, then you're in trouble and the
> regulation will probably be thrown out.
> Most people seem to agree that
> there is no basis for limiting the number of unrelated persons in a single
> family home when the regs never try to limit the number of related
> persons. Zoning should strictly handle types of uses, not the private
> relationships within homes.
WOW! Another sign of intelligence out there!
The Constitutional integrity of what you've said is so simple within
something we've totally complicated, as in "The Right to Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness" misconstrued to mean "government-guarenteed
maintenance of property values".
Nelson S. Benzing
> As to the original query that started this thread, any definitions
> limiting the number of unrelated persons in a single family residence have
> to be very broad so as not to run afoul of fair housing laws. Check out
> the Supreme Court decision in June, 1995 (Oxford vs. Edmonds, I believe).
> If the single family definition limits the number of unrelated persons who
> happen to be handicapped, for example, then you're in trouble and the
> regulation will probably be thrown out.
> Most people seem to agree that
> there is no basis for limiting the number of unrelated persons in a single
> family home when the regs never try to limit the number of related
> persons.
Candace-
Notice how your posting and my lone response to the above, have created no
thread continuation in this newgroup?
Nelson
Zoning should strictly handle types of uses, not the private
> relationships within homes. Any health and safety issues, such as