QuoteDebate over Springfield homeless apartments sparking questions over fair-housing laws
By Steve Patterson Sun, Aug 31, 2014 @ 10:18 pm | updated Mon, Sep 1, 2014 @ 9:06 am
The settlement of a federal lawsuit in New Orleans could impact a bitter fight over plans to open an apartment building for homeless people in Springfield.
The New Orleans case ended recently with that city reversing itself and promising the U.S. Justice Department it would approve a project it blocked earlier in a historic neighborhood where neighbors had resisted a nonprofit's efforts to house homeless people.
To close the case without a trial, New Orleans also agreed to change its zoning laws to regularly allow similar housing, and to pay for an extra 350 units of housing for people who had been homeless.
Backers of a Jacksonville nonprofit pursuing their own homeless apartments want Planning Commission members to remember that when they hear arguments Thursday for and against the city planning director's conclusion that the Springfield project would be prohibited under neighborhood zoning rules.
"It sure looks like it's a case that's right on point," said Greg Matovina, chairman of Ability Housing of Northeast Florida, the nonprofit that won state funding this year to buy and renovate the apartment building on Cottage Avenue. "I'm certain it will be mentioned at the hearing."
But a city attorney argued the case isn't very similar to the decision facing the commission.
"It's kind of an apples and oranges thing at this point," said Jason Teal, the city's chief of environmental law, although he said the New Orleans lawsuit could matter down the road.
The commission is reviewing Planning Director Calvin Burney's assessment of whether Ability Housing's plan for a 12-unit apartment building for people described as "chronically homeless" is allowed under a set of zoning rules, called an overlay, that have been used in Springfield since about 2000.
Springfield, an enclave of buildings from the 19th and early 20th century north of downtown, had been for decades a magnet for cheap housing for people with disabilities and little money. Homeowners asked for the overlay to make the area more attractive to conventional buyers by banning new rooming houses, congregate living facilities and similar establishments.
But neighborhood zoning allows multifamily housing, and Ability Housing said it simply planned to buy, renovate and rent out a place that was built as an apartment building in the 1920s.
Neighbors objected, and one had a lawyer ask Burney for a ruling on whether the area's zoning allowed what Ability Housing called "supportive housing," a term not in the zoning ordinance.
Burney wrote May 29 that the description of what Ability Housing was planning "is akin to that of a rooming house or group care home." He said facilities like that "served as the very basis of the implementation of the Springfield zoning overlay," and a new one would be prohibited under zoning rules.
When New Orleans officials refused a zoning variance for a renovated apartment building with about 20 units for homeless people, the federal government sued in 2012.
Federal lawyers said the city violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act because the apartments that the city blocked would have gone to homeless people with disabilities.
Those are the same people Ability Housing targets with its Springfield plan.
All the tenants in the Springfield apartments would have disabilities, the nonprofit told a state agency when it applied for money for the project. Most were expected to have mental illnesses and long histories of psychiatric hospitalization, a grant application said.
Teal said Burney's assessment is just a different situation. No one in Jacksonville has asked for a zoning variance or a permit or anything that would be needed to operate, only for an opinion about how to apply the zoning code. There could be questions later, Teal said, but not today.
Others see more similarities.
The New Orleans situation "is remarkably similar" to the choice the Planning Commission is being asked to make, said Jim Kowalski, executive director of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, which gets federal money to monitor compliance with fair housing requirements.
"Both cases involve protected classes of persons — formerly homeless people with disabilities," Kowalski said in an email. "And the New Orleans case demonstrates both the great unmet need for affordable housing and the pitfalls of violating the Fair Housing Act."
Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-08-31/story/debate-over-springfield-homeless-apartments-sparking-questions-over-fair
What confuses me is that the Overlay doesn't prohibit housing for the disabled. It simply limits group housing (Special Use) to six or fewer and 1,000 feet of separation. If the AB housing at Cottage is deemed a Special Use, its denial would be based on its size (12 units). Does Fair Housing preclude ANY limitation on size or concentration of such facilities? I would think "reasonable" local regulation of Special Use intensity and/or concentration would be permitted. I don't know what the New Orleans law was; if it prohibited all such housing.
