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

[CityLife]

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.

"For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law."

Guess you missed that part....Anything else you've misinterpreted lately?

[Karl_Pilkington]

Reductio ad Hitlerum  I like it, will definitely remember that one.

[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.

"For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law."

Guess you missed that part....Anything else you've misinterpreted lately?

No, and I didn’t this time either. You just decided to ignored this?

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

(Seems pretty much the same as:

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

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

So, basically, while it may not have been the best example to provide in your and this Mr. Godwin’s opinion, it still was a valid example of fear mongering and therefore still OK to use in that particular context.  Your first attempt was better than this one.  But try again and see if you can do better.

As to the “tradition” mentioned above, it does not apply in this case, no matter how much you may hope it does.  It was a valid use of the reference and therefore exempt.  See, I can just change “laws” around as I wish,  just like Code Enforcement.

Your posts still haven’t changed the fact that Code Enforcement, most likely with the help of someone from zoning and even possible the office of general council (but I think they are smarter than this)  is arbitrarily changing the established interpretation of a code and , actually, a definition as well, just to get little old us, owners of houses leased as sober houses.  Nor does it change the fact that if they can get us this way, some other group or persons whom someone decides they do not like can be gotten as well.  Who knows, it might be people who post links to Wikipedia!

[AlexS]

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.

I am rather disappointed with your new style of posting. In the past you tried to stick to facts but now you resort to underhanded tactics which provide a disservice to your cause. I kindly ask you refrain from using my name and associating it with false statements which I have not said.

[strider]

Part of 656.1601 was not quoted. It may also be relevant to the discussion.

Quote
Family means one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit; provided, that, unless all members are related by law, blood, adoption or marriage, no family shall contain over five persons. Domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a separate or additional family or families. The term family shall not be construed to mean a fraternity, sorority, club, monastery or convent, rooming or boardinghouse, emergency shelter, emergency shelter home, group care home, residential treatment facility, recovery home or nursing home, foster care home or family care home.


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.

Quote from: strider on January 10, 2010, 11:30:09 AM
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.

Quote from: strider on January 10, 2010, 11:30:09 AM
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.


I am rather disappointed with your new style of posting. In the past you tried to stick to facts but now you resort to underhanded tactics which provide a disservice to your cause. I kindly ask you refrain from using my name and associating it with false statements which I have not said.

AlexS, you and I have had several conversations about this subject and even  about a couple of the houses involved here, both in person and on theses very forums.  I rarely “quote” you and last time I did and you took exception, I was proved right.

From your first two posts on this thread, and from past conversations, I took it to mean you wished for theses places to be gone as does FSU813.  From your comment about gays and foster kids not being effected, I took this to mean you did not what them alarmed and believing it could happen to them as well.  You are right about the foster kids as they have protections that even code enforcement has chosen to recognize.

I am also disappointed by you. You know the facts, yet you support this random re-interpretation of the laws? You answered the statement you did not like once before with a question.  If my opinion of your opinion on this matter is incorrect, then perhaps you could tell us all your opinion? Otherwise, your bad reaction to what is really nothing but a very small comment that is supported by your posts is for nothing.

Meanwhile, there is nothing underhanded in stating that if they can get us, the sober houses, this way, they will use it against anyone else “they” do not like.  Past history has proved this time and time again.

[AlexS]

From your first two posts on this thread, and from past conversations, I took it to mean you wished for theses places to be gone as does FSU813.  From your comment about gays and foster kids not being effected, I took this to mean you did not what them alarmed and believing it could happen to them as well.  You are right about the foster kids as they have protections that even code enforcement has chosen to recognize.

I am also disappointed by you. You know the facts, yet you support this random re-interpretation of the laws? You answered the statement you did not like once before with a question.  If my opinion of your opinion on this matter is incorrect, then perhaps you could tell us all your opinion? Otherwise, your bad reaction to what is really nothing but a very small comment that is supported by your posts is for nothing.

Meanwhile, there is nothing underhanded in stating that if they can get us, the sober houses, this way, they will use it against anyone else “they” do not like.  Past history has proved this time and time again.

I am currently neither actively supporting the shutdown of any facility, nor am I actively supporting their increase in numbers. However, I am interested in researching the intent of the law. I believe that other issues in Springfield should be focused on (which ones I have repeatedly stated in the past). I am sick and tired that almost every thread regardless of topic turns into a rooming house/halfway house/sober house/SPAR discussion. That's why I want the courts to decide so we can move on and heal.

Now how you came up with the idea that I want gays and foster kids out of the neighborhood I have absolutely no idea. If you can produce even a small shred of evidence to support your allegation then do so. Otherwise I am awaiting an apology.

