COJ declares unrelated people not allowed by code to share single family home

[CS Foltz]

Code Enforcement had to have gotten a finding from the General Consul's Office on this one, are you guys aware the Rick Mullany is going to be running for Mayor? If they did not contact his office and are going on their group concensus.............boy are they in for a rude awakening! Just what COJ needs more money out the door for stupidity!

[AlexS]

Hopefully the courts decide this issue soon. Then the neighborhood can move beyond these issues. Seems like this has been lingering for about 3 years now. Certainly time for an authoritative ruling to end all the speculations. IMHO not very likely that gays or foster kids are affected at all.

[mtraininjax]

If code enforcement officers are allowed to interprete the laws, then if your neighbor doesn't like you ... a few phone calls and your house is an "illegal rooming house" ie.  you have a roommate.  Say this won't happen to you? 

I have 10 rental properties in Murray Hill and have been on MHPA for a number of years, I've never seen or heard of this in the years of rental properties and I have had my run-ins with Code Enforcement. They do not interpret the laws to create new enforcement policies, they are good hard working people who have to deal with idiots in the private sector who do not follow the most basic laws of maintaining their properties.

[sheclown]

Mtraininjax, I would have said the same thing a couple of years ago.  I really don't understand what is going on.

Alex, I look forward to a legal ruling as well.

[uptowngirl]

HUD should be more concerned with their current public housing issues, people are being robbed, beaten, murdered, raped, and terrorized and HUD has done nothing to address this on-going decades long issue!

[fsu813]

"Hopefully the courts decide this issue soon. Then the neighborhood can move beyond these issues. Seems like this has been lingering for about 3 years now. Certainly time for an authoritative ruling to end all the speculations. IMHO not very likely that gays or foster kids are affected at all."

- agree on all accounts.

[strider]

Consider this, if they successfully just can re-interpret the laws as they wish, whether it be Code Enforcement or not, they can use it anyway they wish.  FSU813 and Alexs, you both hope they succeed against us and so you wish to make sure the gay community is not alarmed and therefore not supportive of us.  Good tactic, but one that seldom works as we are talking about groups of people who often have the laws and such interpreted against them.  Even if you are right and no one has the intent to use this new interpretation against the gay community, no one can be sure what the future holds.  To be honest, the city will be forced to either back down or use the new interpretation against the gay community as well as all unmarried couples if they are to hope to win in court.

In fact, as part of their current strategy is to use parts of the overlay against us as well, the overlay itself will have to be strictly enforced.  And that will not go over well with many who live in Springfield.  Including many who sit on the SPAR Council board.

The office of General Council can not tell code enforcement or Zoning what they can and can not do.  They can advise, just like your lawyer can’t make you do anything you do not want to do.   The advice has to be good and you have to be smart enough to take that advice.  This actually most likely comes from Zoning as I know the two department heads have been working together on this for some time now.

You are right that this issue has been around a long time.  Every single time they, meaning Louise and Company and the their supporters within COJ, have come after us, we have been found legal.  It is on the record that the city and the state both had found theses houses legal and properly zoned.  To “get us” they had to pull underhanded tactics .  And least we forget, if you illegally rent rooms to the Proton Patients, as announced at the “rooming house issue” meeting by the President of SPAR Council , it is perfectly fine.  So now, a couple of city employees are  putting hundreds of  people at risk of losing their homes just to get us for Louise and Company.  I ask again, is this really the Jacksonville we all want?

[fsu813]

"if you illegally rent rooms to the Proton Patients"

- all of that is public, on their website. no secrets there. apartments (not chopped up houses), duplexes, houses, condos, campgrounds, hotels, military barracks, etc are for rent....not rooms.

"I ask again, is this really the Jacksonville we all want?"

- yes, i don't really want a house turned into an unofficial rehab/boarding facility. trying to make this into anything other than that is dishonest, imo. but, you make a lot of money off of them, it's your business. so, i understand why you feel so strongly and fight so hard.

[strider]

"if you illegally rent rooms to the Proton Patients"

- all of that is public, on their website. no secrets there. apartments (not chopped up houses), duplexes, houses, condos, campgrounds, hotels, military barracks, etc are for rent....not rooms

I just visited their website and I suggest you do too.  There is at least one illegal rooming house listed under Springfield. I check for the licenses and there are none. Shall you turn it into Code Enforcement, or shall I?  After all, your goal is to have no illegal rooming houses, ETC, is it not?