If it is not a Special Use then I suppose the argument is that no discrimination on the basis of disability is permitted, just as it would not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Interesting turn of the screw in New Orleans though. Although the City is half the population of JAX, the larger Metro Statistical Area is about the same population: if they had to pony up 350 units it looks like JAX could be in roughly the same boat.
Quote from: whislert on September 01, 2014, 11:12:56 AM
What confuses me is that the Overlay doesn't prohibit housing for the disabled. It simply limits group housing (Special Use) to six or fewer and 1,000 feet of separation. If the AB housing at Cottage is deemed a Special Use, its denial would be based on its size (12 units). Does Fair Housing preclude ANY limitation on size or concentration of such facilities? I would think "reasonable" local regulation of Special Use intensity and/or concentration would be permitted. I don't know what the New Orleans law was; if it prohibited all such housing.
If it is not a Special Use then I suppose the argument is that no discrimination on the basis of disability is permitted, just as it would not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Interesting turn of the screw in New Orleans though. Although the City is half the population of JAX, the larger Metro Statistical Area is about the same population: if they had to pony up 350 units it looks like JAX could be in roughly the same boat.
It would be like limiting any other protected class of people from living in a place. Can't be done.
Quote from: whislert on September 01, 2014, 11:12:56 AM
What confuses me is that the Overlay doesn't prohibit housing for the disabled. It simply limits group housing (Special Use) to six or fewer and 1,000 feet of separation. If the AB housing at Cottage is deemed a Special Use, its denial would be based on its size (12 units). Does Fair Housing preclude ANY limitation on size or concentration of such facilities? I would think "reasonable" local regulation of Special Use intensity and/or concentration would be permitted. I don't know what the New Orleans law was; if it prohibited all such housing.
If it is not a Special Use then I suppose the argument is that no discrimination on the basis of disability is permitted, just as it would not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Interesting turn of the screw in New Orleans though. Although the City is half the population of JAX, the larger Metro Statistical Area is about the same population: if they had to pony up 350 units it looks like JAX could be in roughly the same boat.
Any limitations with regards to distance between group care homes is done to protect the group homes from being isolated from the rest of civilization. My reading tells me that it is not intended to be a defense for NYMBISM.
Quote from: whislert on September 01, 2014, 11:12:56 AM
What confuses me is that the Overlay doesn't prohibit housing for the disabled. It simply limits group housing (Special Use) to six or fewer and 1,000 feet of separation. If the AB housing at Cottage is deemed a Special Use, its denial would be based on its size (12 units). Does Fair Housing preclude ANY limitation on size or concentration of such facilities? I would think "reasonable" local regulation of Special Use intensity and/or concentration would be permitted. I don't know what the New Orleans law was; if it prohibited all such housing.
If it is not a Special Use then I suppose the argument is that no discrimination on the basis of disability is permitted, just as it would not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Interesting turn of the screw in New Orleans though. Although the City is half the population of JAX, the larger Metro Statistical Area is about the same population: if they had to pony up 350 units it looks like JAX could be in roughly the same boat.
You missed several important points. Each apartment is a unit. Therefore, each unit could legally have up to 5 unrelated adults or technically qualify be a 6 and fewer group care home. Of course, size does matter so it would never be done that way and as 6 and fewer group care homes are licensed in some fashion, it would not work that way either. This is just to point out that this is a recognized 12 unit apartment building not some purpose built facility for the purpose of housing the disabled. The city must look at it as 12 separate units to determine who and how many can live there.
Another quick note on the 1000 Ft rule is that you can't really regulate homes for recognized protected classes strictly in that manor.
QuoteQ. When, if ever, can a local government limit the number of group homes that can locate in a certain area?