[Karl_Pilkington]

Otherwise I am awaiting an apology.

I'm sure you've got better things to wait for... quite sure the Nazis will be back in power before you get anything even resembling something called an apology, do people even still do that today?

[strider]

Now how you came up with the idea that I want gays and foster kids out of the neighborhood I have absolutely no idea. If you can produce even a small shred of evidence to support your allegation then do so. Otherwise I am awaiting an apology.

AlexS, how in the world did you get that from what I said?  I do apologize if you really thought that was what I was implying.  No, it wasn't what I intended to mean.  I was implying that you, along with FSU813, would rather not have the gay cummunity on our side in this and so would rather have them think it would/ could never, ever be applied to them.  This is a far cry from saying that you wanted them out of the community.  I do not and never have thought that. I do believe that you have actively wanted certain houses gone in the past, but if that has changed, then I will extend an apology for that as well and promise never to list you with FSU813 in a post of mine again.

Karl_Pilkington:  If you have no life what-so-ever, you could go back through all of my posts and see that I have indeed apologized before and, unfortunatley, because I am human and fully admit it, will probably have to sometime again. I was actually very pissed off at something else this morning and AlexS seemed to unjustifiably end up the target, so I apologize for the entire post.

That done, how about that Code Enforcement department, can they re-interpet a law or what?

[sheclown]

Hey...is this where Strider is handing out apologies?  I'd like one too! 

(that whole dirty socks episode).

[AlexS]

I was implying that you, along with FSU813, would rather not have the gay cummunity on our side in this and so would rather have them think it would/ could never, ever be applied to them.  This is a far cry from saying that you wanted them out of the community.  I do not and never have thought that. I do believe that you have actively wanted certain houses gone in the past, but if that has changed, then I will extend an apology for that as well and promise never to list you with FSU813 in a post of mine again.
...
I was actually very pissed off at something else this morning and AlexS seemed to unjustifiably end up the target, so I apologize for the entire post.

Apology accepted.

I have never actively wanted "certain houses" gone in the past and that has not changed. Never signed a petition or filed a CARE request regarding rooming/halfway/sober houses. Therefore I would also not care if the gay community is on your or any other side. Aside from the fact that I don't think there is a united gay community (or any other community for that matter) with a uniform opinion.

I do admit that I have asked critical questions to supporters of both sides as I always try to get all the facts. I could see how that could be potentially construed (falsely) as being against sober houses. I believe (ex) alcoholics making an effort and trying to live sober is a good thing. Not everyone will succeed but the percentage will still be higher than those alcoholics who never try.

[sheclown]

The LUZ workshop meeting from June 3 minutes are available online. 

http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx#LUZ

Legislation will be introduced which will reduce the number of unrelated people who may live together from 5 to 3.

Regardless of the "rooming house" propaganda, this is a direct attack on sober houses.

[strider]

I pulled this from the thread entitled "What is a Sober House".  It seems relevant to this latest development. 

For anyone interested in this topic, here is a rather long article by the William and Mary Law Review titled

"Fair Housing Act, Oxford House, and the Limits of Local Control Over the Regulation of Group Home for Recovering Addicts"

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1769&context=wmlr

The article discusses single family zoning, the Fair Housing Act, and the conflicting interests between the local and federal regulations.

At the end it suggests a permitting process for sober houses which serves to identify a responsible party (someone to call if things get out of hand), the location and the size of the proposed home.   However, even imposing this on sober houses can be seen as discriminatory if not done correctly.

I have long been an advocate of Jacksonville identifying its sober houses and issuing a certificate of use to allow the city to (gently) monitor the house for the safety of its residents and the neighborhoods involved.  This article also makes a distinction between two types of recovery houses based on the size of the inhabitants.  "Recovery Houses" of 10 or fewer with a right to use in all residential districts and "Conditional Recovery House" with permitted use by exception.  Conditional Recovery Houses are more like the traditional halfway houses.

There is an interesting blog from the Vice Mayor of Lake Clark Shores in Palm County which may be helpful in understanding this issue:

Quote
More on "Sober Houses"

There has been a lot of discussion recently about sober houses and, a reluctance to have them part of our community.

As I have mentioned in prior Council meetings, every one of us, is entitled to equal protection under the law as it applies to all of our rights as afforded to us by the United States and our Florida Constitution.

If you recall, there was a concern as to how many sober houses were in a particular municipality. The Florida League of Cities sent an inquiry to the municipalities wanting to know how many sober houses were located within their city. One of the most poignant response came from one municipal leader in suggesting .."" How are we supposed to know.? It is against the law to ask.!."""