"I ask again, is this really the Jacksonville we all want?"

- yes, i don't really want a house turned into an unofficial rehab/boarding facility. trying to make this into anything other than that is dishonest, imo. but, you make a lot of money off of them, it's your business. so, i understand why you feel so strongly and fight so hard

.

And you have no idea what my motives are. Nor whether it is financial rewarding or not. Perhaps what is truly dishonest is believing that the laws only have to be followed by and enforced against those you do not like, but not enforced against those that you do.

Today, you don't like us.  Who will you and Louise and Company decide you do not like tomorrow?

[AlexS]

FSU813 and Alexs, you both hope they succeed against us and so you wish to make sure the gay community is not alarmed and therefore not supportive of us.

You think to know what I hope, but you are wrong.

[fsu813]

Strider,

you are correct. there is one. 1 out of a 100 or so listings. also, you may have other motives besides $$$, but regardless, even if you'd do it for free, it is a money making business for you. One that you are heavily invested in. which is a motivation, if not the only.

btw - what % do you think is higher:

a) that the city will "go after" gays, unmarried couples, and roommates, (ie, you could be next!)

b) Or that you or someone with a similar business plan will convert another house into an unoffical rehab/boarding facility?

one is a wild hypothetical, frought with massive legal & societal implications, and the other has happened / is happening now.

While you may wish the scare people with "it could be you next!", the reality is the chances are slim to none. i would say the aclu and every other civil rights group in america would have something to say about it.

Unfortunatley, the chances are much greater that you or a like-minded individual will buy a house and put 5 more addicts in it. I'd say that's much scarier to Springfield residents....b/c it's happened and will continue to happen. "ie, it could be the house next door to you next!"

[strider]

So, FSU813, did you call code enforcement?  Or at least called SPAR Council to make sure they turned in the illegal rooming house? 

Frankly, as code enforcement is a complaint driven system, everyone has an equal opportunity to "be next". Like I asked, who will Louise and Company decide they do not like next?

Odd, that you see the protection others have and yet, because you don't like us and our guys, you fail to see any protections for them. Even the basic ones even you enjoy.

As as far as "it could be the house next to you", yes it could, but it could also be section 8, a family of twelve, great people, messy people, noisey people or just the next empty and forgotten house. Before you go off the deep end here, have you talked to any of the real neighbors of any sober house? Or is your opinion still the company line from across town? 

[fsu813]

I've never called code enforcement on anyone for any reason and don't plan to.

I have no opinion on "your guys", like or dislike. This isn't personal for me and has nothing to do with liking someone or not.

If that was the case, then I think you're quite a likeable guy from my limited interactions with you.........but I don't agree with your position on this.

Yes, they could go after first-born children too. Not realistic.

[CityLife]

strider: To be successful in re-interpreting the law like this, it must be applied evenly across the board. If it isn't, it will not stand a chance to hold up in any court. Anyone who really thinks this will "only be used for rooming house/ boarding houses" is very naive.

FSU813: I'd say that anyone who thinks otherwise is fear mongering, as this is what it's specifically aimed at

So, do you think the jews felt they would be OK when Hitler rounded up the disabled first?  How’s that for fear mongering?  I could  also talk about a certain anti-rooming house poster made up by SPAR Council.  The point is,  this isn’t fear mongering.  It is putting the facts out there as the law is written and has been interpreted one way for many years, but now, to “get” a group of people, they are changing that interpretation.  Common sense says everyone needs to ask “Who’s next?” 

The law now is so broad and out of context that  90 to 95% of the houses in Springfield and many other houses all over Jacksonville, could be legitimately turned in as being an illegal rooming house (not just over this particular issue, but the entire definition within the overlay). Now, ask yourself if you have any friends who live together and are not married?  Would you like someone to turn them into code enforcement right now?  Remember, if they aren’t cited, then the case against us gets weaker and weaker.  How bad do you want to get us?

Really? You must not be aware of Godwin's Law. Of which you are in clear violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_argument

[strider]

Actually, the law more addresses the probablity of a Hitler or Nazi reference coming up in discussion and does not actually address whether or not the reference is a vaild use or not.  It has more to do with abusing the reference than using the reference.  So, yes, really.

In this case, the reference was used as an example of fear mongering rather than an actual arguement.  Good try though.