A concern expressed by some local government officials and neighborhood residents is that certain jurisdictions, governments, or particular neighborhoods within a jurisdiction, may come to have more than their "fair share" of group homes. There are legal ways to address this concern. The Fair Housing Act does not prohibit most governmental programs designed to encourage people of a particular race to move to neighborhoods occupied predominantly by people of another race. A local government that believes a particular area within its boundaries has its "fair share" of group homes, could offer incentives to providers to locate future homes in other neighborhoods.
However, some state and local governments have tried to address this concern by enacting laws requiring that group homes be at a certain minimum distance from one another. The Department of Justice and HUD take the position, and most courts that have addressed the issue agree, that density restrictions are generally inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act. We also believe, however, that if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes, that could adversely affect individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the objective of integrating persons with disabilities into the community. Especially in the licensing and regulatory process, it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a group home. A consideration of over-concentration could be considered in this context. This objective does not, however, justify requiring separations which have the effect of foreclosing group homes from locating in entire neighborhoods.
Also, as defined, a group care home of 6 and fewer is not a Special Use, only the no longer allowed new ones to be opened 7 and higher ones are. To be more clear, in the most common RMD-S zoning, 6 and fewer group care homes are allowed by right, no special zoning approval needed.
I think you need to go read Mr Burney's interpretation again with an eye towards what is truly a special use. Mr Burney does not state that a use of an apartment building for the housing of the formerly homeless is indeed a define special use but rather it is "akin" to one and therefore that is enough to make it illegal. The only provable similarity to a special use is the residents themselves. There will be no special services offered on site by the proprietor of the apartment building. No meals will be cooked on site and given to the residents by the proprietors and so that leaves only the fact that the residents themselves may need those types of services in some fashion.
I think a good way to understand the implications of Mr Burney's interpretation is to look at a possible scenario.
A property owner/ manager who is disabled himself, sets up an apartment or house (residential unit) suitable for the disabled and rents it to a disabled veteran and his wife, who is also elderly and uses a walker and does not drive. They call in Meals on Wheels for help. They also, as they do not drive, have the VA send in a physical therapist to their home . Then, they use JTA's wheel chair service to go back and forth to where ever they may need to go. One of the places they do go is a social service that helps them with their finances.
Due to whom the property owner/ manager rented to, did he just turn his rental into a "special use"? Common sense says no. At least in the past, to be a special use, he would have had to have 7 or more residents in a single residential unit (or purpose built facility), feed them in-house, offer one or more of those needed services in-house and be advertising the facility as a ACLF. He is doing none of that.
Now compare that to Mr Burney's new way of interpreting the Overlay. In his interpretation, he states that he recognizes that Ability Housing (AB) will not be providing those services in-house. Yet he states that the use in his opinion is "akin" to a group care home or rooming house so it is illegal.
Let's look at our rental scenario again.
Is the house or apartment a legal residential unit under zoning code even if set up to be suitable for the disabled? Yes it is. Is it the same for each of the 12 separate units as proposed by AB? Yes it is.
Are they disabled (the fact that they may be veterans does not matter)? Yes they are. Does it match who AB says they are going to rent to? Yes, it does.
Do our residents need help and the various outside services available? Yes they do. Does it match what AB is going to be doing? Yes, it does.
So, under the new way of interpretation the Overlay, the renting of an legal residential unit to any disabled person who may or may not need special services or help makes it "akin" to a "special use" and therefore illegal in Historic Springfield.
Is there any doubt that the new interpretation is anything but discrimination against both a non-profit and the potential future residents of the apartment building?
If Mr Burney's interpretation is enforced in any way, the overlay will be taken down in Federal Court.
It was only a matter of time..... The Federal lawsuit has been filed.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-11-19/story/nonprofit-planning-homeless-apartments-sues-jacksonville-over (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-11-19/story/nonprofit-planning-homeless-apartments-sues-jacksonville-over)
http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/ability-housing-sues-jacksonville-over-alleged-dis/npRG8/ (http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/ability-housing-sues-jacksonville-over-alleged-dis/npRG8/)
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/city-jacksonville-sued-group-wanting-provide-house/npQ9n/ (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/city-jacksonville-sued-group-wanting-provide-house/npQ9n/)