Attached below are some Q&A's as it applies to sober houses. It has been compiled by TERRILL PYBURN..esq.....

I found this to be an excellent source of information and education.

Should any of you have any questions comments or suggestions with regard to this issue I'm always available to discuss these issues and any other issues you may have.

I am a firm believer that we must possess as much information as we possibly can so that we can make an informed decision.

Respectfully; Vice Mayor Robert M.W. Shalhoub

FAQS
Sober Houses/Recovery Residences

I. What is a "Sober House"?

A Sober House is a group home for persons in recovery from drug/alcohol abuse. It is intended to be the last step in the continuum of substance abuse/addiction treatment. No treatment should take place at the house.

II. Can a "Sober House" be located in a Residential Neighborhood/Zoning District?

Yes. Pursuant to Federal law, a "Sober House" can be located in a Residential Neighborhood/Residential Zoning District (including Single Family) as per below:

A. Federal Laws.

1. Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA)

Under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the term "handicap" means, with respect to a person, a "physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.C. Section 3602(h). The term "physical or mental impairment" includes "alcoholism" and "drug addiction" (other than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance). 24 C.F.R. Section 100.201.

Under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of that buyer, renter, or person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented, or made available. 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(f)(1).

2. Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAA)

Under the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, the term "disability" means, a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of having such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. See, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), 29 U.S.C. § 705(20).

An individual is considered disabled if he/she: 1) suffers from a physical or mental impairment that 2) affects a major life activity, and 3) the effect is "substantial". See, Bragdon v. Abbot, 524 U.S. 624, 631, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed. 2d 540 (1998).

Alcoholism and drug addiction are considered "impairments" under the definitions of a disability set forth in the ADA. See, Buckley v. Consol. Edison Co., 155 F.3d 150, 154 (2d Cir. 1998) (en banc) (recovering drug addicts may be considered to have a "disability" under the ADA).

The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act requires that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, program, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination of any such entity. 42 U.S.C. Section 12132.

The federal regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act prohibits a public entity from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability in administering a licensing program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor may a public entity establish requirements for the programs or activities of licensees that subject qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability. 35 C.F.R. 35.130(6).

The federal regulations also make it unlawful for a public entity to determine site or location of a facility in a manner that has the purpose or effect of excluding individuals with disabilities or denying them the benefit of public services or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination. 35 C.F.R. 35.130(4)(I).

B. Florida State Laws

Sober Houses are not required to be licensed under state law, however, the Florida Administrative Code Provisions define the "Community Housing" component of Day or Night Treatment with Community Housing as well as the "Residential Treatment" component of Licensed Service Providers in a way that is very similar to what we refer to as Sober Houses. See, Rules 65D-30.004, 65D-30.007, and 65D-30.0081 F.A.C. and these entities are required to be licensed. § 397.311(18)(a)(3) and (9) and § 397.403, Fla. Stat.

C. Case Law

In the case of Jeffrey O. v. City of Boca Raton, 511 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida found for the Plaintiff, Jeffrey O. et al., a group of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts and stated as follows: "the City did not present sufficient evidence to justify the Ordinance based on legitimate public safety concerns or to demonstrate that the restriction imposed benefited the recovering individuals." Further, the Court held that the City of Boca Raton's Ordinances were discriminatory because they did not allow handicapped individuals (in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse) the opportunity to live in residential districts, thereby treating them differently than everyone else and they provided no procedure for them to request an accommodation from the maximum number of unrelated individuals allowed to live in a residential dwelling, thereby resulting in a disparate impact for a group of handicapped individuals for which, according to the Court, "evidence has shown that recovering individuals need a group living, substance free environment in order for their treatment to be effective". Ultimately, Boca Raton only had to pay $1 in damages; but they were responsible for attorneys' fees in the amount of over $1,000,000.
 
III. Can people have group meetings at a "Sober House"?

Yes. Group meetings such as Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous can be held at a "Sober House" the same way that you can have a Book Club/Bible Study/Cub Scout meeting at your house.

IV. What regulations can local government impose on "Sober Houses"?

None. That being said, local governments can still apply occupancy limitations such as dwelling unit size limitations/number of unrelated people limitations and local landlord permit requirements, provided that these regulations are in place already and apply to all residences/rentals across the board, regardless of the status of the occupants.

V. Can we limit turnover of occupancy in residential zoning districts? Yes and No.

a. If your local government had a regulation on the books prior to June 1, 2011, you can continue to enforce it to limit the turnover of occupancy, provided it is applied equally to all, regardless of the status of the occupants.

b. If your local government did not have such a regulation on the books prior to June 1, 2011, then you may be preempted from creating one now due to a change in the Transient Public Lodging Establishment statute that occurred at that time and pre-empted regulation of short term rentals to the state. § 509.013, Fla. Stat.

IV. Do folks who operate/own a "Sober House" have to have any training or certifications? No.

VII. Do folks who operate/own a "Sober House" have to have background checks? No.

VIII. Do folks who operate/own a "Sober House" have any licensing/registration requirements? No.

IX. Are folks who operate/own a "Sober House" accountable to any regulatory agency? No.
 
X. What can local government do to address citizen complaints about "Sober Houses?"

Talk to their legislators at the state and federal level (unless there is current, illegal drug use/sales/possession occurring on site, in which case, please contact local police).

XI. I have heard that the "Sober Houses" in my jurisdiction are committing insurance fraud by submitting residents for drug testing and the labs are charging upwards of $2,000+, what can I do?

Report it to the Department of Financial Services, Insurance Fraud Division, #850-413-3115. This is illegal per § 817.234, Fla. Stat.

XII. I have heard that the "Sober Houses" in my jurisdiction are committing patient brokering by dealing with treatment providers and accepting health insurance as payment for rent/getting their tenants high and then shipping them back to treatment so the "Sober House" operator can collect a kickback from the patient referral. What can I do?

Report it to your local law enforcement agency. (Police Department, Sherriff's Office, Criminal Justice Commission). This is illegal per § 817.505, Fla. Stat. "Patient Brokering Prohibited".

XIII. What is the proposed legislation proposing to do?

A. Define "Sober Houses". Currently there is no definition in the statutes (state or federal).

B. Provide for registration of each "Sober House" with the Department of Children & Families (DCF currently regulates all other Substance Abuse Treatment Components).

C. Provide a requirement for background checks of owners/operators of "Sober Houses".

D. Provide penalties for failure to register.

E. Provide that advertisements for "Sober Houses" must include the registration number in order to help with enforcement of the registration requirement.

F. Provide that inspections may take place by DCF.

XIV. Why are we asking the state to regulate "Sober Houses"?

A. To provide for a consistent standard of operation to be applied consistently throughout the state.

B. To help end abuses that are occurring in some of the homes (i.e. Houses for Women operated by a registered sexual offender; multi-family residence owned and operated by same person as owner of bar it is attached to; insurance fraud; patient brokering; etc.)

C. To provide for accountability for the owners/operators of these homes.

D. Because the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) provided a Joint Statement in 1999 that encouraged the states to commit the resources needed to make these systems (group homes for persons with disabilities including persons recovering from alcohol/drug abuse) responsive to resident and community needs and concerns." See, Joint Statement of DOJ and HUD, "Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act"http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/final8_1.phpat 4. (August 18, 1999).

By: Terrill Pyburn, Esq.

http://www.townoflakeclarkeshores.com/blog/2013/10/22/more-sober-houses

[strider]

One other comment.  We need to not forget about unintended consequences.  Once the number of unrelated persons allowed to live together in a single family home is reduced from 5 to 3, what else is effected?  Unmarried couples with two children become illegal.  (Under the law, all must be related to be more than five or is passed, three.)  If this doesn't seem like something that will ever be enforced, think again.  What if your neighbor thinks "living in sin" should not be allowed in her community?  What if your neighbor thinks Gays should not be allowed to adopt or have children in any way?  This type of law is passed to be discriminatory and it will be used to attacked all some do not like.

It starts with the poor, it will move on to the disabled and then to whatever group the leaders of a community deem to be Human Blight.

[Overstreet]

I've had my own troubles with code enforcement and someone in the neighborhood calling in complaining.

[strider]

As you can see from the older posts on this thread, this is something that comes up whenever the so called "leadership of Springfield complains about the poor and the disabled sharing a single family home and when Code complains they can't get access and that is why those terrible "rooming houses" can't be shut down. 

This is not aimed at the truly illegal places renting rooms by the night or week,  it is being aimed squarely at the now legal places that share annual leases and split costs because they can not afford to otherwise live.  The truly illegal "rooming houses" out there are indeed hard to prove they are illegal and harder to close them so going after the now legal places is easier and gives you a victory to show how much good you are doing to the masses.

What's really ironic is that while this may force a few poor, unmarried and gay families out of their homes, it won't stop those who do not care what the law says and rent rooms illegally nor will it shut down the sober houses they want to so badly shut down.